Person talk:Jonah Cowing (1)

need sources [8 November 2013]

There is not in the Scituate VRs (neither births nor deaths), nor in the probate of Israel (widow Hannah) who d. 1715, nor in the probate of Israel (widow Lydia) who d. 1733, any mention of a Jonah. He certainly doesn't belong in this family where the father died in 1715 if he is born 1728, but since there are no sources, it is hard to try and clean this up and put him where he might go since I don't think he belongs in the other family either. I find no record of a Jonah Cowen/Cowings anywhere in americanancestor.org's vital record at least up to 1750 when I stopped looking. --Jrich 21:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that's true, but this is serving a broader purpose related to members of the Cowan YDNA study, some of whom believe that there's a Jonah associated with this line. In this context, the question becomes what can be supported through original source documentation, and what can not. That will be put to the question shortly, and then we will change, modify adapted the lineages as seems appropriate based on what we learn from the process.

Here's the current state of what I think can be documented for the family. Since you noticed the discrepancy in the Scituate Cowan Subgroup A line, perhaps you might apply your skills to the similar problem in the fourth generation of the Scituate Cowan Subgroup B line. I'm unable to document them either. Accepting the story line of the Subgroup B participants, the line moved from Providencetown on in Barnstable County, to Scituate, Rhode Island. The similarity of locational names may have led to a confusion of some sort or another. Or perhaps I've just not found the right data set to document their presence in Rhode Island. That too, will be a question that needs to be put. Ditto the Jonah/Joseph 1725-1780, in Subgroup A, though he should be in Scituate MA, or perhaps moved away to another Mass Locality. Haven't been able to show he existed though.

1. REDIRECT Template:Scituate Cowen Descendancy

The reason you're having trouble is because you're basing your research on hearsay instead of on evidence. There was no Jonah/Joseph 1725-1780, and this Jonah is also fictitious as I have cited sources to show. Your chart is pretty but apparently evidence-less and hence has no authority. --Jrich 00:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You really shouldn't jump to conclusions like that. As I said, this is serving a broader purpose. I know precisely what the evidence is, and what it's based on. That does not mean that everyone who's working with me on this understands that. Eventually, they will understand the limitations of their data. There is also something here that you should perhaps think about. Q 00:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe people wouldn't have to "jump to conclusions" if you actually told us "what the evidence is". But I only jump where evidence takes me. So I know that there were no heirs of this Israel in 1748 except Israel, Lydia, and Balch. Further, I know there was no Jonah or Joseph recorded to this couple in Scituate. So if there was a Jonah or a Joseph, it was not obvious, and it would be most courteous to tell us what that is based on. --Jrich 03:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Obviously, the last remark applies to a different Jonah: Person:Jonah Cowen (1), though the point is the same. --Jrich 03:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, courtesy is not your strong point. While I appreciate your efforts to document what's going on, it is you who chose to involve yourself in this particular effort. There's quite a bit of work going on behind the scenes that you don't see, and no I don't intend to go out of my way to provide you with the background. Overall, engaging with you in a conversation is not usually beneficial, mostly because of your preference to toss hand grenades every few comments.

Yes, you do jump to conclusions, merited conclusions in some cases, perhaps unmerited in others. You've shown that repeatedly in past conversations with myself and others, and you show it here. While you have some skill at genealogy, you have not yet come to realize that there are many ways in which that which seems obvious, is not. A trait that shows up quite clearly in your above comments.

In the specific cases we have at hand, yes, its probably true that some of these connections are incorrect, and certainly not supported by documentation currently available to me. But perhaps those who have been working on this line far longer than you or I have additional information that has not yet come forward. I'd like to have them put that on the table for discussion, if they have it. If after reflection they do happen to realize that there's a connection for which no documentation exists, then we can proceed accordingly. At this stage telling them, for instance, that they were wrong, would be quite unmerited. As unmerited as your saying that this or that other bit of information is wrong when you haven't been thorough in doing the background work.

Finally, if you continue in this openly hostile vein, I simply won't respond to your comments, at least not directly to you. Q 12:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to worry about more comments. I have had enough time wasted by various genealogies with no evidence, and I am at a wiki specifically so I can fix such errors so fewer people get fooled in similar manners as I have been. You don't need a wiki to tell people what your genealogy is, there are simpler mechanisms for that, you need a wiki because you want things to be reviewed and corrected. I respect that people have worked years on their genealogy, but I refuse to buy into their mistakes when I have evidence to the contrary. My "broader purpose" and only purpose is to anchor genealogy in objective evidence, as the only possible basis for diverse people to collaborate. The only response needed is to post your evidence, which is all I have been asking for all along. --Jrich 15:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)