On Jul 2, 11:59=A0pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 8:30=A0pm, Rob <resh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 2, 8:52=A0pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 2, 5:27=A0pm, Rob <resh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > How would I know if sources are actually accurate or guessed? How
> > > > would I find such sources like their birthyears? I did tried to
fin=
d
> > > > British parish baptismal records but I find some of them to be
> > > > numerous and vaguely do***ented (in some cases, named parents
bapti=
zed
> > > > their child but no name of the infant?).
>
> > > > The Ferrers of Tamworth data that I'd posted to start this thread
c=
ame
> > > > from multiple sources, including the Visitation of Warwick****re
161=
9
>
> > > ----------------------
>
> > > Go back to the Vis and note which items came from it, and which did
> > > not.
> > > Then re-find the sources where those other things came from, and
note
> > > those sources by each fact like this.
>
> > > For her marriage see Vis of Warwick 1619
> > > For her baptism see IGI Batch M004312
> > > For her burial location see "Tamworth of Castle Blarney, page 24"
>
> > > And what I mean is, you note all this within your database.
>
> > > That's how you do it.
> > > Otherwise you end up with a big pile of stuff that may be right or
ma=
y
> > > be useless. =A0There are thousands if not millions of unsourced
> > > connections "on the internet" we're trying to do a little bit better
> > > job, by actually giving each fact a source.
>
> > > Will Johnson
>
> > A fine suggestion, Will, however...
>
> > To be honest, that approach is too much data for each source.
>
> > My preference is to consolidate sources associating with birth, death,
> > baptismal, marriage, event, etc. of an ancestor, all to that ancestor
> > in one source containing all the relative information. Providing
> > individual source for individual event is just making more data, IMO
>
> ------------
>
> Fine so go back and do that, and then re****t to us the specific
> sources used for those birthyears :)
I think you misunderstood my post. I meant to suggest a preference for
consolidating all the sources to one person rather than making
individual sources for birth, baptismal, marriage, death and whatever
for one person. There's no program that would allow me to do that and
it seems tedious for me to source each "event".
The Vis' of Warwick****re doesn't have the birth-years of these
ancestors. Someone may have figured out the birth-years (or birth
dates) somehow years ago and the data spilt into the Internet over the
years and multiplied in various genealogical sites. I've only obtained
the informations without sources via Ancestry.com (and its hugely
unnecessary OneWorldTree) and GenCircles.com in my first year of
genealogy research. I'm developing my own methods but I do try to heed
your advice and knowledge for more deeper matters, Will.
Let's not get into the semantics and purposes of sourcing and focus on
who was Richard Ferris' ancestors, please. Okay?
Secondly, I don't believe in throwing out guesses. Guesses can be
viewed as clues, no matter how useful or useless these can be.
Especially, on ancestors' presumed birth-years and death-years, it
would help out figuring out the chronology of ancestors' lifetimes in
relation to succeeding descendants in the same lifetime. For example:
John Doe was born in 1850 to John and Jane Doe. But neither John nor
Jane Doe have birth-years but their deaths are recorded at 1870 and
1890, respectively but no age is given for either of them. No other
source about them is founded. Question is: exactly how old John and
Jane Doe were when their son was born in 1850? When they were born?
When did they got married? Before or after 1850? Too young or too old?
So, a descendant of that John Doe could put in guessed years of their
births by following logical and demographic deductions of the time
period between 1850 to 1890. Were there other people like John and
Jane Doe got married that young or driven to marry by political or
socio-economic cir***stances? Maybe actual sources about John and Jane
Doe have been lost and not yet founded or published.
You and I wish someone in the 16th or 17th century should have done
more thorough enquiries about peoples' visitations to a ****re,
especially their ages, year of marriage, names of their children, how
many and so forth. Landed gentry and common, poor folks seem less
im****tant to be acknowledged than noble/royal gentry, just my opinion.
|
