Existing proven sourced trees?
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Existing proven sourced trees?
Hi all,
So, I have the genealogy bug, and it is very addicting. I got started
on Ancestry.com, and quickly found out how much fun oneworldtree is. I
know it's not a "source", but more of a indication of what may be
true. You still have to do due diligence.
However, my question is: are there proven trees out there that are
believed to be canon? Has anyone built trees on proven sources, cross
collaborated between other researchers, to the point where it is
accepted as a true source?
The reason I ask, I took my family back (in one line) to a set of
ancestors that one worldtree indicates I am related to about 9
presidents, and a gazillion other famous people going all the way back
to Thomas More. the "oneworldtree" indicates 30-100 trees providing
the data.
So, since I can't trust the oneworldtree, is there a resource where I
can prove my family back to ancestor X, and then the rest is a given?
Given how famous some of these trees are, there must be accepted
lineages that can save me work.
Thanks in advance,
Todd
So, I have the genealogy bug, and it is very addicting. I got started
on Ancestry.com, and quickly found out how much fun oneworldtree is. I
know it's not a "source", but more of a indication of what may be
true. You still have to do due diligence.
However, my question is: are there proven trees out there that are
believed to be canon? Has anyone built trees on proven sources, cross
collaborated between other researchers, to the point where it is
accepted as a true source?
The reason I ask, I took my family back (in one line) to a set of
ancestors that one worldtree indicates I am related to about 9
presidents, and a gazillion other famous people going all the way back
to Thomas More. the "oneworldtree" indicates 30-100 trees providing
the data.
So, since I can't trust the oneworldtree, is there a resource where I
can prove my family back to ancestor X, and then the rest is a given?
Given how famous some of these trees are, there must be accepted
lineages that can save me work.
Thanks in advance,
Todd
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: Existing proven sourced trees?
todd.lawson@gmail.com wrote in
news:1183079246.300367.302470@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Any properly documented family tree can do that. There are no
"prime lineages" that stand on their own; they must have
documentation to back up their entries.
There are published lineages, of varying degrees of accuracy.
I'm a Joslin, and Edith Wexler published a genealogy for the
Joslin line that is widely accepted to some degree or other. But
there are holes in it. For instance, she has my GGGgrandfather
born to parents who were 60 years old. After she published, she
came to beleive that they were his grandparents and not his
parents, but we don't know which of their sons was his father.
But the line from his granparents back to the immigrants is
accurate, and a few generations back is pretty good. But soon
it's pretty foggy and relies on a lot of guesswork.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
The Californians are an idle thriftless people, and can make
nothing for themselves.
news:1183079246.300367.302470@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Hi all,
So, I have the genealogy bug, and it is very addicting. I got
started on Ancestry.com, and quickly found out how much fun
oneworldtree is. I know it's not a "source", but more of a
indication of what may be true. You still have to do due
diligence.
However, my question is: are there proven trees out there that
are believed to be canon? Has anyone built trees on proven
sources, cross collaborated between other researchers, to the
point where it is accepted as a true source?
The reason I ask, I took my family back (in one line) to a set
of ancestors that one worldtree indicates I am related to
about 9 presidents, and a gazillion other famous people going
all the way back to Thomas More. the "oneworldtree" indicates
30-100 trees providing the data.
So, since I can't trust the oneworldtree, is there a resource
where I can prove my family back to ancestor X, and then the
rest is a given? Given how famous some of these trees are,
there must be accepted lineages that can save me work.
Any properly documented family tree can do that. There are no
"prime lineages" that stand on their own; they must have
documentation to back up their entries.
There are published lineages, of varying degrees of accuracy.
I'm a Joslin, and Edith Wexler published a genealogy for the
Joslin line that is widely accepted to some degree or other. But
there are holes in it. For instance, she has my GGGgrandfather
born to parents who were 60 years old. After she published, she
came to beleive that they were his grandparents and not his
parents, but we don't know which of their sons was his father.
But the line from his granparents back to the immigrants is
accurate, and a few generations back is pretty good. But soon
it's pretty foggy and relies on a lot of guesswork.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
The Californians are an idle thriftless people, and can make
nothing for themselves.
-
Gjest
Re: Existing proven sourced trees?
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:07:26 -0000, Todd wrote:
The only way that you can truly be certain of any lineage is by proving it
yourself by reference to contemporary records.
Short of that, any lineage that you find online is suspect unless it is well
documented by citing contemporary records, published transcriptions or abstracts
of those records, or perhaps well-proven local and family histories. For my
personal example of proper online documentation, see my site for the family of
Samuel Packard of Hingham, Weymouth and Bridgewater, MA:
http://members.cox.net/plymouthcolony/f ... ard1.shtml
Note that this is a long-term project that is substantially complete through the
second American generation - I am still expanding the entries for the third
generation.
Most lineages online are undocumented, poorly documented, or make little to no
use of contemporary records. Even those with extensive source notes almost never
cite an exact reference, i.e., volume and page.
Dale H. Cook, Member, NEHGS and MA Society of Mayflower Descendants;
Plymouth Co. MA Coordinator for the USGenWeb Project
http://members.cox.net/plymouthcolony/index.shtml
Given how famous some of these trees are, there must be accepted
lineages that can save me work.
The only way that you can truly be certain of any lineage is by proving it
yourself by reference to contemporary records.
Short of that, any lineage that you find online is suspect unless it is well
documented by citing contemporary records, published transcriptions or abstracts
of those records, or perhaps well-proven local and family histories. For my
personal example of proper online documentation, see my site for the family of
Samuel Packard of Hingham, Weymouth and Bridgewater, MA:
http://members.cox.net/plymouthcolony/f ... ard1.shtml
Note that this is a long-term project that is substantially complete through the
second American generation - I am still expanding the entries for the third
generation.
Most lineages online are undocumented, poorly documented, or make little to no
use of contemporary records. Even those with extensive source notes almost never
cite an exact reference, i.e., volume and page.
Dale H. Cook, Member, NEHGS and MA Society of Mayflower Descendants;
Plymouth Co. MA Coordinator for the USGenWeb Project
http://members.cox.net/plymouthcolony/index.shtml
-
Hugh Watkins
Re: Existing proven sourced trees?
todd.lawson@gmail.com wrote:
I love to make a quick and nasty tree from web resources alone
and I see it as a harmless hobby for a wet afternoon
but errors get copied from one tree to another
yesterday I found a double error
one made in 1891 the 1891 copy of an english census return
and then another in the ancestry transcription and all names index
some people do not know where they are born
usually they know where they grew up but if their parents moved when
they were two or three years old
they give a wrong birthplace in census returns
then there is spelling
which was not standardised in old days
When I enter a name in Family Tree Make
control s
enables me to add the source
not doing that was my biggest newbie mistake
when you go to archives and handle a piece of parchamant your ancestor
signed in 1790 . . . what a thrill
and I fould that Thomas Watkins of Abergavenny was a saddler before he
became a yeoman farmer
these archives are not on line and only by going to Wales could I find
that out
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
Hi all,
So, I have the genealogy bug, and it is very addicting. I got started
on Ancestry.com, and quickly found out how much fun oneworldtree is. I
know it's not a "source", but more of a indication of what may be
true. You still have to do due diligence.
However, my question is: are there proven trees out there that are
believed to be canon? Has anyone built trees on proven sources, cross
collaborated between other researchers, to the point where it is
accepted as a true source?
The reason I ask, I took my family back (in one line) to a set of
ancestors that one worldtree indicates I am related to about 9
presidents, and a gazillion other famous people going all the way back
to Thomas More. the "oneworldtree" indicates 30-100 trees providing
the data.
So, since I can't trust the oneworldtree, is there a resource where I
can prove my family back to ancestor X, and then the rest is a given?
Given how famous some of these trees are, there must be accepted
lineages that can save me work.
I love to make a quick and nasty tree from web resources alone
and I see it as a harmless hobby for a wet afternoon
but errors get copied from one tree to another
yesterday I found a double error
one made in 1891 the 1891 copy of an english census return
and then another in the ancestry transcription and all names index
some people do not know where they are born
usually they know where they grew up but if their parents moved when
they were two or three years old
they give a wrong birthplace in census returns
then there is spelling
which was not standardised in old days
When I enter a name in Family Tree Make
control s
enables me to add the source
not doing that was my biggest newbie mistake
when you go to archives and handle a piece of parchamant your ancestor
signed in 1790 . . . what a thrill
and I fould that Thomas Watkins of Abergavenny was a saddler before he
became a yeoman farmer
these archives are not on line and only by going to Wales could I find
that out
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmark
http://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta blogger
http://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGE
http://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
-
Gjest
Re: Existing proven sourced trees?
Hi all,
Thanks for the replies. To be specific, I have tracked my family back
to a direct decendent of William Dawes, one of the riders along with
Paul Revere who warned of the British invasion in 1775. I have
internal family documents for the data, but not for the two
generations back to William Dawes. Oneworldtree shows the link, but I
was wondering if there are sources for semi-famous people I can refer
to for filling in the gaps.
Thanks!
Todd
On Jun 29, 7:05 am, Hugh Watkins <hugh.watk...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the replies. To be specific, I have tracked my family back
to a direct decendent of William Dawes, one of the riders along with
Paul Revere who warned of the British invasion in 1775. I have
internal family documents for the data, but not for the two
generations back to William Dawes. Oneworldtree shows the link, but I
was wondering if there are sources for semi-famous people I can refer
to for filling in the gaps.
Thanks!
Todd
On Jun 29, 7:05 am, Hugh Watkins <hugh.watk...@gmail.com> wrote:
todd.law...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
So, I have the genealogy bug, and it is very addicting. I got started
on Ancestry.com, and quickly found out how much fun oneworldtree is. I
know it's not a "source", but more of a indication of what may be
true. You still have to do due diligence.
However, my question is: are there proven trees out there that are
believed to be canon? Has anyone built trees on proven sources, cross
collaborated between other researchers, to the point where it is
accepted as a true source?
The reason I ask, I took my family back (in one line) to a set of
ancestors that one worldtree indicates I am related to about 9
presidents, and a gazillion other famous people going all the way back
to Thomas More. the "oneworldtree" indicates 30-100 trees providing
the data.
So, since I can't trust the oneworldtree, is there a resource where I
can prove my family back to ancestor X, and then the rest is a given?
Given how famous some of these trees are, there must be accepted
lineages that can save me work.
I love to make a quick and nasty tree from web resources alone
and I see it as a harmless hobby for a wet afternoon
but errors get copied from one tree to another
yesterday I found a double error
one made in 1891 the 1891 copy of an english census return
and then another in the ancestry transcription and all names index
some people do not know where they are born
usually they know where they grew up but if their parents moved when
they were two or three years old
they give a wrong birthplace in census returns
then there is spelling
which was not standardised in old days
When I enter a name in Family Tree Make
control s
enables me to add the source
not doing that was my biggest newbie mistake
when you go to archives and handle a piece of parchamant your ancestor
signed in 1790 . . . what a thrill
and I fould that Thomas Watkins of Abergavenny was a saddler before he
became a yeoman farmer
these archives are not on line and only by going to Wales could I find
that out
Hugh W
--
a wonderful artist in Denmarkhttp://www.ingerlisekristoffersen.dk/
Beta bloggerhttp://snaps4.blogspot.com/ photographs and walks
old blogger GENEALOGEhttp://hughw36.blogspot.com/ MAIN BLOG
-
singhals
Re: Existing proven sourced trees?
bridgewaterma@cox.net wrote:
The issue with that approach is, not every custodian of
original and contemporaneous records wishes to allow all
10,000 descendants of one couple to look at the record.
Wear'n'tear is disatrous after all.
And, for _me_ to be truly certain of the lineage, _I_ must
lay personal eyes on the primary and contemporaneous record.
That leaves the other 9,999 descendants relying on my
interpretation of what it says, which means, by your
definition, that _they_ cannot be truly certain.
600-year-old records won't last long like that.
Handwritten copies can be mistaken, Xerox(tm) copies can be
doctored, microfilm can be scratched, digital copies can be
fiddled ... At some point, one has to work up some list of
people they're willing to trust and dub "accurate".
It's painful, but life's like that sometimes.
Cheryl
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:07:26 -0000, Todd wrote:
Given how famous some of these trees are, there must be accepted
lineages that can save me work.
The only way that you can truly be certain of any lineage is by proving it
yourself by reference to contemporary records.
The issue with that approach is, not every custodian of
original and contemporaneous records wishes to allow all
10,000 descendants of one couple to look at the record.
Wear'n'tear is disatrous after all.
And, for _me_ to be truly certain of the lineage, _I_ must
lay personal eyes on the primary and contemporaneous record.
That leaves the other 9,999 descendants relying on my
interpretation of what it says, which means, by your
definition, that _they_ cannot be truly certain.
600-year-old records won't last long like that.
Handwritten copies can be mistaken, Xerox(tm) copies can be
doctored, microfilm can be scratched, digital copies can be
fiddled ... At some point, one has to work up some list of
people they're willing to trust and dub "accurate".
It's painful, but life's like that sometimes.
Cheryl
-
singhals
Re: Existing proven sourced trees?
singhals wrote:
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -^^^^^^^^^^^ -
Even when spelt correctly.
bridgewaterma@cox.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:07:26 -0000, Todd wrote:
Given how famous some of these trees are, there must be accepted
lineages that can save me work.
The only way that you can truly be certain of any lineage is by
proving it
yourself by reference to contemporary records.
The issue with that approach is, not every custodian of original and
contemporaneous records wishes to allow all 10,000 descendants of one
couple to look at the record. Wear'n'tear is disatrous after all.
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -^^^^^^^^^^^ -
Even when spelt correctly.
And, for _me_ to be truly certain of the lineage, _I_ must lay personal
eyes on the primary and contemporaneous record. That leaves the other
9,999 descendants relying on my interpretation of what it says, which
means, by your definition, that _they_ cannot be truly certain.
600-year-old records won't last long like that.
Handwritten copies can be mistaken, Xerox(tm) copies can be doctored,
microfilm can be scratched, digital copies can be fiddled ... At some
point, one has to work up some list of people they're willing to trust
and dub "accurate".
It's painful, but life's like that sometimes.
Cheryl
-
the_verminator@comcast.ne
Re: Existing proven sourced trees?
On Jul 1, 11:11 am, singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote:
I've made a deal with future genealogists......
I'll make the trees
They'll source them
<G>
bridgewate...@cox.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:07:26 -0000, Todd wrote:
Given how famous some of these trees are, there must be accepted
lineages that can save me work.
The only way that you can truly be certain of any lineage is by proving it
yourself by reference to contemporary records.
The issue with that approach is, not every custodian of
original and contemporaneous records wishes to allow all
10,000 descendants of one couple to look at the record.
Wear'n'tear is disatrous after all.
And, for _me_ to be truly certain of the lineage, _I_ must
lay personal eyes on the primary and contemporaneous record.
That leaves the other 9,999 descendants relying on my
interpretation of what it says, which means, by your
definition, that _they_ cannot be truly certain.
600-year-old records won't last long like that.
Handwritten copies can be mistaken, Xerox(tm) copies can be
doctored, microfilm can be scratched, digital copies can be
fiddled ... At some point, one has to work up some list of
people they're willing to trust and dub "accurate".
It's painful, but life's like that sometimes.
Cheryl
I've made a deal with future genealogists......
I'll make the trees
They'll source them
<G>
-
hlmw
Re: Existing proven sourced trees?
the_verminator@comcast.net wrote:
from LDS IGI and Ancestry File---ugh!
I have already found a major error. A son attributed to a father who was
born in1783. Wrong! And it will go on being wrong because the LDS do not
go back and make corrections.
2 men in the 1700's, a William and a Christopher born within a year of
each other --- which one was the ancestor? What a puzzle, what a mess!
Lorna
On Jul 1, 11:11 am, singhals <singh...@erols.com> wrote:
bridgewate...@cox.net wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:07:26 -0000, Todd wrote:
Given how famous some of these trees are, there must be accepted
lineages that can save me work.
The only way that you can truly be certain of any lineage is by proving it
yourself by reference to contemporary records.
The issue with that approach is, not every custodian of
original and contemporaneous records wishes to allow all
10,000 descendants of one couple to look at the record.
Wear'n'tear is disatrous after all.
And, for _me_ to be truly certain of the lineage, _I_ must
lay personal eyes on the primary and contemporaneous record.
That leaves the other 9,999 descendants relying on my
interpretation of what it says, which means, by your
definition, that _they_ cannot be truly certain.
600-year-old records won't last long like that.
Handwritten copies can be mistaken, Xerox(tm) copies can be
doctored, microfilm can be scratched, digital copies can be
fiddled ... At some point, one has to work up some list of
people they're willing to trust and dub "accurate".
It's painful, but life's like that sometimes.
Cheryl
I've made a deal with future genealogists......
I'll make the trees
They'll source them
G
That is what happened to me. Someone handed a family tree to me drawn
from LDS IGI and Ancestry File---ugh!
I have already found a major error. A son attributed to a father who was
born in1783. Wrong! And it will go on being wrong because the LDS do not
go back and make corrections.
2 men in the 1700's, a William and a Christopher born within a year of
each other --- which one was the ancestor? What a puzzle, what a mess!
Lorna
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ALT-GENEALOGY-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-
Kay Robinson
Re: Existing proven sourced trees?
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 23:29:34 -0000, "the_verminator@comcast.net"
<the_verminator@comcast.net> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
LOL, thanks, I love it.
Kay
- - -
All replies to newsgroup thank you
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.
William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson
Give all you can, Take only what you need
<the_verminator@comcast.net> sharpened a new quill and scratched:
I've made a deal with future genealogists......
I'll make the trees
They'll source them
G
LOL, thanks, I love it.
Kay
- - -
All replies to newsgroup thank you
--------------------------------------------
A good end cannot sanctify evil, nor must
we ever do evil that good may come of it.
Force may subdue, but Love gains, and he
that forgives first wins the laurel.
William Penn 1644-1718
-----------------------------------------
Kay Robinson
Give all you can, Take only what you need