Jerry, I am not particularly averse to taking personal knowledge as being accurate, but one should always remember it is not inevitably true. Take your example of grandparents, sure someone may remember that a grandmother was named Mary, because she has always been there. But she might not be - she could be a second wife and the daughter being the issue of a first marriage.
I am sure that you can also think of other alternative scenarios as well, and in the case of personal knowledge I am only advising caution. Ron Ferguson http://www.fergys.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 9:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Possible parentage Well, that's what so great about Legacy - it allows you to develop a lot of things according to what makes sense to you. For example, we have been having an annual family reunion in Michigan for 61 years straight! So, on our 50th annual, when I was President of the reunion, I circulated data sheets and obtained a great deal of information at that point and subsequently. I do not have proof of much of the information, so as the source writer template indicates many of my sources are: Personal Knowledge of: Last Name, First Name, etc. I'm pretty sure these folks know who their grandparents are. Proof would be the census, birth certificates, etc., but I don't see that it makes sense to withhold this information from my website because I don't have a birth certificate or other proof. Of course, apparently I'm sure genealogical standards allow for personal knowledge of, as evidence of Legacy including that in its source writer template. Just my thoughts, but I realize the case in question is a bit different. --Jerry / http://www.MerriamFamilyTree.org/ On 8/9/2011 3:43 PM, Connie Sheets wrote: > Jane, > > I'm with Ron on this. I never link anyone where I don't have substantial > evidence, generally from more than one source, that A's father is B. I > use the Note feature to explain my suspicion, and make very clear it is > only a hypothesis. > > When I have several possibilities, I not only use the Note feature for A, > but I enter B, C, and D as unlinked and develop research plans for each > using the "To Do" feature. I haven't found this to be a problem at all, > so long as I have Notes for all four unlinked individuals that > cross-reference each other. > > Connie > > --- On Tue, 8/9/11, Jane Sarles<[email protected]> wrote: > How do you all handle the situation where you suspect person A;s father > is person B, but you cannot prove it. Or, for that matter, you have 2 or > 3 possible candidates for person A's father. One does not want to list > them as though it is certain, but just putting the candidates in as > "unlinked" does not allow for connecting them when wanted, say for > research purposes.. > > Ideas? > Jane S. > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
