GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-01 > 1138642248


From: ellen Levy <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DNA Projects :Ownership question
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 09:30:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <REME20060127003320@alum.mit.edu>


John & List:

Basically, my Kauffman surname project has revealed
that some of the genealogical information provided in
the book, "Amish and Amish-Mennonite Genealogies," is
incorrect. This book is essentially considered the
"bible" for Amish and Amish-Mennonite researchers. I
discovered about 3-4 months ago that they were working
on a revision of the book, and wrote directly to the
person in charge of the revision (we will call her
"Ms. L."). I received a pleasant but non-commital
response. I attempted contact again a few weeks
later, but received no response, so I dropped the
matter. My schedule is just too busy sometimes to
pursue such things.

A participant from the project had some contact with a
person on the revision and urged me to recontact Ms.
L. I did so, asking whether they would be interested
in receiving updated Kauffman genealogies based on
what the DNA project had revealed. Again, a pleasant
and gracious response devoid of any real content,
other than inviting to me "submit documentation." I
"cc" other members of the revision team - no one else
responded.

I then wrote a very direct email, asking the
following: How will the information I provide be used
to guide the revision team? And what information
exactly is the team interested in receiving? Do they
want the actual marker results, the participating
lineages, etc? How will genetic ambiguities be dealt
with in the revision (ie, the DNA says "related," but
doesn't say HOW two participants are related). I
asked a number of other specific questions and also
provided examples. I also wanted to know whether
genetic testing was going to explicitly discussed in
the book, ie, modifications to genealogy being
attributed to results from the Kauffman DNA Project.

The following was the response I received: The revised
edition is to correct any errors in the first edition
and add any missing names and dates, etc. for
descendants up to 1850. They request that I send
copies of pages from the first edition with red
corrections and additions added to the pages.
Documentation to clarify why something was changed or
added is footnoted. Where families are reported
incorrectly should be marked and documented. That's
all.

I don't know why, but I'm still very concerned and
uneasy about this. Am I being overly paranoid?
Comments and suggestions on how to best handle the
situation are appreciated.

Ellen Coffman




This thread: