William Caldwell Calhoun - Middle name unproven.

Also, what's up with the conflicting Ydna data? Does it not conflict?

Hi Debra, most folks of that period have nothing documenting a middle name. They seem to get added by later generations for some reason. I beileve unless there is evidence a person used a middie name, they should be removed until such time as such documentation can be provided. That's just my opinion.

There are lots of lines on Geni wth conflicting Y-DNA. If more than one male claiming to be from the same lines addes their Y-DNA results to Geni, this is what happens. My son has it on his Ingram line. My son and his close male cousins on the line are all one Y-DNA group and another guy who we don't know has his on the line also. Geni won't do anything about that because they have no way of knowing which is correct.

I've emailed the guy on my son's line and never got a response. I think he's inactive. I believe he has his lines connected incorrectly, but I'm unable to have that discussion with him. So, that conflict on my son's paternlal line is likely to be on Geni indefinitely.

Some folks have done a lot of DNA research, cousin matching, collaboration, etc. and know their lines. Some folks have a DNA test done and don't do all that other work and just connect their tree the way they believe is correct, whether it is or not.

Also, the more awkward part of it is that someone may actually have the lines correct but perhaps they aren't biologically from the line they thought they were. I've had a couple of male cousins discover when they had their Y-DNA tested that they weren't from the male lines they'd grown up believing they were. I'm sure there are some innocently still believing they're a particular male surname by birth and they aren't. Geni certainly has no way to remedy that scenario. So this isn't a 'Geni problem' but an individual male problem regarding being certain their Y-DNA results actually belong to the ancestral male line they're connecting their DNA to. I've seen at least one profile that had three conflicitng Y-DNA haplogroups attached ot it. If I were those guys, I'd be wanting to do more research to find out what's up with that!

Many thanks, Debbie Gambrell for sharing your thoughts. I just think proof or at least some reasonably persuasive supporting evidence should be required for all facts added to all public profiles (not just the 'important', historical, or medieval ones), whether for names, dates, and even parentage. The same standards should apply to all public profiles, imho.

For that reason there should be no limit to the number of unique sources members may permanently add to relevant profiles, imho. It would be beneficial, overall.

In cases of conflicting DNA, obviously at least one or more of them must involve unproven lines, which I think ought to be addressed in a timely and appropriate fashion.

There is enough to keep everyone busy without having to spend so much time and energy on handling the problems associated with a plethora of unsubstantiated facts and connections.

It might be a good idea to allow Pro-level members to work on some of these lines that are being neglected and perhaps forgotten. As long as we act on good faith, honest mistakes should be easy enough to correct. Most everyone I've encountered here is communicative and respectful enough to discuss any questions or concerns they may have.

But you are so right: in this sort of collaborative environment we will always find a wide range of work styles, some more disciplined, some less so. The trick is finding ways to happily accomodate all of them.

Very well said, Debra. I know I no longer have the time or energy, due to age and health issues, to try to any more than I abolustely have to in order to keep my own direct lines in order. I don't have the time to try to do the work others should be doing on their own lines. If everyone would at least work to keep the profiles they are managers on well-documented and correctly connected, it would make such a huge difference.

That said, Debra, it's my opinion the middle name 'Caldwell' should be removed unless / until it can be documented as valid. However, If it means that much to someone to have an undocumented middle name attached (which no one should actually want), I'm not the one to argue the point anymore unless I'm working with a curator who shows interest in cleaning the connections and details up. Otherwise, I leave that to younger folks who can handle the stress that can come from some of the disagreements here on Geni and save my time and energy for more serious errors, like undocumented and dubious parents that throw the relationship pahways off. I guess we all have to 'pick our battles', as the saying goes. I don't get online to get myself frustrated and stressed over it all. That's why I have a personal tree on Ancesty where I can fix it like I want it, regardless of the errors I see on Geni and other sites.

However, I do like to use Geni in conjuction with my Ancestry tree, using Ancestry for DNA matches and Geni for tracing the lines out, which is why correct connections are vital in a collaborative tree such as this and all the profile managers should take that seriously.

Debbie Gambrell your sensible, thoughtful responses and dedication to genealogical integrity are always greatly appreciated, thank you.

The About section of his profile rightly notes that he did not die in 1760. He kept a private journal which is extant, proving that he lived at least until the birth of his youngest child, Alexander (b. 1776). Furthermore, the DAR proved he was living in 1790 and served during the Revolutionary War as a civil servant and private:

https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000185680537085

https://services.dar.org/public/dar_research/search_adb/?action=ful...

Of the four pioneering Calhoun brothers, "Patrick and William Calhoun were both made Justices of the Peace for Granville County and subsequently (after 1769) for Ninety Six District under the Provincial Government..."

William Calhoun and John Calhoun were named executors to the 1786 estate of one James Calhoun, in whose will bequests were made to William's son, James and also to John's son, James. Other relatives of James named in his will were wife, Jennet; Alexander Calhoun Moody; and son, William. (This may prove relevant at some point.)

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939L-FXZZ-V?i=29&wc...

I notice that our William's brother, James Calhoun, Sr. has a 'son' James Hampton Calhoun born 85 years after his own reported death.

"William Calhoun, J.P." witnessed the will of John Huston, Sr. (p. 97 in the original book, immediately below a letter of administration for John Huston, Jr.). This will was drafted in 1778 and proved in 1793.

"South Carolina Probate Records, Bound Volumes, 1671-1977," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939L-FX4Q-W?cc=1919417&... : 21 May 2014), Abbeville > Wills, 1787-1815, Vol. 01 > image 79 of 257; citing Department of Archives and History, Columbia.

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939L-FX4Q-W?i=78&wc...

While I'm here, I must humbly question the validity of William Calhoun's "Cincinnati" avatar, as he apparently wasn't an officer during the Revolution, and is not listed among the founding members for South Carolina. If I am mistaken, I would like to see evidence of him being accepted post-humously perhaps, as an honorary member.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_members_of_the_Socie....

I only find a William Calhoun STIRLING, descendant of founding member Capt. Thomas Leftwich of VA.

familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/510752/?offset=40#page=201&viewer=picture&o=search&n=0&q=calhoun

Debra, I appreciate your kind words. We all have to work together on Geni to try to keep the pathways correct so the site can be the valuable tool it's intended to be.

I have a book about the massacre: "The Long Cane Massacre", purchased on Amazon a couple of years ago. I've passed it on to my son and will have to retrieve it to check info, but I think the confusion about him having died in the masscre is someone has listed him on a memorial for those who did. My info is he died in 1790. I want to check the book again though.

Sounds like an interesting book, I look forward to any revelations it may have on the subject.

Found a Calhoun duplicate, parking it here for reference.

https://www.geni.com/merge/compare/6000000008662332833?to=600000018...

Alice "Else" Armstrong

Alice "Else" Armstrong

The duplicate is sketchy, may or may not be a good match.

Her husband is an MP.

https://www.geni.com/merge/compare/6000000008746739513?to=600000018...

Lt. Robert Armstrong

Lt. Robert Armstrong

The sons almost match:

John A Armstrong, I

John Armstrong

"While I'm here, I must humbly question the validity of William Calhoun's "Cincinnati" avatar, as he apparently wasn't an officer during the Revolution, and is not listed among the founding members for South Carolina. If I am mistaken, I would like to see evidence of him being accepted post-humously perhaps, as an honorary member."

I see now that it's an SAR (not Cincinnati) medal. That blurry image has confused me a couple of times already, lol.