Person talk:Mianduel Gibbs (1)

Thanks for your help today!

I have a question / comment. I'm looking at revisions you (Jrich) are doing for example this one just now:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:Mianduel_Gibbs_%281%29&diff=prev&oldid=22986323

My intention is to locate the images of the original record from familysearch and link it to the citation which is what I did. You then removed the link to the image of the original record. Some of these records are nearly impossible to find because they are not indexed correctly. So whenever possible I would like to keep the links and the citation as quoted by family search and the link to the record so they can be found by myself and others later. In my opinion record indexes are not all that helpful when it comes to proving something. You really need the actual image of the record and a complete citation of which the record can be found again and verified. Does that make sense?

Best regards,

Roland

Edit:

Let me give you can example

I can take this (the original version);

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:Mianduel_Gibbs_%281%29&oldid=22986276

Massachusetts, United States. Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915. "Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915," database with images, FamilySearch Image of Death Record (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NWVG-DNL : accessed 13 June 2016), Merandriel L. Gibbs Ballard, 28 May 1866; citing Framingham, Massachusetts, v 193 p 122, State Archives, Boston; FHL microfilm 960,188.; Mirandriel S (Gibbs) Bullard, Widow b Sudbury d Framingham Age at Death 60 years 1 month 10 days (Calc Birth April 18, 1806) Father Ashael Gibbs born Sudbury, Mother Sally born Sudbury.

I can cut and page that onto the header of legal paper and print it out with the image and send that off the Mayflower Society and they will accept it. They have the image, they have the source of the image.

Now the new version:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:Mianduel_Gibbs_%281%29&oldid=22986323

1.0 1.1 Massachusetts, United States. Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915, [1].

Deaths Registered in the Town of Framingham for the Year eighteen hundred and sixty-six No.: 19 Date of Death: May 28 [1866] Name: Merandriel S. (Gibbs) Bullard Sex: F Condition: Wid Age: 60 y. 1 m. 10 d. [birth calculates to about 18 Apr 1806] Cause: Cancer in the Stomach

I can't do anything with this because it has no image (primary record is missing) and I can't locate where the record is. So if I send that to the Mayflower society they are going to tell me to forget about it.

I think linking primary sources to the profiles is the whole point. [posted by User:RolandHenryBakerIII.]

The link is in the page number field and I didn't think a redundant specification of the URL was necessary. It shows up as "[1]" in the new version above, but on the page, it is an active link. --Jrich 04:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I am going to respectfully disagree. This has been hashed out ad nauseam in the book "Evidence Explained" which is considered the handbook on how to properly cite and present sources for genealogy. The citation according to this book should contain all the elements as I originally presented them such as the date accessed, etc. This is exactly how Evidence Explained would have you include in the record:

(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NWVG-DNL : accessed 13 June 2016), Merandriel L. Gibbs Ballard, 28 May 1866; citing Framingham, Massachusetts, v 193 p 122, State Archives, Boston; FHL microfilm 960,188.; Mirandriel S (Gibbs) Bullard

An historian at the Mayflower Society would accept this citation with a print of the image. They would not accept this:

Massachusetts, United States. Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915, [1]. Deaths Registered in the Town of Framingham for the Year eighteen hundred and sixty-six No.: 19 Date of Death: May 28 [1866] Name: Merandriel S. (Gibbs) Bullard Sex: F Condition: Wid Age: 60 y. 1 m. 10 d. [birth calculates to about 18 Apr 1806]

That has a link to the image - but not the entire source information. It doesn't contain the link to the record of the image. For example there is no way to easily figure out for this URL how it can be found:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-266-11128-54791-43?cc=1463156

I don't know which name is even be referred to because none of the names listed on the index match the profile. That is because it is indexed incorrectly. So the person needs that information. The original links has all the detail about the image. In many cases those details are key because I can take them to a Town Clerk or a county Superior Court, etc and have them looked up. Without all those details the image is meaningless. This URL gives me all the information I need:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NWVG-DNL

The new URL does not:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DZBS-MT8?mode=g&i=430&wc=MJCX-VZ9%3A1043008901%3Fcc%3D1463156&cc=1463156

Let's look at another example. Here you entirely removed a whole citation that is critical:

Old version:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:George_Bullard_%2814%29&oldid=22986250

New version:

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:George_Bullard_%2814%29

The old version has exactly one link to a primary source. It was properly cited and the image was easily accessible. The new profile has exactly zero primary sources. The only sources listed now are derivative source. The book has no citations at all. Furthermore it is full of errors and could never been used as quality source for any purpose. The only way to show who his parents are is with that marriage record. So the marriage record is a source for his birth not just his marriage. Marriage records can also be used as primary sources where a birth record is missing. This is something the Mayflower Society would accept. But they would accept the information currently shown.

So again I respectfully disagree with you. We should be following the accepted practices of Evidence Explained with the key being all the elements I explained above. It should be simple to find the primary sources and all the information about the source. A clear and concise explanation if needed should be added. Simply citing an index or linking directly to an image without this information is not up to modern standards of documentation.

So I am going to go back over the next few days and undo all these changes. Please do not remove citations of primary sources, links to the full citations and links to images. These elements are what modern genealogy is about. Basing profiles on derivative sources or making the source obscure and harder to find is exactly what modern genealogists are trying to get away from. As a scientist I am fully behind this effort. This should be scientific. [posted by User:RolandHenryBakerIII.]

My version of the citation had a link to the scanned image. Your version of the citation had a link to an index created by well-meaning, but unvetted, untrained volunteers (e.g., I believe the handwritten document says "Merandriel S. (Gibbs) Bullard, not "Merandriel L. Gibbs Ballard" as the index says). So if anybody removed citations of primary sources it was you. However, ultimately we were citing the exact same source, yours was one click further away.

The format of the pages at WeRelate is not intended to be cut-and-pastable into a Mayflower Descendant application, nor into any other external use. Nor are text version of URLs often found, except by people that do not know the preferred method of showing URLs, because it is ugly, not really meaningful to a reader, and often causes strange side-effects with the page layout software. It is assumed that if people want to follow the link they will click on it, and if they want the URL they will right mouse on it and "copy link location".

It is probably good practice to follow Evidence Explained in your private records. It is not part of the conventions at this website. Don't know if it was considered, but my guess, it was too hard to implement and too detrimental to quick data entry. In particular, we have Source pages that centralize some of the information about a source, so that items like "'Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915,' database with images, FamilySearch" is not necessary in the text of the citation, and becomes redundant clutter. My editing was done to make the entry more readable by adding line breaks. My link took the reader to the page with the data, and at that page, familysearch provides a citation if they need one, so I removed the wordy citation as distracting from the genealogical information, which what is needed to understand why the data presented is thought to be correct. In the interests of some conciseness, it is assumed people that are really interested will pursue the indicated sources on their own.

This is a community website, and the pages are owned by no one. They are not meant to be your private workspace as you prepare to visit some Town Clerk or apply to Mayflower Descendants. They are living documents subject to edit at any time by any one of thousands of users. I appreciate work done based on sources. There is little enough of that done here. I will attempt to respect your source citations unless I find them detrimental to readability. I hope you might try adopting to the conventions of this website, such as signing posts, entering dates in sentence case instead of all caps, entering Find A Grave links using the fgravemem template. And when "I have a letter from Edwards Church", you may want to substitute your user name for "I", or better yet, scan the letter in and attach the image, so others can actually see the details. --Jrich 13:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You are trying to switch topics buy asserting that I am trying to own profiles. I find that hateful and dishonest. There has been no evidence that I have tried to own anything. And I have not communicated to you any wish that you do not edit profiles I worked on. I've worked for years on various genealogy sites and one impediment I dislike most is ownership of profiles. In fact I thanked you for your help. I see that you have changed some all upper case months into a proper format and I appreciate that. I see that you have added some sources before I got to it myself and I appreciate that as well. I also noticed that you added some cause of death and occupation information and that is also helpful. However, that is not in anyway the topic of this talk session. So I ask you to me honest and straight forward in your discussion.

Also you completely evaded the issue I brought up regarding your deletion of the only primary source for George_Bullard.

Your Mayflower Society argument is a straw man argument. My explanation above has nothing to do with The Mayflower Society specifically. My point which was clearly stated was that evidence needs to be cited in a way acceptable to modern genealogical principles. Records do not speak for themselves!!! I can not stress this enough. I'm not sure where you picked up the notion that Werelate does not support Evidence Explained. I have worked for years with people who have been on this site from the beginning and they are all strong advocates of Evidence Explained and have used these methods on this site. To do otherwise is to assume that records speak for themselves. If some users are not doing this they need to step up there game. Because some folks haven't done it in the past correctly is no excuse to continue to do such a poor job of documenting not just the record but the information about the record as well. This is not optional is it essential.

For example this image:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-DZBS-MT8?i=430&wc=MJCX-VZ9%3A1043008901%3Fcc%3D1463156&cc=1463156

Has no volume number, no page number (except on the image) no GS Film Number, no refernece ID no image number, no name for the person in question emphasized, no proper citation. And most importantly it contains a long list of individuals none of whom have the same name as the person on the profile and it is tiresome to try to figure out which person one is supposed to look at. And furthermore there is no way to move from that screen to this screen which has the information about the record:

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NWVG-DNL

The record by itself is not qualify as evidence. Evidence requires the record and as much information as possible about the record. One should always use the second link and not the first.

Also identifying what the link is such as Death Record on FamiltySearch is necessary. No one should have to click on a link when they have no idea where that link is taking them. For security reasons alone it's a good idea to include this information. But aside from that we shouldn't be making readers jump through hoops to try to figure out what evidence is available to them.

I think you need to be less concerned about eye candy and more concerned about creating a profile of lasting value that will endure the transition into the era of evidence based genealogy. No one in genealogy is going to back away from a profile because it includes all the information necessary to provide evidence for the details shown. Quite the contrary - that's exactly what they want. The types of people who read The American Genealogist don't want a half-baked citation list even if it looks pretty.

Moreover FamilySearch was one of the first sites to offer citations with their records. There is nothing ugly about them and if there were it would irrelevant. This is an Evidence based genealogy site and not window dressing. There is nothing wrong with their citation because they always include a short URL that fits nicely in the citation box:

"Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NWVG-DNL : accessed 13 June 2016), Merandriel L. Gibbs Ballard, 28 May 1866; citing Framingham, Massachusetts, v 193 p 122, State Archives, Boston; FHL microfilm 960,188.

That's exactly how it should be done. I'm sorry to respectfully disagree but the URL I posted is in every way superior to the URL you posted. Yours was incomplete. I would appreciate it if you would switch the way you cite FamilySearch.

Now I concede some folks that don't know what they are doing my take a really long URL from say google books and post it in the citation box without using "[]" and that indeed is a bad idea. But in no case have I done this. Again that's not the topic of this discussion. But I agree in principle that that would be a terrible idea.

As for your other suggestions:

• signing posts,
• entering dates in sentence case instead of all caps,
• entering Find A Grave links using the fgravemem template.
• substitute your user name for "I"

Those are all good suggestions. Thank you. I still wish to include the Find A Grave number in the citation.

As for scanning letters and posting them I think that's a pretty bad idea for a number of reasons including the fact that the person who wrote the letter is living and has not given us permission to post it.

[posted by User:RolandHenryBakerIII.]