TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-10 > 1286673088
Subject: Re: [TGF] EE Discussion - Section 1.15 - Proof Arguments -Addressing Conflicting Evidence
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 21:11:28 -0400
>It was one of those "people say" type sentences and I viewed it's purpose to be primarily one of
>setting the stage.
This is similar to one of the articles that I had read although it was
referring to entries on the IGI and using them as a stepping stone to
determine a maiden name.
I can reason that if I found a case study about the second William Wood
of Whitely Township printed in an the latest issue of the NGSQ, and the
case study stated that the second William Wood could be found in Greene
Township in the 1800 census, I would likely contact the author to ask
why the William Wood that could be found in Whitely Township wasn't the
one he really wanted and go on to explain how the one in Greene Township
was the first William Wood. If I submitted my own case study to the NGSQ
about the first William Wood, I'm sure I would discuss the claim made in
the published case study of the second William Wood.
So then I ask myself, why am I reluctant to treat the same claim made in
an Ancestry public tree in the same manner I would as the one appearing
in the NGSQ? And then I tell myself, it would be highly unlikely that
such a "rookie" error would have made it in the NGSQ. I see the claim as
a careless mistake given that there is a William Wood in Whitely
Township precisely where the second William Wood was known to be.
Harold's example of the man fathering a son well after he was known to
have died, or assigning the ten children in the census household to the
wife in the same household, no matter that the couple was known to have
married in the previous year, so on and so on--are these really
conflicting and contradicting *evidence*?