Hello to the list. Many people regard family history and genealogy as similar efforts. May I add another to the mix? <grin> Prosopography. All good efforts. I admire people who do one-name studies. "Name collectors" as Ron describes them, do everyone a disservice. Cheers, Dolly in Maryland USA ====
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Charani <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
