My chart goes all the way back. Entity GQ62-KRS is shown as deceased. He is not deceased. Can thi
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Comments
-
Gordon Collett said: https://fh.lib.byu.edu/2016/03/04/why...0
-
Sally Sullivan said: I didn't think you could. However, several of my lines do go back to Adam. I did not do this genealogy, I merely followed it back by clicking on the links. If it is impossible, why is it allowed on the genealogy charts?
Thank you.0 -
Paul said: Good question. James Tanner closes his piece with the words, "Pure fantasy", but it seems if something cannot be DISproved then FamilySearch allow it to continue to be displayed.
Mind you, there seems no great desire to remove material such as is illustrated below - as also applies to the "pedigrees" of mythical, Scandinavian kings & queens. Ideally, a FamilySearch employee should be able to advise why all this junk remains on the site. Still, as long as the "pure fantasy" (James Tanner's words) does remain, it's just best to ignore it and concentrate on the parts of the tree that truly are useful.
0 -
Adrian Bruce said: Why is it allowed? Because it actually gets quite difficult to draw a line. At what point in the genealogies of Christ does anyone draw a line and say, "This is fine - this isn't..."? In truth, you can't do that. You don't even need to go that far back - I once had the misfortune to read some correspondence on a Medieval Genealogy Board about (probably) Byzantine emperors and empresses (as you do). The vituperation there made any disagreement that's appeared here look like the proverbial vicarage tea-party.
So what I'm trying to say is that we all have to understand what is and isn't possible. But we also have to understand that different people have different views on what's possible or not. Trying to go the extra step and say that impossibilities should not be allowed is, ahem, in practical terms, impossible because of those differing views.0 -
Sally Sullivan said: Thank you. I guess that since most things on this site are unprovable that means they may not be true. So, in conclusion, this site is not very useful except for having fun with the information on it. Glad I now know how reliable this site is.0
-
Adrian Bruce said: It's always "Buyer beware" on any site. If you are interested in serious genealogy, you need to be looking for some evidence of sources - i.e. why someone believes something - and even then, you need to be wary of people who think that "the name is the same so it must be them".0
-
Adrian Bruce said: I thought that Minnie Mouse's "significant other" was Mickey Mouse, not Mighty Mouse who is different again!
Cf URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnie_... and
URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mighty_...
(URLs added just to prove the point that having a source doesn't mean that the "people" existed in real life.)0 -
Adrian Bruce said: PS - if you don't laugh, you'd cry...0
-
Gordon Collett said: Don't misunderstand. Everything on this site is fully reliable in so far as there is sufficient source and documentation provided to show that it is.
For example. my wife is from Norway. The Norwegian parish records are highly detailed, highly reliable, and easily available. Many of her direct lines go through families on the island of Stord. The records are excellent and all her family can be documented with as close to perfect reliability as possible back to 1725.
Before that? Nothing. Parish record were only started in 1725. Nothing was written down before then and there are no parish records.
Do some of her family line go back before 1725? Yes. Various researchers have used incomplete records of other sorts mixed with guesses and unproven theories. The reliability of these lines falls off dramatically very quickly.
This is not a FamilySearch site problem. You will find the same problem on every online and offline genealogy database because where there are no records, there are no records.
If you want to take on your family history, you will quickly find that you need to start with yourself and work back to confirm each step back in time. At some point you will find that there is no confirmation of any kind for one more step. That is where you prune your tree.
The nice thing about Family Tree, is that since it is one tree we are all working on together, you don't have to repeat all the work yourself. You just need to confirm that any sources there make sense and support the data.0 -
Paul said: Gordon
You say: "Don't misunderstand. Everything on this site is fully reliable in so far as there is sufficient source and documentation provided to show that it is."
Well, not quite. I could add extremely convincing detail (including sources) to some of my relatives, but if there was a cousin with similarly named parents and born around the same time and place, it can be very difficult to establish to whom the sources are truly relevant.
Some really good superficial evidence doesn't stand-up to a more detailed examination. I have had to switch sources from one individual to another (after another very close look) that would have appeared a perfect match to the average user.0 -
Gordon Collett said: That's the trouble with genealogy. Just as you think you understand everything about a family, new information or a re-reading of old information throws everything off. Thanks for correcting my oversimplification that I used to try to dramatically emphasize a point.0
-
David Newton said: "However, several of my lines do go back to Adam"
No they don't. They go back to a point where reliable documentation stops and beyond that are pure fantasy. I know you didn't create those lines, but please don't go anywhere near accepting them as true.
The challenge, should you accept it, is to find that point or those points where the reliable documentation stops and snip the lines at that point or those points.
There is only one area of the world that I am aware of where reliable genealogies connected to modern people go back beyond about 800 AD: China. The oldest reliable Chinese genealogies go back to about 500 BC if I recall correctly.0
This discussion has been closed.