Should I give up?

[clairec666]

Lots of us on here are doing the free FutureLearn genealogy course which starts in March, does that mean that after we've completed it we can all claim to be "Trained Historians"?

Well I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge if we ever disagree over something

[ThrelfallYorky]

? What does that course involve?

[groom]

It's this one TY

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/genealogy


Here is the thread on here

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=737139.0

[pharmaT]

Definitely don't give up.  I'm wary of trusting someone who happy to tell you that you are wrong but not happy to tell you where you are wrong, why they think you are wrong and what they think the right thing is.  Not saying I'm never wrong but but being told you are wrong, rubbish or whatever is pointless other than to hurt because without specifics and/or advice on how to fix/improve them thinking you are wrong is just that their opinion.

There is someone on ancestry who insists that my Dad is still alive and I am an idiot to think otherwise. Is answer to me pointing out I was sitting there holding his hand when he died, was there when doctor pronounced death, was there when his death was registered and watched his coffin at the funeral.  Funnily enough he's a trained expert (according to him) 

[Guy Etchells]

I agree Claire, and I think that is something that has been discussed many times on here. There are ways of approaching people if you think they may have gone wrong, and the "I'm right you're wrong," isn't one of them.

Lots of us on here are doing the free FutureLearn genealogy course which starts in March, does that mean that after we've completed it we can all claim to be "Trained Historians"?

Well you could claim it but it would not mean much.
Education and training starts the day you were born and ends the day you die, we can never say we are trained or we are educated only we have received training or we have received an education, but we must always be open to learn more as the world develops and new opportunities arise.
I started family history as an infant I learned how to write tracing original parish registers in churches (which is why I love computers as it allows people to read what I have written (my handwriting is atrocious).
I have enrolled in countless genealogy courses and read dozens of books on the subject, often knowing as much if not more than the tutor, but I have always learned something from each course I have been on.
There is always something more to learn a different technique or new approach or even newly released records or datasets that require different procedures.
Anyone who thinks they have been trained and know it all is in for a rude awakening.

Genealogy is one of the most complex subjects to study; it involves almost every other subject of education rolled into one, from geography to mathematics, through history and biology to palaeography. It encompasses social history, local history, population studies, politics, geology, languages and 101 different subjects and specialities.
The family historian must not only learn how to read historic records but understand what that record is recording and indeed why the record was created.

A classic example of this not used as much today as it was in the recent past is the IGI. Many genealogists even some “trained genealogists” used it as an index of parish records not realising that it was never an index of parish records but an index of the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
As an index of parish records it contained errors and omissions but when used as an index of the ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it was 100% accurate and complete.

Cheers
Guy

[Beeonthebay]

TBH Guy I've never understood why the IGI indexes are so scant with information.  If you have gone to the trouble and expense of copying billions of records and have all these people indexing for you then why not do a complete job and transcribe the whole of the parish record or whatever?

I know the aim of people who are church members of the LDS is to connect to their ancestors as part of their religion but I suppose I never "got it" that they could connect with forebears using just indexes and could most probably be completely barking up the wrong tree without seeing a full record of who they are and where they came from.

Does it not matter to them?  Can you please explain it in simple terms?  TIA

[coombs]

Never give up.

I hope to one day find the maiden surname and marriage record of my ancestor Sarah who is on the 1841 London census but died before 1851 and said she was not born in county in 1841. Sarah Unknown, later Coombs then Bradford. I shall never give up trying.

[Guy Etchells]

The IGI started life as the Computer File Index in 1969; a file that recorded the Ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Prior to 1969 the ordinances were recorded in the Temple Records Index Bureau (or TIB).

The above ordinances are Baptisms into the LDS, Endowments and Sealings and were normally performed in a LDS Temple though not always.
In 1981 the Computer File Index was renamed the International Genealogical Index (the IGI).

The names given on the index are the names used in the ordinances which may differ from the names one may expect to see in the parish register.
In other words they are the names of the people who were Baptised, Endowed or Sealed into the LDS (in person or if deceased by proxy).

Think of it like an appearance in court. The name given in court is the name which will appear in the court records. If someone later calls the court as says Jane Doe was not Jane Doe but really Jane Smith and provides proof that that was her name the court records will not be changed to record her as Jane Smith the original record will stand as it records the information given on the day of the court hearing. Anything else would be falsifying the history of the event.

However because the IGI also contains the reference to the source material the research can go back to the original record (which may be a parish register) and see what was recorded in the original record. Not all information on the IGI came from parish registers some information came from Bishop’s Transcripts some information came from 3rd party transcripts (such as the Oxfordshire Marriage Index) and some information came from internal LDS sources such as the old temple record books (separate ledgers of LDS baptisms, endowments and sealings, arranged chronologically).

Hope this helps

Cheers
Guy

[jbml]

Lots of us on here are doing the free FutureLearn genealogy course which starts in March, does that mean that after we've completed it we can all claim to be "Trained Historians"?

Well I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge if we ever disagree over something

So far as groom is concerned ... I already do