Ron Ferguson wrote: > I very much disagree with this statement. To equate name collecting > with genealogy is more than simplistic it is wrong.
No, it isn't name collecting at all. Name collectors, to me, are those who find a name that matches, irrespective of whether anything else fits and then add a whole tree that isn't theirs and hasn't been researched at all but "the name's the same so it must be right" which then leads to children being born before parents or grandparents. A genealogist researches carefully and properly, confirming connections and anything unconfirmed is shown as such. Unconfirmed but probable links are also shown as such. Nothing is added willy nilly. > Genealogy encompasses family groups and their ancestry, the > movement of families across the globe, the history and deveopment > of surnames, and I could go on. Once you go beyond the basics, then you become a family historian. The basics are name, date and place of birth, date and place of baptism, date and place of marriage, date and place of death, date and place of burial, names of parents and names of children together with their own dates and places as above. These basics will, by default, track movements across the globe. The history and development of surnames would come more under family history, but not entirely. Social history would probably be more accurate. It isn't genealogy though. > I have nothing against name collectors, be please do not endow them > with the title genealogists. I'm not, and don't, call name collectors genealogists, simply because they aren't. They are name collectors pure and simple. They're more "never mind the quality, feel the width" than researchers. > I regard my own family tree as Family History, but my One-Name > study as genealogy. I agree with you about One Name Studies. I have an ONS as well and it does, in the main, consists of straight, unelaborated data and is, thus, genealogy. There are parts that are not - but those are the parts where the names are part of my immediate family. Parts of my own family tree is family history but parts are genealogy. Those latter parts are either too distant to be truly classified as family or I haven't get around to investigating further yet. I also have an OPS (One Place Study) which is part genealogy, part family history, part social history, part history, part geography and part goodness knows what! -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Ashcott, Shapwick, Greinton and Clutton, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk 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
