James Rutherford Cathey - Source Clarification Needed

Started by Private User on Wednesday, June 23, 2021
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing all 15 posts
Private User
6/23/2021 at 5:09 PM

This is a wonderful source, I really like it and probably should apply to my ancestor if only by association and kinship. However he isn't specifically named in this document. The people who actually belong with this source are as follows:

General Griffith Loch Rutherford

Mary Elizabeth Rutherford

Blanche Elizabeth Locke

Lt. Francis Locke

William Harrison Locke

Margaret Belle Locke

Mary Ann Locke

John Griffith Cathey

Susan Jane Cathey

Earnest Augustus Anthony

Mary Pearle Crawford

Husband of Mary Pearl Anthony, James Marion Crawford (no Geni profile)

John Donald Crawford (no Geni profile, although there is one of the same name that should be ruled out)

I would be happy to add the appropriate names to the document source, but do not have the authority to remove my ancestor.

Private User
6/23/2021 at 5:15 PM
6/23/2021 at 6:20 PM

That source is an application for SAR. It's validity is dependent on the reliability of the information provided by the descendant that applied for membership.

Private User
6/23/2021 at 6:40 PM

Of course, but that isn't the point of the discussion. The validity of EVERY source (including so-called "primary" sources) depends on the reliability of both authors and witnesses (along with scribes, typists, etc.).

Private User
6/23/2021 at 6:43 PM

I have no reason to question the validity of this source. My point is that it needs to be revised to include the appropriate individual Geni profiles.

Private User
6/23/2021 at 6:45 PM

I would like to avoid generalities and the philosophy of genealogy, and just focus on simple specific details as much as possible. If you have reason to question the authority of this source, by all means. But not on this thread, please.

7/1/2021 at 9:10 PM

Debra: I'm not sure what you mean by "...do not have the authority to remove my ancestor."

No, you cannot (nor can a Curator) alter the document (short of downloading, altering, and uploading the altered copy).

However, are you able to 'cite' the appropriate Geni profiles against that existing document (creating new profiles if any are missing, then citing those new profiles also)? Click on the "(Add)" link next to the "Profiles" on the right side of the document viewing page you have in your second posting above. Link in the Geni profile, then "cite" the values shown in that document (e.g. name fields), and "save" them.

Private User
7/1/2021 at 10:07 PM

Dan, the answer is "no." I am not able to cite the appropriate profiles to this document. There is no "Add" link next to the one (erroneous) profile linked to this document.

So if curators can't fix it, I guess it will just have to remain as it is. I would advise everyone to examine the documents on their ancestral profiles, and just check for accuracy.

Private User
7/1/2021 at 11:35 PM

When I offered to do it in my OP, I didn't realize it would be impossible. He is my 3rd g-grandfather. The document was added by a distant cousin of his (11th X6), perhaps mistakenly. I'm a little surprised that this could happen, makes me wonder if this could happen to any of my other, perhaps even closer family (parents, grandparents, etc.). I'm not sure where the boundaries are, if there are any, short of making them "Private".

Private User
7/1/2021 at 11:38 PM

I guess I understand now, why so many people keep their close family private up to as many generations as possible. But not sure if that really helps much, since I've never tried it before.

7/2/2021 at 9:16 PM

So, Debra, here's what I did for the two "oldest" profiles referenced on that document:

I viewed the document "full size" in a browser tab.
I then went to the Geni profile (e.g. General Griffith Loch Rutherford), selected the Sources tab, then clicked "Add Source".
I then selected the tab to "add/capture" a web page, and pasted the URL of the 'full-size' document.
That then brought up the "Citation" panel, where I could go back & forth between the "full-size document" tab and that citation tab, entering each fact for that person found on that document (e.g. first name, last name and/or birth surname, birth date-as-shown-on-document, birth-location, etc. [often 7 facts for the profile and 3+ facts for the relationship)
Then click SAVE on that citation page.

Repeat for each person found on that document.

As I mentioned, I did for for General Rutherford and his wife Mary Elizabeth Rutherford..

See if you can do that for the others...

7/2/2021 at 9:30 PM

And ....

I didn't notice before I "cited" the full-size .jpg that (for the General) the originall document was attached to his profile -- but didn't have facts cited. In the Sources tab, I then clicked the "Add Source", but then selected that previously attached "SAR" source document, and (on the Relationships), added the citation for the daughter (Blanche Elizabeth Locke) of that relationship, and now that same document shows up in her profile, where further citation of details can be done (which I have not done at this point).

Check the Sources tab on the profiles and what you can do with it; if the source is already attached, open it in a different tab (e.g. full-size) so you can see the details, and then cite the values shown in the document. By 'citing' the family relationship (e.g. spouse, or child, or parent) as defined in that document, that particular profile then is automatically "attached" to that profile (albeit facts are not automatically cited if it's a simple image which Geni's software doesn't know how to "parse").

Private User
7/2/2021 at 9:58 PM

Thank you so much for helping, Dan. I never thought to look for the same document somewhere else. I'll do as much as I can to straighten out the citations for the other profiles on this document.

Private User
7/2/2021 at 10:00 PM

I also never thought to work around it, lol.

Private User
7/2/2021 at 11:04 PM

https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000176776797868

Alrighty. I found no "Add" buttons on any of them, so I just uploaded it yet again in order to sweep up all the remaining relevant profiles. I didn't bother linking the ones that are already linked to other copies of the same document because that would seem a little redundant, perhaps (idk, really).

And I see that the erroneous facts have now been removed from this profile under discussion, although still connected to the rogue document. I apologize if I could have handled it myself.

Dan, you are as always very helpful and patient. Thanks again.

Showing all 15 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion