With regard to information in the DNA study and on the Wells site if you spot something that is amiss and have evidence to show why you believe it to be so by all means PLEASE challenge it. As indicated there is a huge amount of bad genealogy on the Internet, in books and elsewhere. We don't want to carry the bad stuff forward. As to "requiring" people to provide documented genealogies we have chosen to err in favor of accepting more or less on face value what the participants have developed in their research. That means we do end up with wrong information that has to be changed once we figure out what is incorrect. The DNA study literally blew away some folks ancestors - but I think having the facts outweighs a romantic belief in an ancestor someone conjured up to fill a hole. This happened in my family as well. Our earliest "ancestor", Nathaniel Wells, had to be trimmed off the tree because there is absolutely no evidence to prove the person alleged ever existed. The same thing happened with Hugh Welles and Frances Belcher. They simply did not exist or at least someone sort of invented them to provide parents to Thomas Wells although his parents Thomas Wells and Frances Albrigth did exist. According to Prof. Albert Welles from whose book both of these incorrect ancestors seem to have originated or at least were picked up from bad New England "histories" or genealogies, these two were supposed to have been brothers. They certainly weren't as proven by the DNA What we REALLY want to do is get to the truth. If we have wrong stuff in the Wells project, please bring it to our attention. On 3/11/2012 10:36 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: > I agree Vicki! - What I have looked at doesn't match my DOCUMENTED information! > > > ****** > > > > >> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 13:15:38 -0400 >> From: vickiwcox@gmail.com >> To: orinwells@wells.org; wells@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! >> >> I agree completely. Could you "require" that the participants in the DNA >> study supply documentation....or at least show which ones have >> documentation and which ones don't? There is bad information in ALL the >> Genealogy sites including our own study. >> >> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Orin Wells<orinwells@wells.org> wrote: >> >> >>> A further comment on this. Do not assume that "documented sources" are >>> fact unless you can see the original document or verify it >>> independently I can't tell you how many I have run to ground that >>> turned out to be just plain made up by someone. That includes >>> references to parish records that simply didn't exist. >>> >>> On 3/11/2012 9:11 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: >>> >>>> 2.) NEVER ever accept anything on Rootsweb or Ancestry.com as the REAL >>>> >>> DEAL! >>> >>>> If they list the documentation, "Sources", then yes. If not, its just a >>>> >>> guideline for you to find your OWN documentation. >>> >>>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to WELLS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Ditto -- it is hard to get the participants to provide any data ... there are many that are 'missing'. Many came in with just names .. I do try to update based on census ... and provide both where data conflicts. Bonita -----Original Message----- From: wells-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:wells-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Orin Wells Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 10:50 AM To: wells@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [WELLS] Its ok to assume but Never count it as Gospel! With regard to information in the DNA study and on the Wells site if you spot something that is amiss and have evidence to show why you believe it to be so by all means PLEASE challenge it. As indicated there is a huge amount of bad genealogy on the Internet, in books and elsewhere. We don't want to carry the bad stuff forward. As to "requiring" people to provide documented genealogies we have chosen to err in favor of accepting more or less on face value what the participants have developed in their research. That means we do end up with wrong information that has to be changed once we figure out what is incorrect. The DNA study literally blew away some folks ancestors - but I think having the facts outweighs a romantic belief in an ancestor someone conjured up to fill a hole. This happened in my family as well. Our earliest "ancestor", Nathaniel Wells, had to be trimmed off the tree because there is absolutely no evidence to prove the person alleged ever existed. The same thing happened with Hugh Welles and Frances Belcher. They simply did not exist or at least someone sort of invented them to provide parents to Thomas Wells although his parents Thomas Wells and Frances Albrigth did exist. According to Prof. Albert Welles from whose book both of these incorrect ancestors seem to have originated or at least were picked up from bad New England "histories" or genealogies, these two were supposed to have been brothers. They certainly weren't as proven by the DNA What we REALLY want to do is get to the truth. If we have wrong stuff in the Wells project, please bring it to our attention. On 3/11/2012 10:36 AM, Rosemarie Novak wrote: > I agree Vicki! - What I have looked at doesn't match my DOCUMENTED information! >