Genealogics

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Genealogics isn't working. What's the reason for that?

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Actually, I've found that the new address is https://genealogics.org/index.php.

[John Higgins]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 12:00:51 PM UTC-7, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Actually, I've found that the new address is https://genealogics.org/index.php.

It's not a new address at all - it's been as that in my bookmarks for many years.

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

Thing is, IIRC, until recently, we could still access the main part of website, with genealogics.org.

[John Higgins]

I think this was probably an accident in maintenance of the site. I've sent an email to Ian Fettes to notify him about it.

[John Higgins]

I got a quick response from Ian, who is aware of the problem. He says that he is "sorting this out", but for the moment he recommends that people should bookmark the site as https://www.genealogics.org/index.html.

[David Teague]

On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 at 2:35:06 PM UTC-4, Paulo Ricardo Canedo wrote:
> Genealogics isn't working. What's the reason for that?

For what it's worth, I have still been able to access genealogics.org on my Android phone, but not on my laptop, which is running Windows 10.1909.

[Eric Kniffin]

This site is entirely new to me. Is it generally accurate? The first thing I looked at was Historic Battle Participants. It lists more participants at the Battle of Hastings than I've seen elsewhere. Roger Bigod?

[John Higgins]

It seems that Ian Fettes has gotten the problem fixed since the two of us exchanged emails yesterday, as I too can access it via genealogics.org. And it also still available via the other URL I mentioned yesterday: https://www.genealogics.org/index.php. So, if you've got the latter one bookmarked, it will still work. (FWIW I'm using a desktop under Windows 10)

[David Teague]

Unfortunately, when I try to access Genealogics in whatever browser on my Windows 10.1909 laptop, I'm still getting the error message that
"This site can’t provide a secure connection
www.genealogics.org uses an unsupported protocol.
ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH"

David Teague

[taf]

On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-7, Eric Kniffin wrote:
> This site is entirely new to me. Is it generally accurate?

As with any site, it is only as good as its sources.

> The first thing I looked at was Historic Battle Participants. It lists more
> participants at the Battle of Hastings than I've seen elsewhere. Roger Bigod?

Ouch. That is unfortunate. I don't know that Balasius even existed. Several of them are known to have acquired English holdings as part of the broader conquest, but are not known to have been at Hastings. There are also two notable Hastings killed that are missing, but I see they were never entered into the database to begin with - Gyrth and Leofric, Harald's brothers.

In this case, the page on Wikipedia entitled "Companions of William the Conqueror" is definitive. Any claim to anyone not on that list should come with fastidious evidence.

taf

[leslie...@gmail.com]

Usually, after seeing that message, use the refresh button,
and then the regular page will show up.

The Genealogics database should be updated in the next day or so.
There will probably be 1,000+ new people added.


Leslie

[jmb...@albion.edu]

A quick side note: Genealogics also has a royal ancestry for Mrs. Michelle (Robinson) Obama, credited to me, taken from a couple posts I made here on GenMed in 2014 (“Royal ancestry for Michelle Obama”). As I tried to make clear in the posts, the line was (and presumably still is) unproven. Yes, Genealogics has long been held up by members of this group as a generally rigorous site, better than many; but sources should still be checked.
Jim+

[Peter Stewart]

On 16-May-20 10:03 AM, jmb...@albion.edu wrote:
> A quick side note: Genealogics also has a royal ancestry for Mrs. Michelle (Robinson) Obama, credited to me, taken from a couple posts I made here on GenMed in 2014 (“Royal ancestry for Michelle Obama”). As I tried to make clear in the posts, the line was (and presumably still is) unproven. Yes, Genealogics has long been held up by members of this group as a generally rigorous site, better than many; but sources should still be checked.

This is a useful note.

Genealogics is certainly better than many, indeed than most, databases
online. However, it needs to be understood that Leo compiled it as a
work in progress, with no thought that it should ever be proposed or
taken as a finished and authoritative work at any point.

Over the years he was beset by a huge volume of email correspondence
from people who wanted him to make additions to meet their own beliefs
and (frequently) wishful thinking, as well as by untested information in
SGM posts that he thought perhaps worthy of further pursuit if no
contrary details emerged.

Leo considered himself a "gatherer", relying on those he called
"hunters" to uncover information and then on the newsgroup to filter it
collectively through rigorous assessment.

In this regard, wrong or unwarranted entries in Genealogics are in a
sense the responsibility of all of us - either through commission or
omission - letting Leo down, or failing to support him as a promptly as
we could, in his vast endeavour.

The continuing gratitude of the newsgroup is due to Ian, Leslie and
others who carry on Leo's endless toil.

Peter Stewart

[jmb...@albion.edu]

For anyone interested, these are the two questionable points in Mrs. Obama’s ancestry:
(1) Her matrilineal ancestor, Dolphus Theodore Shields (1861-1950) was the son of Melvinia (c.1844-1938), a slave belonging to the wife of Henry Wells Shields (1811-1895) of South Carolina and then Georgia. DNA has proven that Dolphus’ biological father was a member of the white Shields family, and the current thinking is that it was Henry’s son Charles Marion Shields (1839-1916). (cf. Megan Smolenyak’s “Hey America, Your Roots Are Showing” chapter 10; and Michelle Obama’s wikipedia entry) This is relatively firm ground.
(2) Henry W. Shields’ father was Moses (or Mose) Shields (c.1771-1845), named as the husband Jane, daughter of Vincent Wyatt of Spartanburg, SC in his 1837 will. Henry’s maternity is uncertain though, as multiple researchers give at least two different wives for Moses. If Jane is Henry’s mother, then Vincent Wyatt is his grandfather. Vincent Wyatt (1759-1838) is claimed to be a son of Joseph Wyatt and Dorothy Peyton Smith (1743-1767). Dorothy has royal ancestry through the Lawrence Towneley family, also ancestral to George Washington. However, this is suspect due to a couple different men named Vincent Wyatt in Virginia and South Carolina; as well as the young age of Dorothy (16) at the birth of her supposed son Vincent. These two or three generations are the most in need of evidence.

Jim+

[David Teague]

Well said, Peter.

[Olivier]

A link for what it worth :
https://famouskin.com/family-group.php?name=10013+michelle+obama&ahnum=192

[riemorese...@gmail.com]

The ultimate reality for any large genealogical database is that accuracy comes down individual entries and their sources. When I was at Rutgers, Dr. Richard Kohn, my military history professor, observed, "I don't read anything that does not have footnote." So the accuracy of Genealogics overall appears good. But for any individual, it can only be a starting point for research, which must then go to the sources, primary and/or secondary.