Talk:Genealogy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Etymology

Does the etymology belong here? It is pretty cryptic. Also, can we just copy text like that verbatim from Miriam Webster even though we give them credit? -Frecklefoot

• Considering that it had been contributed then removed, I've gone to the cited source and adapted the information from there, inserting it into wiktionary:genealogy. Courtland 09:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I just want to ask - are there any PROFESSIONAL genealogists contributing to this "genealogy" section? There are mistakes and inaccurate statements throughout, as well as in this discussion area.

Thanks, D

No idea, as Wikipedia is annonymous - unless users "out" themselves. - The glory of Wikipedia is that you can start fixing these errors yourself in the meantime.  :-) Go ahead and get started, and welcome to the club.  :-)--MonkeyTimeBoy 14:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Relationship names

I'm not sure if this is relevant to this article, but somewhere in the Wikipedia, there should be an explanation about what a "first cousin, twice removed" is and all that. I know someone explained it to me once, and it made sense at the time, but I can't even begin to remember what it was. Tokerboy

That would be nice. Any suggestions on where to put it (article title, section in Genealogy)? -Frecklefoot

I'm thinking in a section devoted to it in Family. I'll go add the basic familial relationships in English, and hopefully you/others can add more. Tokerboy

I just peeked at Family and didn't see any explanation of "first cousin twice removed." Tokerboy, are you still planning to work on this? I created a "chart" in Microsoft Excel that might fit this bill nicely. Let me know if you want my assistance on this. (Also, please sign your name by typing four tildes so that your signature also gets time-stamped. Thanks!) John Rigali 07:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You can find degrees of family relationship at Consanguinity, though I've seen more user-friendly charts elsewhere. (Sixten8 20:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC))

To help with the definitions of first cousin twice removed and second cousin:

A has a child AA, and A's brother or sister B has a child BB. AA and BB are (first) cousins.

AA has a child AAA. AAA is the first cousin once removed of BB.

AAA has a child AAAA. AAAA is the first cousin twice removed of BB.

BB has a child BBB. AAA and BBB are second cousins. Hmcorbould 04:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It was there in a superior format, then gone, then at genealogy, then gone, then...ah the wonders of Wikipedia...if it ain't broke fix it anyway. I got flustered looking for it, yet again, and found it at about.com. Virgil61 04:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can find the diff that adds it, i'd suggest linking to it on the talk page of Family and/or Consanguinity, and ask about including it. There may have been reasons for it's removal there, or not. building consensus would help to keep it there. ThuranX 06:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki sites and software for genealogy

Hello all. i am new to the wikiworld. excuse me in advance if this question is not appropriate for this page. i do a great deal of my genealogy, and i realize that wiki would be the perfect environment to lay out my family tree. Do wiki-genealogy sites exist? Or is it possible to download wikisoftware to my server or harddrive so i can get cracking at laying it all out? - -kingturtle Kingturtle 21:53 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

Someone has tried that; I looked at the site the other day; not successful yet. There are other ways of building a family tree cooperatively - try MyFamily.com Robin Patterson 20:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Section 6.6 of the article is a list of web-based genealogy software. One program in the list is WikiTree, which is wiki-based. I just began using it myself. Like most of the web-based software, it aims to create a universal family tree, an aim that all genealogists should share. However, I could not find any sort of GEDCOM upload feature at WikiTree, which means that publishing one's data there is manual and VERY slow. John Rigali 06:11, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just thought I'd let you know, there's a new wiki genealogy site at Rodovid.org, which supports GEDCOM upload and is currently trying to become a Wikimedia project. I would add it to external links, but that might be seen as spam linking. Do you think it is OK to put it there?--Bjwebb (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on its content, I don't think it's appropriate to add as a citation or external link; it's not useful for writing reports about genealogy. I've seen the proposal, and IF (that's a big if) it's approved to be a Wikimedia project, a link can be added with an infobox, like the current links to Wiktionary and Wikibooks material. GUllman 23:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

For those new to the page, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Following this thinking, most so called "wiki-trees" will be removed. We have left up links to the MetaWiki projects pursuing this goal, so that you can find more current resources there, but this page is not the right place for advertizing your own family's wiki-tree. Thank you. ThuranX 22:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, can we mention the new site geni.com here?

Absolutely not. The site REQUIRES that people input their own information before seeing any of the site's content. Further, I'm sure there's more to the site's agenda than offering free online tree construction, and you mention it's new. This comes off like a way to grow a database to lock up and charge for. ThuranX 04:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So far the wikis I've seen have to do with actual genealogies, and given that, I added one that is more encyclopedic although it is in it's earliest stages of development. It is called [FamilySearch Wiki]. The first version was based on Plone, but the new version is based on the MediaWiki software. Most articles as of my writing this are stubs, since the wiki is that new, but like Wikipedia, anyone is welcome to register and add content. A forum is also available, via a link on the left side of most pages. James Anderson, 2 May 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.172.57 (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Related pages

I see it's a while since anyone discussed this article. I noticed little linking between it and others such as Family and Kinship; maybe they have developed independently?

Now that we have categories, there's a chance to link better; but is kinship a subcategory of genealogy or vice versa? - Robin Patterson 20:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would say that a Family is an element or unit of Kinship, and Genealogy is the study of Kinship, so they would each be subcategories of Kinship. GUllman 20:44, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with this relationship (Genealogy child of Kinship). I'd also suggest that the processes mentioned by Agendum below be placed as items under a Genealogy Category (for instance, Headstone Rubbing child of Genealogy). ~ Courtland (14 Jan 2005 by Ceyockey)

I'd like also to amplify the article to describe a little about the processes involved in genealogical research - and link it to family history (although that may merit a separate page) Agendum 00:03, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Darwin -- Wedgwood family

I have created what is in effect a genealogical entry for the members of this family. How do we categorise it? We could also do with a family tree and a little tidy if anyone's interested in this stuff, I'd like to get a second opinion on the article as a whole. Dunc_Harris|☺ 00:27, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just my two cents:

NEHGS - "The oldest genealogical society in the country", (mentioned twice in the text) should be "in the US". After all, this is en.wikipedia.org not us.wikipedia.org

This Darwin-Whatshisface entry should be removed. This is an encyclopidia, man!

The "Maximum Relationship" is probably nonsense. Parts of the human population have most probably split 100.000 years ago. Just take a look at this: http://www.mitomap.org/mitomap/WorldMigrations.pdf

And... just btw: Great Britain is part of Europe, or at least used to. It might be the US' 51st state if you look at Blair and recent history.

Agreed. The claim that everyone living as of (and before) the year 500 AD is a direct ancestor of everyone living today is simply ridiculous (consider failed lines or geographically isolated populations that split much longer ago) and puts the entire concept in an unfavorable light. At the very least the writer has misunderstood the implications of the result. -- Schnolle 19:26, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Mitochondria trace only female descent and thus predict a much older divergence than male+female descent trees. -- Xerxes 21:33, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

So, what are you saying? That the youngest common ancestor is a man? I might be naive, but men and women tend to migrate simultaneously. And it seems the australian population had no contact to the asian continent for tens of thousands of years - thus the relationship of an aboriginee to me (european) would require going back at least that period of time - as I do not have australian ancestors in modern time.

No, I mean for example, you have 4 grandparents, but you're only mitochondrially related to one of them: your mother's mother. For great-grandparents, it's 8-to-1. Generally, your total number of ancestors blows up exponentially with number of generations, but your number of mitochondrial ancestors is linear. Of course, there will be a lot of overlap in the total number of ancestors, so it's not precisely 2^n, but it's much much larger. That's why the most recent common ancestor is much more recent than the most recent mitochondrial ancestor. -- Xerxes 19:15, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

The Pedigree collapse you refer to, is of course misinterpreted. The only thing you can actually read out of that, is the degree of inbreeding within a geogrphicall limited area. (Lile austrlia, or a seven sea island or whatever. Theoretchically, the chances to be related to a pharao increases the more fare back you go, but its never a must, only a possibilty. Mathematics can not be used like that. But to give an average picture about inbreeding factor, it gives an indication. Dan Koehl 03:58, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Maximum relationship section below for my input on the maximum relationship issue. John Rigali 07:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Modern Research

What do you think about addition of a line to the tail end of the "modern research" section reading something like ... "Furthermore, with the advent of large online databases whose content is continuously increasing through the efforts of many volunteers, the pursuit of basic genealogy research can be taken farther on a smaller budget than had been possible in the past." Would anyone know of some evidence backing this impression up, such as a survey of new and seasoned genealogy researchers? ~ Courtland (14 Jan 2005 by user Ceyockey)

Conversion of External Links to Wikipedia Articles

It would be great if many of the External Links were converted to internal wikilinks, pointing to articles about the referenced resources. Then many of the links could be dropped in favor of a Category. Courtland 06:50, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

In fact may of the external links seem to be advertising. They do not all have to be replaced - some can be deleted. --Henrygb 20:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which particular ones are you referring to? Courtland 23:32, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

I did not see any external links that looked like advertising. To advertise would suggest a commercial pay site was promoted with promotional language. I added sites such as USGenWeb, GenealogyBuff.com and Obituary Central, which are well-known, pertinent, and relevent resources.

Cribbswh 21:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Try looking at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Including "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" and "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base". But this article is becoming a how to do genealogy with a computer or on the internet, with link after link to computer programs and external sites. --Henrygb 23:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I concede. Just wanted to expand the article by pointing to additional resources for each state. However, I'll not press the issue further. Cribbswh 00:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anyone have an opinion on the value of the commercial website http://www.familyforest.com? Someone has been adding links to that site in various articles. The links mostly state that someone famous is the "Half 21st cousin 3 times removed" of someone else famous. [1] I've removed most of them, except for the one on this page and the one that I moved to Albert II, Prince of Monaco. Should those go too? -Willmcw 05:55, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

This article is favorite for spammers. One possible solution is to use the same "elimination" technique as in Game or Real estate (see source). It worked on these. Pavel Vozenilek 18:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right. Plenty of articles have "external links" sections that get filled with commercial sites with little redeeming value to readers. In many cases, the small amount of useful information could be moved into an article on Wikipedia. -Willmcw 18:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and put a comment in the External Links section. I didn't put it into every country specific sub-section, which will limit the impact. GRBerry 12:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree the Webliography should be pruned before it gets too big. There are thousands of sites related to doing genealogy in every country, state and county, which is beyond the scope of this article. Remember, this is an encylopedia article about what genealogy is. Even if a separate article on how to do genealogy research is spun off from this article, which I think it should, it also should teach research methods, not just list services and databases to blindly plug your surnames into. GUllman 03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Maximum relationship

I deleted content from this section. The deleted content made preposterous conclusions based on faulty logic. We can include such faulty logic if attributed, but not as original research. I also wonder if anybody here can tell me the purpose of this section of the article. I noticed a discussion on this matter months ago, but I failed to pay attention to what was being said. Sorry. If it's about Most Recent Common Ancestor, that is a horse of a different color than Maximum Possible Relationship Distance. Do we need two sections? Tom Haws 22:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The mitomap.org link that someone (Duncharris?) mentioned back in section 2 of this talk is no longer valid. However, I found http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050200sci-genetics-evolution.html when I visited mitomap.org, which in turn has links to two excellent charts that address the maximum relationship issue. John Rigali 07:05, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone found a good definition of "maximum relationship"? If not, I suggest that use of this term be discontinued, at least as a heading. AnonUser 22:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Pedigree Only?

Is there a reason why "genealogy," in the first paragraph, is limited to finding pedigrees? Certainly most LDS research is of this nature, but there are a lot of people who start with a known person and work forward, finding all his/her descendants. And some of us have probably had to work both directions at the same time occasionally.

It is much, much easier to trace families backward in time than forward. Records have the property of hindsight in that they only tell you where a person has lived and who their parents are, not where they and their descendants will be living in the future. Two exceptions are when genealogists might interview living relatives as to who and where their children and grandchildren are, or try to locate long-lost cousins who have traced their family backward to one of their ancestors (which is forward in time to them). GUllman 03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth War Graves Commission Website

New to the wiki. Saw the link for the above website was wrong. This is the correct one: http://www.cwgc.org/cwgcinternet/search.aspx

External links

I note that about half this article is a bald directory of external links, and many of the Modern Research sections are riddled with them. Anyone more conversant with the subject than me want to try pruning them down? Shimgray | talk | 21:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems inappropriate to include external links to genealogy sites for specific surnames, families, or individuals. (Hereafter, individuals will represent all three concepts.) If those individuals are of encyclopedic significance, it may be appropriate to have a link on the Wikipedia page for the specific individual. This page could easily get cluttered with way too many such links absent such a practice. I'm mentioning this now because the page was just edited to do add a pair of such links, but I don't see any discussion or evidence in the last 500 edits that it has been issue. I also considered simply reverting those changes, but decided on posting this instead. GRBerry 17:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that "individual" links could become very cumbersome. I would agree with eliminating them, unless they are used as an example in a discussion. WBardwin 22:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am again going to reinsert the FamilySearch link. No edit war -- as I noted above, "individual links" should be eliminated. But the LDS FamilySearch site provides access -- free and with no religious barriers or expectations -- to anyone doing genealogical research. This site is the fruit of many years of research, both historic and modern and is a good resource. Please see the related block of text in the article -- and give the site a try. Within the next year or so, the LDS church will upgrade their site to include even more information and provide more flexibility. Best wishes. WBardwin 04:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. WBardwin 04:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have substantially rewritten the Volunteerism subsection of Modern Research. I also removed the Organizations subsection since it is now covered in Volunteerism. Volunteerism is 40% shorter without any loss of content due to the removal of all externals links and discussion about those linked sites. Giving websites as examples is unnecessary. Genealogy has an enormous presence on the Internet, and even a newbie does not need Wikipedia to help find specific types of online resources. Also, adding one link as an example tempts people to add a second example and soon the article is again mostly external links and discussions of those links. NextExit 06:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have pruned external links from the rest of the article body, converting external links to internal links where possible. NextExit 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Give that man a prize! Now the external links section... there is a standard accepted web directory for this sort of stuff, surely? Can't we just link out to that? Shimgray | talk | 22:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a standard directory (Cyndi's List) that I previously added to the "General" links section. Cyndi’s List has worldwide scope and probably covers all of the nations linked here. Therefore, it is my opinion that all geographic-specific links are redundant and should be removed from the external links list. Additionally, I would remove the following sentence from the comment at the beginning of the external links list “Links most likely to survive are those to major free data sources, government records, or not for profit genealogical societies.” There are thousands of websites that fall into those three categories. NextExit 23:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

Descendents of the House of Stewart What kind of a title would I have if I'm a direct descendent of this royalty?

IP Address 12:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

genealogy for beginners

I am very new here (signed in today). I'm hoping someone can assist me. I have a web site that is very much focused on the newbie to genealogy and was wondering if it was appropriate to link to it from Wikipedia?Do I need to submit an article to do so? I would like to submit articles but what's the process?

Thanks Ingynook 22:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! However, this is an encyclopedia article about genealogy, not a tutorial on how to do genealogy. If you want to help contribute to an online "how to" book, your help would be welcomed at the Wikibooks Genealogy project. To learn how to contribute to Wikibooks, just work through their simple tutorial. GUllman 00:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

reverts of WP:OR, private (conspiracy) theories, and other nonsense

In case someone is interested in the reasoning behind my reverts, please see User_talk:Espoo#Pronounciation (sic). --Espoo 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Geneology [sic]

The reference to "geneology" as a common misspelling of genealogy is not appropriate to the lead section of the article. See the guideline on the lead section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Additionally, that genealogy is often misspelled is a trivial piece of information and, therefore, should not be given a prominent position in an encyclopedia article. I have moved the footnote from the first word of the article to a less prominent place in the lead section. - NextExit 04:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's greatly appreciated. I don't think it's particularly notable at all that people who can't read say a word wrong, it's like saying, "illiterate people often can't pronounce words (see Pres. Bush) for more." Big fat 'duh's don't need wikispace. however, the editor who insists on it's presence does have a source, for better or worse.ThuranX 05:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ThuranX, what you're saying is once again and still completely illogical. Perhaps you never read the latest reply at User_talk:Espoo#Pronounciation. You still haven't understood that 1) people spell it the new way due to the new pronunciation, not the other way around, that 2) the new pronunciation is used by highly educated people and 3) by almost the entire population of North America.

The word "pronounce" confuses most people who know nothing about languages and linguistics into believing that the living (spoken!) language is based on people trying to decipher and pronounce unknown words they discover in writing and have never heard before. Most of those words are however immediately forgotten and never again used by most people. The words whose pronunciations do change are specifically those words that are part of the active vocabulary of most people. People try to spell them according to what they sound like unless they are words that they regularly see in print. Only words that are regularly seen in print with a spelling that is not phonemic ("phonetic", logical, not analphabetic) can hope to be spelled in the traditional analphabetic way that is based on an ancient pronunciation that has been fossilised due to the lack of spelling reforms in English. --Espoo 15:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The footnote in the lead paragraph purportedly backing up the 'Geneology' mis-spelling appears to be simply vandalism. Contrary to what is stated, every one of the five dictionary links points to 'genealogy', and not a single dictionary accepts 'geneology' at all, let alone lists it "first or exclusively".

The word is very commonly misspelled "geneology", which useful to know for Internet searches, due to the corresponding pronunciation, which is very widespread especially in US English. In fact, this pronunciation has become so common even among educated speakers in the USA that it is listed first or exclusively by US dictionaries and encyclopedias (e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), but it is not recorded by UK dictionaries (e.g. Longman, normally an expert on UK/US pronunciation differences, Compact Oxford, Cambridge International Dictionary of English).

I am deleting this.--MichaelMaggs 15:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't see that it was saying very clearly In fact, this pronunciation has become so common even among educated speakers in the USA that it is listed first or exclusively by US dictionaries and encyclopedias... --Espoo 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The amendment to the wording that you've just made will I think help prevent that misunderstanding for the future. regards. --MichaelMaggs 15:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you can (or should) blame the mispelling on Americans who pronounce the word "wrong", since plenty of pages with UK domains also spell the word 'geneology'. If you need to give a reason, it suffices to say that this mispelling (and in turn, the pronunciation of it) is due to the spelling of other words that mean a "science or study of something" such as geology, astrology, and other "ologies". GUllman 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI. From the American Heritage Book of English Usage (1996): 7. Pronunciation Challenges: Confusions and Controversy: § 91. genealogy. "The effect of the influence of words ending in -ology is such that people now almost always say (jē´´nē-ŏl´ə-jē), with a short o, and much less frequently (jē´´nē-ăl´ə-jē), with a short a. Both pronunciations are acceptable, however." NextExit 20:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

LDS collections

I am rewriting this paragraph because it was a bit misleading.

• "The project [of microfilming records] entailed the compilation of the International Genealogical Index (IGI)." This statement is incorrect. The microfilm program began in 1938. The IGI started out as the Temple Records Index (TBI) in 1927, which was replaced in 1973 by the Computer File Index (CFI). The CFI became the IGI about 1981. Both the microfilming and the IGI are projects of the Family History Department (formerly the Genealogical Society of Utah, organized in 1894) of the LDS Church.

• "The IGI contains information submitted by Mormon researchers for vicarious ordinances, records obtained from non-Mormon contributors...." I don't believe the IGI contains data "obtained from non-Mormon contributers." It contains LDS-member submitted data and data transcribed from microfilmed records.

FYI, mention of vicarious ordinances, which involve more than just baptism, appears in the IGI article. NextExit 05:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted both edits. The first was admitted WP:OR, which is verboten. The second read like an LDS pamphlet. I have instead specifically addressed the two issues raised without getting too deep into the history of the IGI, which can be seen at the linked wikipage, and removed the 'obtained' phrase, pending citation. If citation is provided, I'll be happy to see it returned, as I do believe that 'obtained' is polite, at best, language for any number of dubiously ethical practices the LDS have engaged in at various points in their history in compilinghte databases. ThuranX 07:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to spend on another rewrite but FYI the latest version contains incorrect information. It implies 1) that the microfilming of records --> transcription of records --> computerized index of records in the form of the IGI and 2) that the AF is the index of the submissions of its members. This is inaccurate. Also, FYI reference to baptism for the dead shouldn't be considered WP:OR just because the editor didn't provide a source. It is an easily verifiable fact that the purpose of genealogical research done by Mormons is to perform ordinances on the dead. NextExit 17:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Now you're upset that the summary you provided was included. No pleasing you, I guess. You said the IGI didn't start as the IGI. I included that. As I've already said, the IGI article can go into detail for those interested. a complete history of the IGI is thoroughly inappropriate here, and the LDS section is plenty long as it is. As for OR, I recommend you read the edit summary. The material was, by the editor's own admission, both OR and UNVERIFIABLE. As such, it's out. ThuranX 17:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And now you're throwing a fit by tagging everythign for facts. Fine, I'll help too. ThuranX 18:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not throwing a fit. I added a single fact tag; I just wanted this section to be accurate, and it's not. As an example, as I stated above, the IGI "contains LDS-member submitted data," yet you removed this fact from the article. Now the article states that the IGI contains "transcriptions of filmed civil and eccliesiastic record," which is very misleading since 1) the bulk of the IGI is made up of LDS member submitted data and 2) transcriptions of records of persons for whom ordinances have not been performed are now being added to the Vital Records Index, not the IGI. Look, I'll make this easy on you. I will stop editing this article. I am tired of dealing with editors on Wikipedia who write about subjects on which they are not knowledgeable. NextExit 18:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, fix it so it's FACTUAL, not a pro-mormon pamphlet. that's the problem with your last edit. Further, your attitude's getting very sour here. I don't know that you need to quit the page entirely, but I support your decision to take a break from it. You're seeking ways to provoke conflict, and I'm trying to keep the section from getting bulky and POV. Thank you for trying to help, but solid editing towards fact and away from promotion of the Mormon IGI is what this article needs. ThuranX 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Country Sources

In the U.S. in particular, people who research their ancestry often manage to go back to the ancestors who immigrated from other countries. The discussion of how to perform genealogical research in various countries would seem relevant to this article. I haven't seen anything on this yet. One could envision a section on this, with subsections by country. Some of the relevant points to be treated in each subsection might be:

• starting date of the recordkeeping, and latest date that can be consulted (recent records being often "out of bounds")
• an indication of how complete the records are at different periods of time
• authority (e.g., religious or civilian) that kept the records
• current location of the records (e.g., regional archives vs. parishes or municipalities)
• ways in which the records can be consulted in person
• online availability of indexes or of the actual records (public service / commercial / community effort)
• existence of Internet forums and how useful they are, including to people who don't speak the country's language

If such a section is created, I would volunteer the subsection on France. Claude 01:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Responded on editor's talk recommending he look into the wikibook instead. ThuranX 01:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links

There has been a recent effort by an editor to remove Cyndi's List from teh external links. Cynid's list fully belongs on the page. It is a free to use website with broad appeal for those interested in the subject. The List has articles about he history of the hobby, how-to articles for the beginning genealogist, and a vast array of links to categories and subcategories of specific interest to researchers, including by land of origin, religion, civil records, land records, and far more. I cannot find a single legitimate reason to remove it. The editor suggests it's a commercial site, but it's not. Ancestry.com is a Commercial site, Scotlandspeople is a commercial site. Cyndislist is a free to the public site. Although it is a for the most part a link repository site, that's permitted, it is prohibited to make a wikipedia page a repository of links, not to link to one. Firther, of all the genealogy link pages out there, Cyndislist has wide repute, and can often be found mentioned int he hobby magazines, including Everton's and Family Tree magazine. ThuranX 02:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently ,there's been a tremendous push to get every wiki'based tree system onto the page. I've been keeping them out, using the two active Wikia Foundation led projects and discussions up there. As it stands, most of the wiki-trees are lousy. They have speculation rampant, and little to NO established rules for citation. As most the stuff in those family trees worth including is concrete fact, vital statistics, military service, degrees, immigrations, and so on, it should be cited as it is entered. Instead, many trees are populated by uncourced estimations or patently false information. Until such sites can demonstrate some amount of scholarship is needed, they will never be valuable resources, nor worth linking to. The idea that anyone can change the information, much of which cannot be independently verified easily, without and sourcing, makes it a mess. Wikipedia has many rules in place for expectations of citation, all these wiki-trees need them too. ThuranX 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This external link was added (without an account):

conce.com project search of peoples and genealogic trees

to me it looks like (unintentional) linkspam (worldwide directory of people and celebrities, unless my Spanish is failing me) and it seems to be just one more among thousands of search-sites, without any real merit.

What do others think ?

Lklundin 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed it some time ago. ThuranX 03:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Latin names

I'm going to revise this current text "Middle names may sometimes be treated as part of the family name. For instance, in some Latin cultures, both the mother's family name and the father's family name are used by the children." because that doesn't make any sense at all -- Latin name structure adds the mother's family name as a suffixed last name, not as a middle name. Isolder

I have reverted your edit, as it introduced needlessly speculative language. 'In some' is clear enough in the inconsistency of the cultural naming pattern, without excess verbosity. As it stands, it reads quite clearly - What we consider the middle name at a glance may actually be the surname. It's quite clear. ThuranX 03:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Euphemism for Mormon/LDS

This statement "Certain programs are geared toward specific religions" sounds like a euphemistic reference to LDS. It is patently apparent to anyone with experience that it is trying to refer to the Mormon/LDS Church, but to the uninitiated, it might be too oblique. Wouldn't it be simpler to drop the euphemism and come right out and say what it means? Isolder 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. For one, there are programs for jewish genealogists as well, and, I understand there's one out there for black families which more specifically works for trackign families through slave ownership eras. As such, generalizing that there are specific programs is enough. Further, keeping the dogmas of the LDS out of the article has come up before, and is generally a good idea. ThuranX 03:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Werelate.org

I added a link to WeRelate.org, despite the message, for the following reasons. I have been doing genealogical research for 30 years, and the people who are behind this site are top notch. The Allen County (Indiana) Public Library is backing the genealogic side, and Dallan Quass, the former chief technologist for the LDS Library, Stanford computer science Ph.D., internet entrepreneur, etc., is the computer side. They are treating all content as GFDL and CC-BY-SA (same as en:wp) and are developing a significant amount of Mediawiki extensions to add genealogic functionality to the software. They care very much about GEDCOM import and getting people started the right way. The team they have put together as an advisory board is outstanding, and I am very excited about their future. When I started as ED of WMF, Rodovid.org was inquiring about whether a genealogy project could be part of WMF. I said then, and I believe now, that genealogy is its own thing, with its own goals, and they are not the same as those of WMF. For that reason, I believe there are plenty of reasons to be inclusionist about genealogic wiki sites, provided they are not surname specific, etc. No disrespect to Jimbo, but Wikia shouldn't be in the monopoly position. I really believe WeRelate is doing things the right way. Please take a look and tell me where I'm wrong, but I really think they are deserving and the site should stay as a link.--Brad Patrick 01:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In most cultures ...!

"In most cultures, the name of a person references the family to which he or she belongs"

Anyone actually any evidence for this or is it simply made up? Candy 11:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

well, given that Genealogy relies often upon the person's family name, or surname, this would fall under common sense. Most European cultures, as well as cultures elsewhere based on European culture, like latin america, northamerican culture, australian, and many parts of Africa, use surnames, and that in china the famiyl name system has existed, and been legislated for centuries, the majority of people on earth, (including over a billion in China alone), this statement's hardly controversial. ThuranX 12:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Foucault

I had a hard time finding the page Genealogy_(Foucault), since Genealogy comes to this page and there is no disambiguation information. I can't immediately think of any additional uses of the term, so perhaps some small disambiguation text at the top of the page is appropriate?

Zarvok | Talk 06:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That page looks like OR, and anthropology to boot. That said, I'd suggest putting it under the See Also. ThuranX 21:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

History or Science?

Would genealogy be considered a history or science subject? Or is it like a mixture? 76.202.217.159 21:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the method and purpose. For family history, it's a history that uses analysis, deduction and hypothesis to find ancestors. For medical and anthropological purposes, it's more scientific, often tracking genetic markers. However, the current use of DNA allows for genetic markers and testing to determine ancestries for family history. ThuranX 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thuranx gives a good answer to the question but I would suggest that the question itself is flawed. If you think in such a way that everything needs to be pigeon holed in broad areas like Science and History then that's OK. However, the key to understanding geneology is to look at it as its own subject. Then you can see the interrelationships with social history, economics, politics (both global, national and local), culture, tradition, mathematics, the law, logistics, genetics, literature, archiving, public systems and utilities, journalism, professions and occupations. communication developments, migration and a whole heap of other related things which all cross boundaries. Candy 07:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me first say that I am a professional scientist. I have seen this question, "Is it history or science," come up on other articles, including the article on History! In order to classify something as a science, you need to understand what a science is. Things that can be demonstrated by the scientific method ALSO must meet the criterion that they are falsifiable, i.e., they can be demonstrated to be false. SOME genealogical claims can be demonstrated to be false by the presence of MULTIPLE primary sources that indicate a different conclusion. In contrast, science requires multiple, independent, primary-witness confirmations of a hypothesis. However, much of the field of genealogy lends itself to a claim being validated by a preponderance of circumstantial and indirect evidences that do not have to come from primary sources, and, indeed, can be the result of an analysis of other indirect data performed by a single genealogist. All methods and standards used by genealogists allow for this type of "proof standard," which might be considered by some to be scientiFIC (emphasis on the FIC), meaning "science-like," but could never be called science.

Do I have a source for this? No. But there are also no sources that call genealogy a science. So I would recommend doing as Candy recommended, and not even address the question. However, as I stated in the discussion below of Genealogical Proof Standards, if this is to be an article that covers genealogy as a profession, there should be some discussion of citable standards. Leeirons (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

More on the problem of defining what things are "sciences" and waht are not. See article on demarcation problem. This problem cannot be resolved in this one article on genealogy, so it should not even be brought up. Leeirons (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Related/External Links

It is unfortunate that the author of this article so brazenly devalues many genealogy websites by including a few irrelevant external listings. Cyndis is OLD HAT, all but gone and forgotten. There are many valuable sites that are much better, yet this author obviously has a predjudice toward mentioning only certain websites. The lack of credibility of this article is a disservice to all genealoists! {Unsigned}

Links are evaulated according to WIkipedia's standards. Cyndislist is not commercial and holds broad appeal. If there's link you think should be here, which is not commercial in nature, and has already been reverted out, bring it here and explain why it's worth having. Consensus can be found or policy cited, and so on. ThuranX 00:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So it would seem... But ThuranX, you do have a history of ignoring consensus, especially when it is achieved on other articles, etc. However, it is true that sites to be included cannot be commercial (as in the many pay-only genealogical research databases). However, this Wiki practice is dropped when a site becomes large and notable enough -- i.e. Google, which earns more per year than the entire GDP of most small countries. But I've yet to see a genealogical pay-site that can command that level of status. --MonkeyTimeBoy 02:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding the initial comment from "Unsigned" above: FYI, Cyndi's List is hardly gone and forgotten -- with a current Alexa rank of 93,000, it would hardly seem that it's irrelevant. The same cannot be said of academic-genealogy.com though--with a traffic rank in the 7 figures...--MonkeyTimeBoy 02:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, your blatantly false accusation is insulting and resented. I often request consensus be built using the talk pages. I don't waste my time on those IPs which are vandals or external link spammers, because they never reply, often know what they are doing, and wikipedia policy already makes it clear such won't be tolerated. That I keep this article free of links which do NOT belong is hardly ignoring consensus. Second, there is a long list of sites available at the list of genealogy sites page which is linked to in the article. Ancestry.com and the UK Archives sites probably are the best contenders for beating the profitability to value ratio. Many pay sites and such which aren't included here are available there, although I find it necessarry to review the list for repetition. There are a few IP spammers there who feel that some sites deserve duplicate or triplicate listing. ThuranX 03:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a wise man once said, "Whatever..."

Meanwhile, yes, Ancestry.com and the UK Archives probably should be included--they're far more relevant and hold much more general appeal than several of the ones already there, such as the Hispanic and Transylvanian lists, which are better suited to the list of portals and research sites. I suggest moving them, and keeping this article for sites of general appeal/use only.--MonkeyTimeBoy 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

New Listing Policy Proposed

While I always consider IP edits specious (just look at my history of spam-killing at List of social networking websites), that list has a very useful policy that I feel would actually help this article as well: Nothing is added without already having its own article on Wikipedia. This rule satisfies by proxy the general requirements of notability/consensus, and helps interested persons find out more about a service/site/etc. before wasting time searching for info on the site itself. How does this new listing policy strike the rest of you? This will allow the major sites, such as Ancestry.com, etc. to be listed without worry. They've already gained consensus on Wikipedia as notable and worthy of being included in the great Wiki. I.E. there seems to be no reason why they shouldn't be listed here already--as the Wiki community has already come to agreement on their worth.--MonkeyTimeBoy 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Not listing relevant sites that have already gained article status, IMHO, would be to ignore consensus and Wiki policy. *ahem*

yeah, yeah. Enough with the ad homs. I've been keeping SPAM off here, not valid links. As for the 'policy', it's not a bad standard to maintain, although I think it would result in some of our current links dropping. (which is fine, I've never liked the academic-genealogy link, but it came back a few times, so I left it, it had some valid material.) Also, we would need to ensure that the wiki articles used to support link inclusion weren't advertising. There are a few such articles on wikipedia, and they need to be avoided as evidence of notability. ThuranX 18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Most ad-inspired articles are ferreted out fairly quickly. Additions to the List of social networking websites turn into redlinks all the time (as unworthy articles are deleted), and are removed immediately when this happens (as you'll see from the edit history on that article). Wiki works just this way, after all. If a link/article is worthy, it will survive.

If it is relevant and generally useful, and has gained consensus from the broader community, it's not up to one editor alone to judge yea or nea. Wiki is a community, though it's easy to feel a sense of "ownership" over an article one has often contributed to. If one editor has a problem with an article that is listed, there are policies of objectionin in place to follow (simply using this talk page, AFD, etc.). I hope this article is "watched" by more than just ThuranX and myself.  :-)--MonkeyTimeBoy 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have some urge to try to make this into a fight with me. You keep taking shots at me, and I'm getting tired of it. As I keep saying, review my reverts of website listing additions. They're all non-notable, Commercial, Private one-family sites, or other spamming. If you have seen me make a series of errors, you should've spoken up as those occurred. That I keep removing such irrelevant things is a sign that I'm keeping the article in good shape, NOT exhibiting WP:OWN. The alternative you keep implying is that I should unwatch the article, and hey, if it becomes a long list of crap, then that's better than ThuranX watching it and working on it. ThuranX 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Removing obvious spam is fine. It's what we all do, including me (like I said, have a look at the histories cited above). But unilaterally asserting notability or non-notablility on established articles is another. I'd decided a month or so back that fighting with you wasn't worth my time, but this is an entirely different matter, and there is precedent regarding this helpful article link vetting suggestion. By all means, continue watching this article, and I look forward to your productive involvement in the future. But I'd like this to become more of a community project. If you wish to continue this one-on-one chat, please use my talk page. Thanks.--MonkeyTimeBoy 01:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote you, 'whatever.' ThuranX 02:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Foucault's Genealogy

I am surprized that there is no mention to genealogy as Foucault use it in "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History" in which he uses "genealogy" and "effective history" almost interchangably. I guess I may have to add a link and do some work on Wiki soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.120.50 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Had you read the talk page, you'd ahave seen this link : Genealogy (Foucault) above. ThuranX 22:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it important that sometimes a word is misspelled?

The footnote to the first paragraph could be placed on every single entry in the entire Wikipedia if it is important. The fact that words are misspelled a lot is useful information for any internet research.

I agree that the secondary pronunciation is important to include, as it appears that it is becoming acceptable, but unless someone can cite a dictionary that says the alternate spelling is becoming acceptable (I doubt they can) then I fail to see how the common misspelling is important.

Gavroche42 (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Genealogy#Geneology_.5Bsic.5D can help. ThuranX (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had read that thread. I am raising the issue again as the thread doesn't explain it to me. It defines real well why it is important that the alternate pronunciation is noteworthy information, but nowhere in the thread that I can find does it provide a clear explanation of why the mispelling is important. As I said, lots of words get mispelled by a lot of people. And in general, lots of misspellings are based on different pronunciations. That's a topic for linguistics articles, definitely. If there was any source that could actually state that an alternate spelling is gaining acceptance, that would be sufficient to explain it. But in that case, it is no longer a 'misspelling' it is an 'alternate spelling'. No one has provided such a source that I can see. Gavroche42 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The change I am recommending is that the footnote be removed, and that a new section be created on how there are two pronounciations, and how one pronounciation is favored in the US, and the other one is favoured in the UK. Drop all mentions of misspellings until there is a dictionary that declares that misspelling as an acceptable alternative. Would there be anything disagreeable about that edit? Gavroche42 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I have to agree with Gavroche42. This makes an assertion that this is widespread misspelling, based on the editor's web searches. The burden of evidence is not met (WP:PROVEIT, WP:PSTS) as there is no reliable source making the assertion. Misspellings are common on the web, and citing dictionary pronunciations does not make the assertion correct. Saying that it is helpful to know for purposes of Internet searches, improperly tries to force the point of notability—Twigboy (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a full section would be undue weight. Just remove it. I've never felt much urge to defend it, as you'll see by reading above. Further, it's not really a matter of regional spellings, it's a matter of illiterate Americans not bothering to learn how to spell a word. ThuranX (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Done. Gavroche42 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who revised the introductory paragraph and moved the note about the alternate spelling to the etymological position of the introduction, I agree with Gavroche that the comment and note are irrelevant. Common misspellings exist for most terms that are Wikipedia topics. I did not delete the point from my edit because of the longstanding discussion here, because I am not an expert on etymology, and because my concern for accuracy lies with other issues. I post this comment now only to say that I concur with Gavroche's editing of my editing. Eshown (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OR and citation error in "maximum relationship" section

The entire section is fairly described as Original research, specifically:

• The first paragraph's unverified assertions merely set up the OR of the second paragraph.
• The second paragraph asserts "latest models", consideration of monogamy, and other such (all unverified). MRCA is mentioned in passing, as though it were somehow relevant to the paragraph's assertions.
• The cited reference does not say what has been ascribed to it. There is no mention of the number of generations. The paper speaks in terms of hundreds of thousands of years, and not in a way that would be usable in an article about genealogy. Further, it is a scholarly paper on Probability, of interest to some areas within MRCA. A paper on MRCA might cite many such papers to support a hypothesis. Citation of a paper such as this in a genealogy article is inappropriate.

24.178.228.14 (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was meant to tie into the genetic reesearch sections of the article. the article may need some revision, differentiating the family history style from the anthropological/genetic styles of genealogical research, but I think that eliminating it entirely isn't the solution. ThuranX (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Geneaological Proof Standard

By way of background, this is a standard methodology that is set forth by the Board for Certification of Genealogists. Information on this standard is at the following website: http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/standard.html.

I did not see this mentioned anywhere. I think it would make a good addition, since it deals with the methodology to meet a standard of geneological proof. Does anyone else agree that this should be added? Perhaps it should be added under the existing Geneaological Research Process subsection. Leeirons (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that it should be included. The 'standards' are for their seal of approval on a person as a 'certified genealogist', and not standards of evidentiary proof of relatedness between individuals in the research, which is what you seem to think it is. It's a 'jump through our hoops and we'll give you our button', which would count as spam if added. there's no one central genealogical society to make those judgments. ThuranX (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, ThuranX, you misunderstand the Genealogical Proof Standard. As Leeirons indicated, it's a standard of proof, not a level of competency for certification. It's use goes way beyond its endorsement by BCG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.156.19 (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I am in no way affiliated with the Board for Certification of Genealogists. The proof standard that they promote is just that. It may not be "THE" proof standard, but it is "A" proof standard. You might argue that it is not noteworthy, but you cannot argue that it does not exist. Nor can you even argue that it is invalid, considering Wikipedians are not to be making such value judgments; as long as it can be referenced and is not original content, it is fair game for coverage. Just because a person might disagree with a particular approach to establishing geneaological proof does not make that approach "spam." If someone took it upon themselves to add a section on all existing and noteworthy proof standards to this article on genealogy, it should not be considered to be spam. Leeirons (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This group is not equivalent to the Bar associations for law, or the boards that grant medical licenses. Until such a level is demonstrated it's not that important. Other groups offer their certifications as well; and you have competing certifications. It's really little more than advertising. ThuranX (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we have to identify only one standard, but we should identify that there are standards out there, and provide a few examples. I would suggest that lack of discussions of standard methodologies makes this article more related to a hobby, and less related to a profession. If we can't talk about porfessional standards in this article, then I would suggest renaming it "Genealogy as a Hobby," or some similar name. Then, a spearate article can be written on "Professional Genealogy." If we say there are no standards, then everyone is a hobbyist. The article, the way it is written right now, is very much written from the hobby persepctive, as evidenced by the lack of sources for the many claims on what genealogy is and how it is conducted. You put 50 different hobby genealogists to the task of writing this article, and they would each come up with something completely different, and none of them would have any sources except to say, "Well, this is the way that I do it." Doesn't anyone else see this as a problem? Leeirons (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Though the GPS was published by one organization, it is a commonly accepted standard among professional genealogists from many countries. It's not just one opinion among many. I agree wholeheartedly with Leeirons. This article is a rambling, almost incoherent, description of the systematic process of genealogical research. It's hard to know where to begin to improve it. 12.76.157.22 (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, promoting a company is not the right way. Find neutral scholarly sources citing the relevance, respectability and wide acceptance of that company's certifications, and we can discuss inclusion. As it currently stands however, that looks like spam to include. ThuranX (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is promoting any "company." (The BCG is not a "company;" it's a certifying body.) The Genealogical Proof Standard has been widely used throughout the professional genealogical community for 10 years:

• It's at the heart of Christine Rose's book, About genealogical standards of evidence: A guide for genealogists.
• It's explained at length in the standard textbook in the field, Professional Genealogy.[7]
• It's described in Elizabeth Shown Mills's, Evidence Explained.
• It's described in the book, Genealogical Resources in New Mexico by Karen Stein Daniel, C.G.
• It has been the subject of countless presentations at conferences of the National Genealogical Society, the Federation of Genealogical Societies, and other major organizations in the field.
• It's part of the curriculum at Samford University's Institute of Genealogical and Historical Research, one of the premiere educational venues for genealogists in the US.
• It is widely discussed in the mailing list of the Association of Professional Genealogists.
• It is described and discussed in numerous genealogical columns, blogs, and online instruction sites:

• How to Apply the Genealogical Proof Standard to Your Family Tree by Kimberly Powell[8]

• Navigating Research with the Genealogical Proof Standard, presentation at the Family History Expo 2008, Mesa, AZ by Mark Tucker[9]

• Learning and Practicing the Genealogical Proof Standard[10]

• Genealogical Proof Standard and Reliable Sources by Sharon Gayle[11]

• The Genealogical Proof Standard by Steve Danko[12]

• The 9-Essential Elements of the Genealogy Process[13]

• Evaluating Our Evidence in Light of the Genealogical Proof Standard by Thomas W. Jones, presentation at the Federation of Genealogical Societies Conference, 1999[14]

• Genealogical Proof Standard by FamilySearch Wiki[15]

• and many, many more

Someone who knows nothing about the field of professional genealogy shouldn’t be making obstructionist comments. If you don’t know how to boil water, get out of the kitchen.

12.76.155.188 (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone who doesn't know our policies shouldn't edit Wikipedia. Again, until it's regarded as the single legitimate body, it's just a company that gets money for giving people a stamp. the medical boards present certain legal ramifications; so do the Bar exams. No single similar standard exists for genealogy; this is one group, a for-profit group, who promote their standard. ThuranX (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you accuse them of not knowing Wikipedia policies when they have just provided myriad reliable sources that attest to the "relevance, respectability, and wide acceptance" of the GPS, as you requested? It certainly seems to me that it is appropriate for inclusion in the article. --Michael White^T·C 22:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. It's clear that though I'm right, consensus is against me. go ahead and add it. Just don't be surprised when others revert the spamming of the article to promote their organization and it's Pay-to-play system. ThuranX (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should have a section titled "Genealogical proof standard", just that, where appropriate, descriptions of the genealogical research process should include the elements of the GPS or similar statements, and the GPS can be cited as a source.--Michael White^T·C 23:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, wash my hands of this mess. ThuranX (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

To correct a misassumption stated above: The Board for Certification of Genealogists (founded in 1964) is not a "for-profit group" or "a company that gets money for giving people a stamp." BCG is classed by IRS under "Charities and Non-Profits." It holds the 501c6 status that IRS restricts to groups "not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual." (Internal Revenue Service, "Charities and Non-Profits" <http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96107,00.html>.) Its educational arm, the BCG Educational Fund, is a 501c3 that underwrites educational tracks at national conferences of both the Federation of Genealogical Societies and the National Genealogical Society. For the 44 years of BCG's existence, its "employees" have consisted of only one part-time person. All other operations are handled by volunteers, and all officers and board members pay their own expenses to attend the twice-annual board meetings. (Full disclosure: I am a current trustee and former president.) --Eshown (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This article, IMO, would benefit from a section on professional genealogical credentials—to include not just those of BCG, but also those of the Salt Lake City–based ICAPGen and significant counterparts in Australia, Canada, England, France, Ireland, New Zealand, and Scotland. --Eshown (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

changed link from usgenweb

I have changed the link for usgenweb to point to the main site of the project gioto (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2