Genealogy from the perspective of a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon, LDS)

Monday, September 7, 2015

Correcting the FamilySearch Family Tree -- A Retrospective and Case Study Part Three

This is the third installment of this post series. You may wish to start with the other installments, if you haven't already read them by clicking on the following links:

http://rejoiceandbeexceedingglad.blogspot.com/2015/09/correcting-familysearch-family-tree_3.html
http://rejoiceandbeexceedingglad.blogspot.com/2015/09/correcting-familysearch-family-tree.html

The purpose of this series is to illustrate, by using an actual example from the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, the process of correcting an existing entry and verifying the family line. I have chosen to examine the family of my Great-great-grandfather, Thomas Parkinson, (b. 12 December 1830, d. 3 March 1906). The Family Tree currently shows his birth information as follows:

Birth
12 December 1830
Farcet, Huntingdonshire, England, United Kingdom

His death information is also reported and is the following:

Death
3 March 1906
Beaver, Beaver, Utah, United States

The current record shows a Christening data and place:

Christening
21 October 1831
Cathedral, Manchester, Lancashire, England

I can say one thing for certain, if he was born in Huntingdonshire, it is very unlikely that the Christening date and place are correct. Likewise, if he was Christened in Manchester, it is extremely unlikely that he was born in Huntingdonshire. 

There are currently no sources listed in the Family Tree that shed any light on his birth or christening. One of the very first steps in verifying the information in the Family Tree is to plot all the places on a map. This is easily done with Google Maps as I showed in the second installment of this series. Here is another map showing the location of the reported birthplace and the location of the christening place:


In addition, both his parents are reported to have been born and also died in Huntingdonshire. This is the kind of anomaly that has to be reconciled.

His death is another matter. Here is a copy of his Death Certificate. 


I have other records that confirm the death date. However, you can see that the Death Certificate also has a calculated birth date that does not concur with the birthdate presently recorded in the Family Tree. The other death record sources are simply copies of the information on the Death Certificate. 

Presently, there are no sources attached for the Christening date. It is interesting to see when and where his siblings were born. They are as follows:
  • William Parkinson born in Cambridge, England, 30 September 1828 (no christening date)
  • Thomas
  • Sarah Parkinson, b. 24 May 1833 Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, England, Christened 19 July 1835, Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, England
  • Eliza Parkinson, b. 15 June 1837 Middlemoor, Huntingdonshire, England, Christened 19 July 1837 Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, England. 
Hmm. This seems to be rather consistent with birth information. Here is a map showing the four locations:


What about the first birthplace in Cambridge? Well, now we have to get into some history before we conclude that the information is incorrect. Cambridge is the current Shire County of the area. The current District is Huntingdonshire, but the "Traditional" county was also Huntingdonshire. So, as the map shows, Ramsey and Farcet are both in Cambridgeshire. This means the apparent anomaly may not really be a problem. It just means that there is no specific birth or christening place for sibling William Parkinson.

The next step is to verify anyone of the Parkinson siblings' birth and/or christening dates. Stay tuned. It looks like I will either have to order microfilm or drive to Salt Lake. 

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Resources for LDS Church Records

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has accumulated a huge number of records important to family history. These records, if available, are in the form of books, microforms (microfilm and microfiche) and online databases. Some of these records are available only to members of the Church and further, only to those members who possess a Temple recommend after passing through a series of interviews with Church leaders. However, there are a lot of records that are available for use by anyone who is interested.

Most of the available records are listed in the FamilySearch.org Catalog by locality or topic. I suggest looking by locality or place and then looking in the resultant lists for "Church Records." Most of the available LDS records will show up in this type of search. There are also a number of books and microforms listed in various library catalogs around the world. I would suggest a careful search in the WorldCat.org catalog for "LDS Records" and other similar search terms. Here is a sample list of some of the records I have located:

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Bear River Stake (Utah). Church Records,. Salt Lake City, Utah: Filmed by the LDS Church Historian’s Office, 1969.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Genealogical Department. LDS Church Records and Research Aids. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Department, 1978.

———. Major Genealogical Record Sources: Series F: LDS Church Records and Research Aids. Salt Lake City, Utah: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Genealogical Society., ///.

———. Research Aids and LDS Church Records. [Salt Lake City, Utah: The Department, 1976.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Genealogical Society. LDS Church Records and Research Aids,. [Salt Lake City, 1968.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Utah Stake. Church Records, 1856-1912. Salt Lake City, Utah: Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1956.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Wairoa Branch (Hawke’s Bay). Church records,. Salt Lake City, Utah: Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1959.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Weston Ward (Idaho), and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Oneida Stake (Idaho). Church Records,. Salt Lake City, Utah: Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1950.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Whangarei District (New Zealand). LDS Church Records. Salt Lake City, Utah: Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1987.

This list gives you an idea of the types of records that might be available. Larger libraries, especially university libraries in the western United States, will likely have records and histories of specific Church units. It is very important to carefully search the university catalogs, especially those libraries with Special Collections.

Observations on Duplicate Entries in the FamilySearch Family Tree

It is time to return to the issue of duplicates in the FamilySearch Family Tree. I've written on this issue several times in the past, but it still remains one of the most obvious problems with the full implementation of the Family Tree. In a nutshell, the issue is that the Family Tree is a compilation of a substantial portion of the contributed family history information about the ancestral families of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, because members of the Church have relatives who were not members, either because they were born before the Church was organized or because they never joined the Church, the Family Tree contains a broad spectrum of individuals both inside and outside of the Church membership.

Ignoring the method by which the individual entries were accumulated, it is easy to understand how duplicates originated. Despite efforts by the Church through the Genealogical Society of Utah and other organizations, the accumulated databases which contributed to the Family Tree contained a vast number of duplicate entries. The important thing to understand about these duplicates presently is that they exist in the Family Tree, no matter where they actually came from originally. Due to the fact that many of these duplicate entries were submitted as complete pedigrees and then included as complete pedigrees, the entries in the Family Tree are not just duplicate individuals but duplicate pedigrees. I've been discussing this fact in my blog posts for the past eight years. The reality is that if you find a duplicate individual entry, it is very likely that there is an entire duplicate pedigree attached to that individual. Perhaps, you could think of these as bits and pieces of pedigrees floating around in hyperspace all living in the ocean of data called the Family Tree. The key to understanding this complex process is the realization that many of these early contributed pedigrees and individuals were included in the new.FamilySearch.org program which subsequently became the basis for the Family Tree.

This massive collection of duplicate data creates a challenge for not only the users of the program but the programmers and developers. The main reason for the challenge is that because of the multiple submissions over time, the entries vary in their content. Although several entries may refer to the same person, the information submitted could have been different depending on many factors, including the ability of the original submitter to submit the information correctly. The number and variety of entries constituting the duplicates, challenges the ability of the most talented programmers. For this reason, much of the work of eliminating the duplication falls on the individual user.

Unfortunately, many of the current users of the program have no concept of the amount of duplication in the Family Tree and what is further unfortunate is that the tools for eliminating the duplication have yet to be fully implemented. The present limitation on the elimination of duplicates comes from the relationship between the database used for the new.FamilySearch.org website and its incorporation as the basis for the Family Tree. In short, without going into detail, there are several limitations imposed by the new.FamilySearch.org program that are presently limiting the Family Tree program from fully addressing the issue of merging duplicates.

To put it bluntly, the Family Tree program can neither see nor resolve existing duplicates in many cases. This means that even though you use more than one method of searching for duplicates, you cannot find all of the duplicates.

There is a real question as to whether or not all of the duplicates need to be found. There is also a question as to whether or not new duplicates are being created. It is obvious that new duplicates are being created by the current users of the program. If the program cannot find all of the existing duplicates, then it is inevitable that duplicates will be created when new people are added to the program. This will occur more frequently as long as the program itself is unable to find a class of duplicates inherited from the new.FamilySearch.org program.

The existence of duplicate entries in the Family Tree will always be a challenge. But many of the challenges of the present duplicate situation will be resolved once the connection between the old program, new.FamilySearch.org, and the Family Tree is completely eliminated. When will this occur? Estimates now place the completion of the transfer of the data into calendar year 2016. Maybe? Meanwhile, there are challenges in using the program, but once most of the obvious duplicates have been eliminated from a particular family line, there is really no reason why the program cannot be used as intended. Once the final transfer of information from new.FamilySearch.org is completed, many of the issues with the present Family Tree will be rapidly resolved. Personally, I'm looking forward to this time when we can finally put this particular problem behind us and start in on the real issue of correcting the data that exists in the Family Tree.

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Time Out for the Timpanogos Storytelling Festival


This weekend, my wife and I are taking a little timeout to attend the Timpanogos Storytelling Festival in nearby Orem, Utah. We have had a fabulous time listening to the stories told by these extraordinary tellers. Here is a summary from the website:
We are best known for our annual storytelling festival the Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of each Labor Day weekend. Though it started out as a backyard event in a small town neighborhood in 1990, it is now the largest storytelling festival in the west and sets the standard for festivals across the nation. From that humble beginning we have grown steadily each year. 
In addition to the festival, we now support the annual Timpanogos Storytelling Conference and several storytelling contests and retreats. But it doesn’t stop there. We have expanded our influence to reach children in schools and youth across the country in ways we would have never imagined 25 years ago.
Quite a few years ago, a local family in Mesa, Arizona started a similar storytelling event. But when the city took over the event, it quickly faded away. We loved going to the Mesa event and one of the reasons we looked forward to being in Utah was the opportunity to attend the Timpanogos Storytelling Festival. This is our second year attending the festival and it is better than last year.

Sorry about the lack of posts. Take some time to look at some of the hundreds you may have missed in the past few weeks.

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Correcting the FamilySearch Family Tree -- A Retrospective and Case Study Part Two

This is the second installment of this post series. You may wish to start with the first installment, if you haven't already read it, by clicking on the following link:

http://rejoiceandbeexceedingglad.blogspot.com/2015/09/correcting-familysearch-family-tree.html

In my first installment, I have been discussing the issues involved in making initial corrections to the entries in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree. The main issue is the fact that the Family Tree is the accumulation of years of user-generated contributions that are often inconsistent, inaccurate or incomplete. Another major issue is the fact that since the Family Tree is a composite of multiple contributions, there are a number of duplicate entries.

It may seem obvious but if there are duplicate entries in the Family Tree and if you are making "corrections" to individuals in the Family Tree, then you run the risk of making the corrections or editing only one of many copies of the same individual. The danger is that you may not be aware of the duplicates and the program may not even find them. In order to proceed with some assurance that your work will not be lost through future merge procedures, is important to verify that there are no readily discoverable merges possible for an individual you intend to focus on. You may need to do both a search for duplicates and search under the "Find" link for additional, possible duplicate entries. The Family Tree program has some present limitations on its ability to find and resolve duplicates, however, and you may wish to have patience and wait until you feel that the particular line or person you are working on is satisfactorily resolved. I will return to this issue as they arise in the case study.

Now, here is the particular line I am using for my examples in this series.


From my last post, here is the status of the source citations for the Parkinson line:
  • Thomas Parkinson born in Farcet, Huntingdoneshire, England (26 sources)
  • James Parkinson born in Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, England (father) (12 sources)
  • Charles Parkinson born in Great Raveley, Upwood, Huntingdon, England (grandfather) (1 source)
  • William Parkinson born in Great Raveley, Upwood, Huntingdon, England (no sources)
As I pointed out, none of the 26 sources cited for Thomas Parkinson (my Great-great-grandfather) pertain to his birth. You may also note, just from this list, that there are three different places listed for the births of these four individuals. How do we know if we have selected the right individuals?

I usually start by checking the event locations on a map. Here is a Google Map screenshot showing the geographic proximity of the three locations:


The first thing I noted is that I had misspelled the place name for "Great Raveley." So, I have now made the changes on my file. It is helpful to know that all these locations are within ten miles or so of each other. Since Thomas Parkinson immigrated to the United States and got married in United States, We need to initially find some record that verifies his connection to Farcet in England. 

As I look at the sources for Thomas Parkinson, I find that none of the sources listed substantiate either his birth date or relationship his parents. In examining each of the sources, I find the following concerning the family of Thomas Parkinson.


Here is a screenshot of the "source."



This source is to an 1850 U.S. Federal Census record of a family with children born in both England and Massachusetts. All of my Thomas Parkinson children are well documented as being born in California and Utah. None of the children were born in either England or Massachusetts. This source has been attached for the wrong family. I can now detach the source with an explanation. This leaves 25 sources still with none supporting either Thomas' birth or parentage. 

I suggest that as you move back in your analysis of your family on the Family Tree that you examine each source carefully to see if the detail information is supported and accurate. At the same time, if any sources do not apply to your ancestors, then they should be detached. 

The next step would be to see if the details claimed for Thomas' birth and parentage can be substantiated. I usually begin the process by looking to see if FamilySearch.org has any hints or records that can be searched. In this case, there are no record hints and here is what a search from the catalog produces:


Very few of these entries pertain to my Thomas Parkinson. Because we have a record of his residences in the United States in California and Utah, it is fairly easy to distinguish between those with duplicate names and those that appear with inappropriate places. Identifying places is crucial in making these types of distinctions. Here the ancestor would not likely be in England in 1891 and in Beaver, Beaver, Utah in 1900. Especially when the U.S. Census records showed the family in Beaver, Beaver, Utah in the 1880 U.S. Federal Census. This is true because he died in Beaver, Beaver, Utah in 1908.

For a summary to this point. For each line in your family tree, you need to carefully examine the information provided and the sources to see whether or not the information has been correctly transcribed and to further determine whether or not the sources are appropriately attached. As is shown in this case, there are no substantiating sources for Thomas Parkinson's birth or parentage. That will be the subject my next post.

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Correcting the FamilySearch Family Tree -- A Retrospective and Case Study Part One

Stepping off into the FamilySearch.org Family Tree is like taking a journey into an unknown world. You can prepare, based on your present knowledge, but you are very likely to find conditions that will surprise you and see things that will challenge your credulity. It helps to approach the task with a large measure of skepticism and a well developed methodology for handling fantasy. In this regard, I quote Frodo from The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien (Tolkien, J.R.R. The Fellowship of the Ring Being the First Part of The Lord of the Rings. London: Collins, 2001).
The Road goes ever on and on
Down from the door where it began.
Now far ahead the Road has gone,
And I must follow, if I can,
Pursuing it with eager feet,
Until it joins some larger way,
Where many paths and errands meet.
And whither then? I cannot say.
There not really an adequate way to prepare for a journey where you may find a whole new set of ancestors and find out that your parents and grandparents are either not who you think they are, and that there are even darker secrets that you were never told.

My own journey began long ago and and far away and I am still traveling. I am a little wiser and very travel weary, but I must still press on.

What in the world am I talking about? That is probably a valid question. Let me first define the word "fantasy." Fantasy is the faculty of activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable. If you are one of my fellow travelers in the fantasy world of the FamilySearch.org Family Tree, then you know exactly what I am talking about. If you are a casual observer (one who came to watch the movie) then you are probably lost in your own fantasy world.

Our assignment, if we choose to accept it, is to separate truth (as far as it can be ascertained) from fantasy in the Family Tree and replace the imaginary world created by our relatives with something that approximates reality.

Let's start the journey.

Each of my current ancestral lines in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree (hereinafter just plain Family Tree) has been verified and copiously sourced back five generations. For this series, I am going to be focusing on my direct lines. I am aware that there may be some issues with the details of their descendancy, but I am going to ignore that issue until another day and another series of posts. As an ultimate family history skeptic, I will start with my own surname line.

My father has 49 sources. This is far from the total that can still be added, but it is adequate to establish his birth, marriage and death with a reasonable degree of certainty. The circumstances of my own birth are also adequately represented in the Family Tree. There is likewise a fairly substantial degree of certainty about his parents. My Grandfather, Leroy Parkinson Tanner (b. 1895, d. 1944) was one of the first ancestors I encountered where the data was deficient or contradictory. His death was well documented but not either adequately sourced or completely accurate. He died in a truck/train accident on 5 November 1944 in Grants, Valencia, New Mexico, United States. Some years ago, I attempted to find a death certificate and found that the county had changed. Grants, New Mexico is currently in Cibola County. It took me a while to figure out that any record of his death would be in Valencia County, but I quickly found the death certificate after making that discovery. Leroy Parkinson Tanner has 43 sources listed in the Family Tree.

This was a very early example of the lessons I learned along my family history journey. If the death date had been recorded with the county that existed at the time of his death, I would have found the record immediately. As it was, I needed to do some preliminary historical work on the status of the counties at the time of his death to find the original record. We will come to this lesson again and again during the course of this post series.

Leroy Parkinson Tanner's father was Henry Martin Tanner (b. 1852, d. 1935). Henry Martin Tanner has 80 sources listed. When I started doing research over 33 years ago, my investigations of Henry Martin Tanner were some of the first to give me an idea about the fantasy world built by my relatives. As I have mentioned many times in previous posts, he was born in San Bernardino, California. Just as with my Grandfather, the county recorded was the present county of San Bernardino. However, I discovered that San Bernardino County was not created until 1853 and Henry was born in Los Angeles County. You might argue that this is a minor issue but we will see that it is details like this that take us off the path and create a fantasy world.

Now we are going to take a side path. Henry's wife, my Great-grandmother, was Eliza Ellen Parkinson (b. 1857, d. 1930). She has 44 sources in the Family Tree. At this point, I should point out that Henry and Eliza were Arizona pioneers. They show up in a number of history books about the settlement of Arizona and their family became prominent in Arizona. A company started by several of Henry's sons became, at one time, the Arizona company with the largest employment in the state.

Eliza Ellen Parkinson's father was Thomas Parkinson (b. 1830, d. 1906). Here is where our journey (and my examples and case study) really begins. Thomas Parkinson (my Great-great-grandfather) has presently 26 sources listed. He was born in England. He traveled to Australia where he met his wife as they both came to America. He got married in San Pedro, Los Angeles, California (maybe), and died in Utah. I decided to take this detour from the Tanner line because once I go further back with the Tanners, the Family Tree is in a constant state of flux with changes being constantly made. So, it is off to the Parkinsons.

Here is where we begin. Thomas Parkinson was supposedly born in Farcet, Hntingdonshire, England, United Kingdom on 12 December 1830. This is what is recorded in the Family Tree. His youngest child, Mary Jane Parkinson (b. 1855, d. 1878) was reported to have been born in San Bernardino, San Bernardino, California, United States. Looking at the dates and places where the children are born will become really important in this discussion. Why do I say that Thomas Parkinson was "supposedly" born in Farcet? Because there are no sources of the 26 listed that document his birth. In this case the birth date and place are going to become crucial. Since all his children were born in the United States, I will move on to Thomas and his progenitors. Here is the first issue as shown in this list of Thomas and his parents and grandparents. This is what is presently in the Family Tree.
  • Thomas Parkinson born in Farcet, Huntingdoneshire, England
  • James Parkinson born in Ramsey, Huntingdonshire, England (father) (12 sources)
  • Charles Parkinson born in Great Reveley, Upwood, Huntingdon, England (grandfather) (1 source)
  • William Parkinson born in Great Reveley, Upwood, Huntingdon, England (no sources)
This family is the subject of a surname book, which, by the way, has almost no sources listed for any of the information. Here is the surname book:

Parkinson, Diane, and John Parkinson. James Parkinson of Ramsey: His Roots and His Branches : England, Australia, America : a Biographical History and Genealogical Record of the Family of James and Elizabeth Chattle Parkinson. Austin, Tex: Published for the James Parkinson Family Association by Historical Publications, 1987.

If you focus on the number of sources listed for this family line as I mentioned above, you will begin to see the problem. In short, it is my contention, that the lack of sources for the birth of Thomas Parkinson is the place in this family line where reality becomes fantasy.

Stay tuned for future installments.


Tuesday, September 1, 2015

My Goal: One Video a Week


For the past month or so, I have had a goal to produce a new video for the Brigham Young University Family History Library every week. So far, I am on schedule and six video offerings have been uploaded to the BYU Family History Library Channel.

YouTube.com is mostly known for its viral videos, but in reality, it has become the "go-to" source for specific, graphic information on about any subject. I use it for car repair, building models, fixing things around the house, and many other uses. Not surprisingly, there are tens of thousands of genealogy related videos. If you upload your own videos to YouTube.com, you can create a "Channel" or collection of your related videos. There are thousands (perhaps millions) of channels and many of them are sponsored by genealogically oriented businesses and individuals. You can subscribe to a channel and YouTube.com makes a list of your subscribed channels as part of the startup screen when you go to the website. You can then check to see if new videos have been uploaded recently or since your last visit.

The key to working with YouTube.com is to ignore the garbage.

Here is a list of a few of the major genealogically oriented channels, besides the BYU Family History Library:

The list could go on and on, but you probably get the idea.