Margaret:

I took your advisory for what it was, a well-intentioned effort to keep
others from reading too much into certain sources. Some beginning
genealogists might be seeking only proven sources and should be aware that
most (like mine) are only a "best intentioned" effort.  Why must so many
people be so ready to assume that ill-will is intended?

 "Face value" is what is usually an accepted approach unless sources are
quoted, I believe. Please, can we not all have a little more kindness to
others?

Edward

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret B Miller 


I, myself, have not used the sources listed as unacceptable; however, I
>have used others that should be on that list. To name just one:
>WILKINSON AND KINDRED FAMILIES by M. M. Wilkinson. It's been accepted by
>the Dames and many other lineage societies as the "Bible" for Wilkinson
>genealogy. I've used it for supplements on file with Colonial Dames XVII
>Century; but this doesn't make Mr. Wilkinson's data correct. According to
>it my William Wilkinson of NC was a lineal descendant of Lawrence
>Wilkinson who came to RI ca 1650. Nothing could be further from the
>truth. John Wilkinson of PA was the father of William of NC. And where
>was the proof found????? In LA, just about the last place on earth I
>would have even thought to have looked for it. Also, I used a different
>book by Boddie as a "proof" for the Dames and had it kicked back for
>additional proofs from different sources.
>
>I agree about the percentage of accuracy in our research. Would 50%
>accuracy rate be a fairer one??????
>
>By serious, I mean those who are researching to fullfil the requirements
>for membership in various lineage societies. Just helps to know which
>ones will and those which will not be accepted. Saves time.
>
>Sorry if I ruffled feathers. That certainly wasn't my intention.
>


==== SCROOTS Mailing List ====