[ ... Addendum ... ] FamilySearch. Research / Places ( Database ). Standards ( Team ). Ceylon.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Addendum

To the Original post:

FamilySearch. Research / Places ( Database ). Standards ( Team ). Ceylon.
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

As that post is "... This topic is no longer open for comments or replies. ..."

Interesting ...

Here is a response (from who I believe is a part of the 'Standards Team' of the 'Research / Places Database' ) that I received to my post in the "Community.FamilySearch" Forum.

Quote:

----------

Thank you for sharing this concern with us!

FamilySearch Places primary purpose is to help people, computer systems and databases share meaning around the places in our family histories. The Authorities Team (curators of FS Places data) have established a number of guidelines/best practices for FamilySearch Places. One of these reads:

RULE OF DIMINISHING RETURNS WITH INCREASING DISTANCE FROM PEOPLE: With larger jurisdictional areas - U.S. states, British counties, provinces and countries - we choose to be much less interested in changes that might otherwise be a reason to create a unique place.

FamilySearch Places needs to include all of the Alternate Names for Sri Lanka, over the course of its colonial history. We will make sure all of the names you've suggested are there.

We will not create separate place descriptions for each of the time periods you point out. Such action would result in the proliferation of very similar looking place names at different time periods - a potential point of confusion for people wishing to simply describe a village or town of Sri Lanka.

As an island nation with consistent external boundaries and very little opportunity for confusion (Sri Lanka and Ceylon are both recognizable names that do often appear in other parts of the world), Sri Lanka is best left alone with a single, simple place description. Alternate names will direct/funnel us all to a shared understanding of the place.

Thank you for your interest in FamilySearch Places!

-Dan Reeves

----------

So, it does not look like, that as far as "FamilySearch" is concerned, the Place name of "Ceylon" (and, variants) will get a "Standardisation"; and, should be just 'lumped' into the "Standard" of "Sri Lanka", despite that it was NOT until 1972, that the country became a republic within the "British" Commonwealth of Nations; and, its name was changed to "Sri Lanka".

Sad.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: There is no need to be "sad" over the decision, but I note that Ceylon is based off a name that has been used for the island since antiquity, whereas "Sri Lanka" was introduced much more recently. However there may be issues of politics and colonialism that FS needs to be sensitive about.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "... there may be issues of politics and colonialism that FS needs to be sensitive about"
I did look into this for my own desktop data, as I have a chap who worked in Ceylon for some time. I could see no evidence that the name "Ceylon" had anything other than ancient origins, nor any suggestion that "Sri Lanka" was adopted to supersede any colonial name. It seemed like a good idea at the time, was my impression. And why not?

If there are any political or colonial issues influencing naming then these need to be mentioned clearly (um, where?) because otherwise people will use the time-period correct name, thus sabotaging any attempt that FS wants to make to gain credit.

LegacyUser

Tom Huber said: This brings up a good point. I haven't checked, but I have to wonder about persons born after South Carolina seceded from the Union and a person was born in that location. I would think it would be proper to record the birth as (town/county,etc), South Carolina, Confederate States of America.

However, that is not in the standards list... and the current trend is not to recognize any thing about the confederacy because of the slavery issue.

So I agree that A van Helsdingen is correct that "... there may be issues of politics..." involved. We really don't know, but I would follow the advice that I was told (by the place teams) to respond with in these kinds of issues...

Your message involves the Authorities and Standards FamilySearch teams. They welcome your feedback and help to improve FamilySearch Places, but do not always spot all requests and concerns. As such, they have asked us to send requests or concerns involving adding or improving entries in FamilySearch places to PlaceFeedback@familysearch.org.

Questions and requests about places are assigned to the team member best qualified to respond. Once the request is in their queue, the team member will respond in the order received and as time permits.

I'm going to follow this advice and send a note regarding the CSA issue and reference this particular discussion.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Hmm. Sharp intake of breath on my part and a sigh of relief that my peripherally related family from Virginia had moved to St Louis by the time of the Civil War.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: It would be a waste of time for FS to try and capture every possible political change in the standards.
The Confederacy lasted only 4 years, and its de-facto northern border was continuing shifting with the front-line of the civil war. It was not created in a legal/constitutional way, and was not internationally recognized.

If I think of the Netherlands, between 1795 and 1806 they had the Batavian Republic, then the Kingdom of Holland until 1810, then they were incorporated in France until 1814, and between 1940 and 1945 they were under German occupation.
I don't believe the Standards reflect any of those changes, nor is much need need to.
There's only a need for standards to include stable political entities, rather than short-lived break-away states.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Agreed. It would seem odd to try and record all those short lived states created by Napoleon, for instance. Legal and/ or international recognition would seem a useful criterion.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Personally, Brett, I'd use "Ceylon" for the whole period up to 1972. I looked at those Wikipedia articles and was completely unconvinced that phrases like "British Ceylon" were ever used as colony (or whatever) names - rather they are (I suspect) simply descriptions used as page titles by Wikipedia.

You may be tempted to point out "British India" existed (yeah, but not in FS Standard Places - sigh...) so why not "British Ceylon"? It turns out that there is a legal difference between British India and India. British India existed at the same time as India but was smaller. British India was that part of India administered directly by Her Majesty's Governor General (or their nominees). The remainder of India - generally known as the Princely States - was administered by their respective heads of state (maharajahs, nizams, etc) - though confusingly they would often contract the GG to do some or all of the real work!

That may or may not be of any interest!

LegacyUser

Brett said: Adrian

Hey, 'Thank You' for you thoughts.

'Yes', it definitely a 'mine field' ... personal preference; and, all.

And, of course, "WikiPedia" is not a definitive source ... but, better than nothing.

I would have been tempted to just us "Ceylon"; but, since my little bit of research, I now prefer "British Ceylon".

But, in this instance, in regard to this matter, I take issue at using the established guidelines/best practices for FamilySearch Places of:

RULE OF DIMINISHING RETURNS WITH INCREASING DISTANCE FROM PEOPLE: With larger jurisdictional areas - U.S. states, British counties, provinces and countries - we choose to be much less interested in changes that might otherwise be a reason to create a unique place.

being applied to this matter (ie. "Ceylon"), in light of the aforementioned "Standards" that I proffered, which to me seems a bit of a "Double" Standard.

Again, my Ancestor was Born (1880) in "British Ceylon" (aka just: "Ceylon", if one prefers); but, certainly NOT, "Sri Lanka" (1972 onwards).

Again, 'Thank You'.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Dan Reeves said: We did decide to add a description for Ceylon (-1972) to FS Places.
https://www.familysearch.org/research...

We have yet to work out the places that should be described within Ceylon.
@Brett if you have more information about the town/village/city your ancestor was born in, feel free to fill out the form to "Suggest a New Place."

LegacyUser

Brett said: Dan

'Thank You' for that, it is a 'start'

I had ... "British" Ceylon ... which previously would only "Standardise' to "Sri Lanka", for them.

With ... "British" Ceylon ... I did not get the NEW "Standard" of ... "Ceylon" (Country, Unknown-1972), I had to 'drop' the "British" part, to firstly get the "Ceylon" (Unknown-1972); then, secondly, 'reinstate' the "British" part, once I has set the "Standard" of "Ceylon" (Country, Unknown-1972).

Trying to ascertain the actual 'Place' of "Birth", is the tricky part.

If I am able to 'pin it down', I certainly will suggest/request a 'Standard'.

'Thank You' so much for listening.

I realise that the whole setup is 'tricky' and requires some further investigation.

As I said, it is a good 'start' in the 'right direction'.

Again, 'Thank You'.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Brett said: Dan

'Thank You' for that, it is a 'start'

I had ... "British" Ceylon ... which previously would only "Standardise' to "Sri Lanka", for them.

With ... "British" Ceylon ... I did not get the NEW "Standard" of ... "Ceylon" (Country, Unknown-1972), I had to 'drop' the "British" part, to firstly get the "Ceylon" (Unknown-1972); then, secondly, 'reinstate' the "British" part, once I has set the "Standard" of "Ceylon" (Country, Unknown-1972).

Trying to ascertain the actual 'Place' of "Birth", is the tricky part.

If I am able to 'pin it down', I certainly will suggest/request a 'Standard'.

'Thank You' so much for listening.

I realise that the whole setup is 'tricky' and requires some further investigation.

As I said, it is a good 'start' in the 'right direction'.

Again, 'Thank You'.

Brett

.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: "I had to 'drop' the "British" part, to firstly get the "Ceylon" (Unknown-1972); then, secondly, 'reinstate' the "British" part, once I had set the "Standard" "

Brett, I'd definitely agree with that approach. Use the simple(?!) name first to set the standard, then "decorate" it (as I call it). Seems to make it easier going in steps.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: Brett said "My Ancestor was Born in "British Ceylon"; NOT, "Sri Lanka". "

However, "British Ceylon" is terminology that I have never seen, and I do not believe the country was called "British Ceylon" by anyone during the time the British were there, and I have not seen it used subsequently.

The following catalogue page of official government publications indicates that the country was called Ceylon
http://220.247.247.85:8081/handle/123...

A page from a German publication of 1883 indicates that in German it was called Ceylon, not the German words for British Ceylon.
https://archive.org/details/indischer...

I believe it is inaccurate to say that an ancestor was born in "British Ceylon" because I do not believe this name existed at the time.

LegacyUser

Brett said: MaureenE

The "Country", 'Yes'.

Who was ruling/in power ... that is another question ...

I, prefer; and, am more than happy, with my inaccuracy.

Brett

ps: I, prefer; and, am happy, to distinguish between the different time periods of:

Portuguese Ceylon (Portuguese: Ceilão Português) 1597–1658
Dutch Ceylon (Dutch Governorate of Ceylon) 1640–1796
British Ceylon ( British Crown colony - Ceylon) 1815–1948
Ceylon 1948–1972
Sri Lanka 1972–Present

As listed in my original post of the matter

FamilySearch. Research / Places ( Database ). Standards ( Team ). Ceylon.
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...

pps: Not that interested in a "German" publication; and, as to those 'Gazettes', I just keep getting 1937 and am not going to bother keeping going.

.