ROOTS-L Archives

Archiver > ROOTS > 2003-03 > 1048444894


From: Debbie <>
Subject: [ROOTS-L] Re: Genealogy Fraud - Anjou
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:41:34 -0500
In-Reply-To: <200303231757.h2NHvA3P016224@lists5.rootsweb.com>


I haven't seen a published genealogy yet that doesn't contain errors.
However, since we know that Anjou (not even his real name!) was a
bonafide fraud...I'd pass the word whenever you see anything posted that
has his name associated with it. Of course, that's why we only believe
what we can personally document. If you have:

"a major amount of research on at least one line that includes several
hundred if not more individuals based on research I have gathered from a
family tree online obtained at Ancestry.com that used Gustave Anjou work
as the main source."

then of course this research is not yours and you would naturally note
the source. And, yes, I'd also add the info. on Anjou's methods.

Here is a website that is interested in documenting fraudulent
genealogies. It also contains info. on Anjou. You might want to post
it to your groups as a gentle reminder:

http://www.linkline.com/personal/xymox/fraud/fraud.htm

"Many of these people will take published lines and republish them on
the internet, as their own, without giving any thought whatsoever as to
their validity or giving proper credit to the originator."

"When ever you receive a piece of information, ask yourself "Where did
this come from?". Make it a point to source everything back to its
original source. If an item is not sourced, you have nothing but a
PROBABLE and you must not follow that line back further until you can
prove what you have.

It is sad to say that we all have spent much time researching lines that
were never ours in the first place."

"Also another point. NO FAMILY HISTORY IS A SOURCE. Only the primary
source information within the History may be considered as useable. Most
Family Histories are unacceptable as source material for most all
Societies and Organizations."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 12:57 PM,
wrote:

> ROOTS-L DigestVolume 03 : Issue 250
>
> Today's Topics:
> #1 Dealing with Gustav Anjou sources [Baldwin
> <>]
> X-Message: #1
> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 11:17:33 -0800 (PST)
> From: Baldwin <>
> Subject: Dealing with Gustav Anjou sources and subsequent corrections
>
> Questions regarding Gustav ANJOU.
>
> As a relative newbie (I have been doing offline research for many years
> now) to online research, I am revising my notes to adhering to strict
> source documentation and citation, I am now starting at my birth entry
> and working backwards in my tree to ensure proper documentation and
> source citation has been used. For the first year as an online
> researcher, I simply gathered names and paid little bother to the notes
> and sources other than cut and past method. Now that I am at the point
> of being able to share substantial documented info on several lines I
> want to make sure my work is ethical and documented at a professional
> standard. I don't want to add any more horror stories to those out
> there already.
>
> Yesterday gathering infor to send a distant cousin, to my horror, I
> have hit a major amount of research on at least one line that includes
> several hundred if not more individuals based on research I have
> gathered from a family tree online obtained at Ancestry.com that used
> Gustave Anjou work as the main source. (see below)
>
> Sources:
> Abbrev: Wilson History
> Author: Anjou, Gustave [USE WITH CAUTION!!!]
>
> Several years into intense research I now am familiar with just how
> fraudulent or a criminal Anjou was. The person who posted this info and
> used it in her tree is having her work copied and passed around in many
> forms some without this warning...
>
> To avoid anymore disasters and wastes of time, should I just unlink the
> individual where the bogus information might start, and move it to
> possible notes for future use. Or as disheartening as it may be, should
> I completey forget about info obtained from this citation altogether. I
> run a large amount of reports and do not want to include bogus or
> suspect information.
>
> Since there is a growing number of newbie researchers for this family
> grouping and I am seeing the bad info being passed around often without
> the warning message, should I take on the role of a "Nosy Nelly" and
> post in message threads the problems associated with Anjou's work, or
> should I just include it on my own pages when dealing with the source
> info and contact information for the various researchers out there.
>
> Should I use a statment that includes the documented fraudulent and
> criminal nature of Anjou as a warning. Reason being. There is another
> researcher in a separate line that wrote a well used book on our family
> lines that contains many many errors, but this was due to his careless
> errors or genuine mistakes. That I have always seen as "use with
> caution" but to issue a simple "use with caution" message when finding
> Anjou's work seems to bee too much of an understatement.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated...
> thank you..
> Stephen


This thread: