Search for content in message boards

better understanding the documentation rules for NN tree

Replies: 2

better understanding the documentation rules for NN tree

Posted: 3 Mar 2013 3:50PM GMT
Classification: Query
Surnames: PARTRIDGE
Hi folks:

I'm soliciting a little more information about the standards of proof for contributions to the NN tree. In particular, I'd like to understand where the editors come out on the issues of inference from documentation. To illustrate my question, here are two examples from the PARTRIDGE family (from which I'm descended).

The NN tree currently lists two PARTRIDGEs: Richard (d. 1750) and his son Matthew, both of Westmoreland County.

I happen to know that Richard's father was also named Richard and is the indentured servant, Richard Partridge, who in 1675 was sentenced to additional servitude after seeking to escape. Making this connection requires piecing together a half-dozen court records and wills to show that the Richard who died in 1750 was close to the BONUM family and the right age to be the son of Richard, the (former) indentured servant, and that Richard, the former indentured servant, rented property from the BONUM family. I assume that this connection, with the steps in the logical chain document, would be happily included. Am I right?

Now for the trickier one. It is clear that the Richard who died in 1750 had a brother, as there two PARTRIDGEs living in Northumberland County in the 1730s who are his nephews (we can show through deeds that they sell family property in Westmoreland County). It seems likely that the brother's name is Samuel -- there's an adult Samuel PARTRIDGE who appears exactly once -- as a witness in a Westmoreland County court case -- and one of the nephews is also named Samuel. But this is a case of Occam's Razor -- given we know that there's a missing brother who lived to adulthood and given a proven adult, pick the simple solution and say they are the same person. But it is a weak application -- it is entirely possible there were three or four Partridge brothers and while Richard and Samuel show up in the records, the third brother who fathered the nephews never does.

Would the NN tree, in such a case, prefer that I put in the putative Samuel, father of the nephews, or leave the entry blank?

(Note both cases hypothetical at this point -- I'm not an approved editor in the tree)

Many thanks!

Craig
SubjectAuthorDate Posted
craigp132 3 Mar 2013 10:50PM GMT 
cr514 4 Mar 2013 7:10PM GMT 
cr514 4 Mar 2013 7:14PM GMT 
per page

Find a board about a specific topic

  • Visit our other sites:

© 1997-2014 Ancestry.com | Corporate Information | Privacy | Terms and Conditions