Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:39:24 +0000, Ian Goddard
> <goddai01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>> I wanted to avoid your question. I don't know who appoints them. I
>>> suspect you could be one in the UK if you are a recognized authority
>>> on the subject.
>> It's a long time since I appointed anyone to anything and I certainly 
>> wouldn't want to appoint anyone to define the bounds of genealogy or
any 
>> other area of study.  It's simply not useful to do so as any such
bounds 
>> are likely to be outgrown.  For instance a definition of genealogy from

>> not very long ago would have excluded DNA.
>> -- 
>> Ian
> 
> I am satisfied with a competent group setting standards for quality
> and accurate genealogy. I doubt that I follow (or even know) all the
> standards. A competent group will always be on top of change.
> 
> I don't know that DNA would have been excluded. It's just another
> source, or tool, to be used. I doubt that any standard would even
> attempt to list all the tools that can be used. 

But this subthread (and, BTW, congratulations on engineering an
extremely interesting thread out of an uninspiring initial OT commercial
post) rose from your being somewhat narrowly prescriptive about what is
or isn't genealogy.  I simply point out that a narrow prescriptive
definition of genealogy 10 or 15 years ago would have confined it to the
discovery and interpretation of records, mostly BMD and census with a
few other do***ents such as wills and MIs thrown in because that would
have been the raw material at the time.  DNA would have been not so much
excluded as not included.

> 
> A male and a female procreate. The offspring and their descendants are
> the basis of what many people call genealogy. If the momma isn't sure
> who the daddy was it doesn't change the genealogy - ir might change
> the names of record.
> 
> I think genealogy that does not include events is too skimpy to
> consider. Those events are the family history of the genealogy.
> 
> I don't want to get bound up in semantics - I use the easiest and most
> refognizeable terms to mose people. They may lose something in
> translation if you are not an American from the USA.
> 

Fair enough.

As to standards ISTM that everyone contributing to this thread has come 
from a background which has endowed them with the ability to apply a 
degree of rigour to their thinking and I doubt they're in need of help 
from a self-selected set of authorities.  In fact the sum of their 
contributions seems to me as likely to be of value to anyone wanting to 
understand how to evaluate evidence as any prescriptive standard.

To throw in my own two penn'orth I'd like to point out that 
cir***stances can affect standards of proof.  As one example, at least 
in the court system with which I'm familiar there are two legal 
standards of proof, beyond reasonable doubt and balance of 
probabilities, depending on the type of case.  One size does not fit all.


-- 
Ian

Hotmail is for spammers.  Real mail address is igoddard
at nildram co uk