Michel Richard dit Beaupre dit Sansoucy

Private User tarafında başlatıldı, tarih: 28 Aralık 2009, Pazartesi

Katılımcılar:

Bahsedilen Profiller:

Showing 1-30 of posts
Private User
28/12/2009 at 12:38 ÖS

Would it be better to just omit ALL of the parents listed for Michel Richard dit Beaupre dit Sansouc y and just have them as "Unknown". In other family trees he's listed as having THESE parents (below). And on the actual tree here on Geni, he has different sets of parents as well. I think to clean up that area of the tree, it would be better just to delete his parentage.

The parents for Michel Richard dit Beaupre dit Sansoucy have been misleading on this site as well as other websites. He is listed as having the parents:
Jean-Andre Richard and Huguette Poirier
Jean-Andre Richard and Huguette Gougeon
Andre Richard and Michelle Paulin
Andre-Guillaume Richard

28/12/2009 at 1:45 ÖS

I agree.....I have seen at least 4 different sets of parents on other web sites

Private User
28/12/2009 at 2:58 ÖS

I think I'm going to individually ask every manager of his parents for permission or to ask them to remove them. It looks a MESS in that area.

Private User
28/12/2009 at 3:32 ÖS

I agree. Actually, since I put my genealogy files on Geni, they have become so convoluted and missmanaged that I don't even bother with it any more. There are more errors than accuracies there. I now only use Ancestry.com. I haven't heard of many of those names on my files now. And my file consisted of almost 4,000 names.

Harry Welch
Ancestry.com Welch's of New Hampshire

28/12/2009 at 6:12 ÖS

I find that this website is useful for certain things, but is not useful for actual genealogy purposes, other than perhaps to get clues. It seems to be good for sharing information with more recent generations. However, there are so many frauds and people who do not use primary sources for genealogy that I don't trust anything that's older than maybe 50-100 years ago. It's great for sharing pictures and videos of my kids with my uncles and aunts and cousins and being reminded of their anniversaries and birthdays. It's also good for reuniting with slightly more distant family. It easily gets out of control though.

Patrick

28/12/2009 at 7:11 ÖS

I tend to be in agreement with all of these comments but especially with Welch and Hays who touch the root of the problem.

The immediate solution is okay but it,s just resolving one problem, of thousands already existing and growing exponentially.

GENI is technically a fine tool but if GENI does not re introduce an effective Genealogy ethiquette for example, the merge processus, there is little hope for real success of any kind.

Some basic rules sould apply automatically such as requiring at least birth dates in profils to be merged.

Third party merges and subtle automatic collaboration rights acquired, when a merge is consented should be reviewed and I hope corrected.

Collaboartion should be a priviledge comsented, not something gained by subterfuge (check the box otherwise ....).

Merges should be initiated and allowed ONLY by "interessed" parties in the double sense of the word.

Those who run the GENI show now are the "Merge Jockeys".

Reliable Sources have little importance in such a climate.

One big tree is a formidable task perhaps impossible.

Respecting the patient,methodical work of others should be at least as important as the "BIG TREE", when collaboratiing with others.

Spending 50 % of our time consumed for damage control is discouraging for most of us and many are simply tourning away.

Most of us however would like to stay it out perhaps to save our investment and mostly to be able to say one day to our families, this is our story and we share so much with so many. !

Private User
28/12/2009 at 8:10 ÖS

I, too, am discouraged by all the "conflicts" that have polluted my tree since all the merging and collaborating have been introduced. I would have been happy to be able to examine others' trees as a form of "collaboration" without having the data merged with mine.

As for the original question, it is common for persons in our tree to have multiple given names, so it's possible the father in question was Jean-André-Guillaume. But it seems clear that ONE of his given names was André, and I think that much should be preserved in the tree as a guide to those who wish to research further. The Geni tree serves best as a source of clues as to where to begin more serious research.

Private User
28/12/2009 at 8:16 ÖS

Hi Marty, so instead of deleting the parents, should I go ahead and merge them and then put in a display name such as "Huguette Gougeon / Poirier or Michelle Paulin" and "Jean-Andre / Andre-Guillaume Richard?"

I'm asking because it's bugging the crap out of me for some reason. LOL I can't stand the tree having a zillion lines going each and every direction.

Private User
28/12/2009 at 8:28 ÖS

I hate that too! For the father I'd say Jean-Andre(-Guillaume?). For the mother, I'd leave two separate entries to be resolved later, as they don't reasonably point to the same person. It's possible he had two wives and one source has designated the wrong one as the mother. Again, as I said earlier, leaving both names provides clues for further research. I think merging two disparate people would make a big mess and be very hard to undo (speaking from personal experience!)

28/12/2009 at 10:24 ÖS

Delete and leave it blank. Obviously there are no proven parents. If their names were proven, there wouldn't be any question. Given the choice, I will always lean toward maintaining research integrity.

Private User
29/12/2009 at 7:46 ÖÖ

My genealogy file was originally about 99% English-Irish-Scot-French. I don't know where all of those other names came from. Knowing that "Jean-Andre" is French, I cannot see why adding the Spanish name "Guillaume" for "William" gives logical continuity. Again, I don't even recognize my original GEDCOM file any more in this Web site. You are correct that Geni is good at notifying us of peoples birthdays/anniversaries but I don't know any of the names that seem to pop up.
Harry

Private User
29/12/2009 at 7:54 ÖÖ

Guillaume is not Spanish. It's French for William. The Spanish version of William is Guillermo.

This discussion was created through Michel Richard's profile. The link is on the left of your monitor in the section titled "Profiles Mentioned."

If you can see this, it's probably because we are collaborating and you have access to the profile I decided to "discuss."

Private User
29/12/2009 at 7:56 ÖÖ

Thanks Patrick. I will contact the managers of the profiles and point them to this thread. I don't want to delete them without permission.

Private User
29/12/2009 at 8:15 ÖÖ

@ Michel Richard

Thank you for this information. I guess that being neither French nor Spanish, I should refrain from such assessments.
Mi conocimiento de la lengua francesa y española es algo limitado. Por favor, acepte mis disculpas.

Private User
29/12/2009 at 12:05 ÖS

I'd rather have some information as opposed to none.

Private User
29/12/2009 at 4:04 ÖS

Private User What do you suggest? Should I ask to merge these profiles and put a display name that mentions all the people who are "possible" parents?

Private User
29/12/2009 at 4:06 ÖS

Private User, Michel Richard is just a profile of an ancestor. I was just making a suggestion or asking an opinion on what I should do with the multiple parents (who are not the same set of people) of Michel Richard.

29/12/2009 at 5:35 ÖS

Of course this is just my opinion, but I would rather have no information than wrong information. I'm tired of putting up with people spreading wrong information all over the internet. The internet would be a better place for genealogy if we could erase all the frauds, lies and genealogic mythology.

Private User
30/12/2009 at 6:55 ÖÖ

Oh, sorry Mimi Arcala. I did not realize that he was a hypothesis. I have my entire genealogical data base on my computer and when someone asks me about a relative, I first check to see if it is in my data base. If not, I usually let them know and ask for verification. If I find a source with multiple parents and I cannot determine if some are step-parents, I prefer not to list any of them.

Private User
30/12/2009 at 8:22 ÖÖ

This conversation is exactly what Geni is intended for. I posted my father-in-law's research on Geni and had a nice pretty tree to look at. But when I decided to start merging, I noticed that my tree sometimes disagreed with others' trees. So then why should I assume that I'm right and they're wrong, or vice versa? My theory is that if enough merges are done, eventually the right data will win out. Eventually. Yes, it will make your tree "ugly" in the meantime, but with some work, everything can get sorted out. Like Mimi is trying to do here.

If you think something is wrong, say so! If you have proof, then scan it in, link to it, post it, whatever. We'll all be the better for it.

30/12/2009 at 8:42 ÖÖ

Thank you Peter... I agree with you... you can post proof of your information on the person's page that links them to the children or parents. You can also post on a person's page if you believe your information is theory or not.

Private User
30/12/2009 at 8:58 ÖÖ

it will take time but the truth will win out in the end. wrong information is only wrong after you find the truth. we are all searching & assembling a giant puzzle of humanity. until 10 years ago i thought i was from the throgmorton family but dna proved my great great grand father was a mclendon. now i know the truth and can follow my correct history. assumptions are essential for progress. i have deleted whole branches when the truth comes out. i say carefully seek the truth and change when it is revealed. all known possibilities need to be evaluated and somehow noted or eliminated.

30/12/2009 at 9:16 ÖÖ

Jon... not everyone enjoys the truth LOL :)

I did research on my late husband's family line and found that his gggranmother was with baby prior to her marriage, which is why (I believe) that she and her husband quickly moved away before the baby was born.

Yep, family research if fun, but you can dig up things that family would rather not talk about, even in this day and age. :)

Private User
30/12/2009 at 12:15 ÖS

alice... my point is the truth is not always pleasant or convenient......simply real. some of the lines are very confusing and one cannot sort the real from the fiction. i have faith the truth will win out but i am not so naive as to believe
it will be easy. family research is fun and i do it for my grand children. rich or poor, famous or infamous, royalty or peasant, known or unknown.........we come from them all. they are our ancestors like it or not.

31/12/2009 at 9:04 ÖÖ

@ Peter - thank you! The key is COLLABORATION!!!!!

Just because someone has entered some data does not mean it is accurate unless you have some form of documentation that backs it up. Even then, the dates may not be 100% accurate nor the spelling of names, etc. Working together will help solve some of these errors. Sharing information that you may have would be most beneficial in setlling some issues. If you have any records that can be scanned, do so and attach the proper profiles. Let's work together in 2010!!!!!!

31/12/2009 at 9:09 ÖÖ

I totally agree with both Peter, Jon and Joel. I really think that Collaboration is the best way. Documentation is very important. Some people can get documentation better then others due to being able to live near the event, graveyard, courthouse, etc. Everyone have a great 2010 and may the rest of 2009, be the best.

Private User
9/1/2010 at 3:33 ÖS

Thanks Peter (and everybody). Unfortunately, I can't find proof for either parents. If you look at different genealogy sites with this lineage, they have different information, making me believe that the people who initially manage these profiles are getting their information from these genealogy sites as well.

I'll let it linger on the backburner for now.

Private User
9/1/2010 at 4:21 ÖS

I have been checking different sites and have gotten different info also. I totally agree with you Mimi.

Private User
10/1/2010 at 8:45 ÖÖ

I have spent years accumulating my information and it pains me to just see names being added "willy-nilly" (was he a relative?) just on the hypothesis that this guy has the same name. Ever looked in the phone book or Googled to see how many people have the same name as yourself? It is disheartening. I now shun this site.

10/1/2010 at 10:15 ÖÖ

Many of us are trying to address these concerns with a system to help ensure more historical accuracy based upon solid research (and not the "willy nilly" type of tree-building Harry mentions). Please take a look at the new Public Discussion I just started or the one Anne Marit began on Geni Forum: http://forum.geni.com/topic.php?id=58161

Showing 1-30 of posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion