User talk:Beaconlight

Welcome

Welcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:

• Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do
• Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial videos and learn how to make wiki pages for your ancestors
• Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed
• Create a User Profile page to tell other people about yourself and the families you are researching
• Read the etiquette page to learn expected behavior on a wiki
• Find other ways to get involved on the community portal
• Ask questions on our Support page

If you need any help, we will be glad to answer your questions. Just go to the Support page, click on the Add Topic link, type your message, then click the Save Page button. Thanks for participating and see you around! --Support 08:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Deborah Savage [28 January 2020]

The page shows Benjamin Thwing's wife as Deborah Unknown for a reason - because that is what the most authoritative sources on this family say. Personally I find Virkus completely unacceptable as evidence because I have found ridiculous errors in his book, but aside from my opinion of it, it is unsuitable because it does not tell how he knows the wife's maiden name was Deborah Savage. Yes, it is easy to find this source, and this source has a convenient answer, easy to copy, but as I indicated in my previous post, the fact that he has an answer and the "better" sources do not, suggests his is incorrect. Note that while on p. 859 he identifies her as Deborah Savage, on p. 858 he identifies her as Deborah ---, i.e., maiden name unknown. Why? Because he appears to simply be printing the information his subscribers gave them. 2 subscribers say Deborah --- while one thinks Deborah Savage. The only other source I can find (The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography) appears to be of exactly the same ilk - dumps of the family tree as provided by some subscriber.

Since her name is unknown, it is difficult to say what it is. I have spent considerable time looking for evidence that her maiden name is or isn't Savage. I have found no indication of any kind of what her maiden name was. Even if the name was arrived at through speculation, that would be acceptable, as long as the reasoning behind the speculation was explained (assuming it showed adequate historical and cultural understanding). I would love to know an answer, even this answer, if there is evidence to support it. Perhaps a deed calling someone brother or sister or mother or father? But to simply state something 300 years later, even in print, does not make it true. --Jrich 01:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, as you do not have proof that her surname is unknown, and you do have a reliable genealogical source (yes al genealogy sources wil have errors) please do NOT remove a surname just because you disagree with it's authenticity. Until you can find a beter reason to remove it, it should remain as Savage. BTW, you may be aware that marriage records are difficult to find , and sometimes unavailable for early American genealogyand mariages or even births before the 1700s. In fact, many times they were not even recorded except in family papers.

Referring to Hathitrust, it is very common in genealogical writing to only list the surname of an individual the first time it relates to that individual in a paragraph, so seeing the name listed siply as Deborah (without the surname) on the next page, means nothing. Pleae stop removing the surname Saage simply because you personally do not believe that the source is trustworthy.

Nope, I don't see why I should. It is not your page, it is a community page. It was posted unknown long before you joined WeRelate. What gives you the right to insist that it say Savage? Virkus itself has multiple answers. Why should that one answer over the other IN THE SAME SOURCE be used? Respect for the community clearly demands that objective evidence be posted to justify changing data others have posted. Out of respect for the community interests and out of a desire that the standards at Werelate be more meaningful than whatever the last editor wants, I must decline your request.

Your reference to Hathitrust is confused. Hathitrust has nothing to do with this, it is only a website that offers a scanned image of the book. And your point about not repeating the surname is exactly backwards. The first instance give no surname (Charles Franklin Thwing), and only last one gives the surname (Eugene Thwing), so the missing surname CANNOT be meant to indicate repetition. But that is immaterial, even if they both said the same thing, the fact that it does not indicate how it is known, means it cannot be verified and analyzed by the community, and hence does not serve the community interests. --Jrich 15:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This page gave a maiden name of unknown since it was posted in 2008 until your change. Since you have first changed this page, I have added multiple sources agreeing with the original state of the page, and I have demonstrated why your source is not authoritative and does not even present a coherent answer (instead containing different entries that give different presentations). I have compromised in leaving Savage as an alternate name even though I believe it to have no basis and most likely completely fictitious. Yet that does not seem to be good enough for you. Without adding anything further to respond or explain you simply change it back to your answer. That is not collaboration. Provide some quality evidence or leave it alone.

You say "you do not have proof that her surname is unknown". Of course, one cannot prove a negative, so that would be impossible, and that statement is meaningless. I have shown that unknown is the consensus. It is certainly more than you have done to show it is Savage, and that being a specific fact, is capable of being proven, but you haven't. The other way I could show Savage is a wrong answer is to refute your evidence, but you don't have any. Which makes your argument unfair and a double standard. You don't know when or where she was born, who her parents were, where the marriage happened or when. All you have is a name taken from a lineage of one person of unknown credentials who d. in 1936 (Find A Grave: here) 8 generations removed from the person in question. They had no first hand knowledge, you couldn't have talked to them, they are beyond being questioned, and their claim is published in a source with no evidence, outnumbered in that very source by claims that say unknown. Even if their claim originally had merit, which given the typical history of such claims is doubtful, it has no value now because without evidence it cannot be verified. Searching for supporting evidence has turned up nothing and no such person can be identified pre-marriage. It there is evidence, it would obviously be a service to genealogy to present it, and it should be posted, but otherwise, the current state is proper for a collaborative website. --Jrich 06:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)