Feiring Norway incorrectly shows as part of the Eidsvoll municipality prior to 1964.
LegacyUser
✭✭✭✭
Barbara Nelson said: The information for Feiring Norway has been very recently changed to show it is part of the Eidsvoll municipality. This is historically inaccurate for many of the years shown.
Feiring was a part of the Eidsvoll parish until 1777, when it became a sub-parish of Hurdal. And according to the Feiring historie, “In 1870 the area became a municipality in its own right when it was split from Hurdal. It then merged into the municipality Eidsvoll in 1964.”
When doing a record search, it shows as “Feiring, Akershus, Norway”.
But when doing a find on people born in Feiring, it forces the place of birth to “Feiring, Eidsvoll, Akershus, Norway”. This then gives results of all the people born in both Feiring and Eidsvoll.
I have been trying to ensure my Feiring emigrants can be traced all the way to their deaths in the United States and this sure adds extra work to the process.
I created a case in hopes of getting this corrected, but for now it is just very frustrating and a waste of time.
Feiring was a part of the Eidsvoll parish until 1777, when it became a sub-parish of Hurdal. And according to the Feiring historie, “In 1870 the area became a municipality in its own right when it was split from Hurdal. It then merged into the municipality Eidsvoll in 1964.”
When doing a record search, it shows as “Feiring, Akershus, Norway”.
But when doing a find on people born in Feiring, it forces the place of birth to “Feiring, Eidsvoll, Akershus, Norway”. This then gives results of all the people born in both Feiring and Eidsvoll.
I have been trying to ensure my Feiring emigrants can be traced all the way to their deaths in the United States and this sure adds extra work to the process.
I created a case in hopes of getting this corrected, but for now it is just very frustrating and a waste of time.
Tagged:
0
Comments
-
Tom Huber said: Hm.
I'm not sure how I would classify this concern.
Part of it appears to be with the standards not having the correct dates... in which case, the following applies: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.
But at the same time, it appears to have a problem with searches -- in particular the Find search function against the massive tree. Hopefully Lundgren (a FS search person) will join the discussion.
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.0 -
Barbara Nelson said: Tom, thanks for your input.
I did get a call from support and it sounds like they are going to forward this on. I am hopeful they will restore the place names to those shown last week.0 -
Gordon Collett said: Feiring, Norway
Hello, it’s been a while since you have posted about your Norwegian family here. Hope your research has been going well.
I know I tend to go overboard sometimes explaining things when the original poster clearly knows plenty about the topic already, but it keeps my thoughts organized and I hope it is of use to others who are coming across the topic for the first time.
Since you say the difficulty is when “doing a find on people,” I assume you are referring to the place name standards database for Family Tree.
When I am trying to work out the proper place names for my wife’s Norwegian relatives, I either start far back in the past then work to the present or start in the present and work backwards. If I’m not very familiar with a places, working backwards generally is easiest or if it is somewhere with a somewhat confusing history or set of names such as Akershus. I also have a set of standard references that are very useful.
I also try to follow both the clerical and civil descriptions of an area to see how they overlap or differ.
So to take Feiring starting with today. Best place for that is at the Norwegian government’s mapping authority at https://www.norgeskart.no
This lists the village (Tettsted) of Feiring, the Feiring church which means there has been and probably still is a parish of Feiring, Feiring school, and the Feiring iron works. These are all listed as being in Eidsvoll commuinity. So at the present time, Feiring is not a separate community but is a location within Eidsvoll which is currently in Viken county. Prior to this year, it would have been in Akershus.
I have no idea when the village of Feiring was founded. It was probably originally a farm that grew into a village. So for clarity in how place names should be, instead of using Feiring village, I’ll use the farm Melby which is very close to it.
1 January 2020 to Present: Melby farm, Eidsvoll municipality, Viken county, Norway.
Unknown to 31 December 2019: Melby farm, Eidsvoll municipality, Akershus county, Norway.
The website http://norwayparishes.com/ is a good place to look at the current clerical boundaries. Checking there gives confirmation that all of the current Feiring parish or sogn is in Eidsvoll.
For civil boundaries and boundary changes, I’ve assumed the best source is a report published by the Norwegian Statistical Bureau and posted here:
https://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pd...
Fortunately it is a searchable PDF. Looking for Feiring gives the following merge:
Sammenslåinger
0237 Eidsvoll.....12 048
0240 Feiring...........945.....1.1.1964.....0237 Eidsvoll
The first number column is the municipality ID, the second is the population, then comes the date the communities were merged, then the resulting community ID and name.
So now we have:
1 January 2020 to Present: Melby farm, Eidsvoll municipality, Viken county, Norway.
1 January 1964 to 31 December 2019: Melby farm, Eidsvoll municipality, Akershus county, Norway.
Unknown to 31 December 1963: Melby farm, Feiring municipality, Akershus county, Norway.
Checking further, there is one more entry for Feiring, when it was split off from another municipality in Akershus:
Delinger
0239a Hurdal.....2605......1.1.1870..... 0239 Hurdal
..........................1253.......................... 0240 Feiring
Here the population numbers are for after the division of the municipality.
So the list now expands to:
1 January 2020 to … [truncated]0 -
Gordon Collett said: Also, I should clarify that I would use the above for residences. For clerical events and to show where records of such would be found, I do use the name of the church of the sogn where the event took place like this:
Unknown to 12 March 1777: Feiring Kirke, Eidsvoll, Akershus, Norway
12 March 1777 to 31 December 1869: Feiring Kirke, Hurdal, Akershus, Norway.
1 January 1870 to 31 December 1963: Feiring Kirke, Feiring, Akershus, Norway.
1 January 1964 to 31 December 2019: Feiring Kirke, Eidsvoll, Akershus, Norway.
1 January 2020 to Present: Feiring Kirke, Eidsvoll, Viken, Norway.0 -
Barbara Nelson said: Gordon, you did some years ago, convince me of the wisdom of using farm names! So I agree with the idea of using the farm name. But if I had my wishes, it would read
Farm name, Feiring, Akershus, Norway.
Feiring is and was a locality in it's own right, even as it is also part of other municipalities.
Here are a couple of probate records (index) that show that even in the early 1700s, Feiring was separate.
https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/...
https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/...
https://media.digitalarkivet.no/view/...
At the same time, in 1711, the shoe tax only shows Eidsvoll.
https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/19...
And as for the christening records, I would like if there was a standardized name shows both
Hurdal Kirke, Hurdal, Akershus, Norway
Feiring Kirke, Feiring, Akershus, Norway
Even when Feiring was just a sub-parish, as far back as 1828 you will see the parish church they are actually christened in.
Thanks for your input! It will be interesting to see what standardized name they decide to go with.0
This discussion has been closed.