Don't Forget to Include Why You Didn't Include It

Should you include "wrong" conclusions in your proof argument? I think there's a time and a place to do that.

Let's say I'm writing up my proof argument as to why I think the wife of Edward Bubbinski was named Margaret McCormick. Let's assume that I have reliable evidence and sound analysis on my side. The problem is that other people and other sources have different things to say about Edward's wife. Things that have been repeated over and over for decades.

I have information from a variety of sources (some more reliable than others) that says Edward's wife's maiden name was:

• Taylor
• Taliaferro
• McMormick

I decide that the information stating her maiden name was Taylor or Taliaferro is unreliable and does not help me "make my case" as to Margaret's maiden name. Just because the Taylor/Talifaferro information is suspect does not automatically mean that McCormick information is correct. Even if I have sound evidence that the Taylor/Taliaferro information is incorrect, that doesn't mean the McCormick name has to be right. I need evidence that McCormick is what is actually correct.

What do I do with the Taylor/Taliaferro information when I know it is incorrect? I don't think incorrect information should be ignored. In fact, I think this incorrect information, along with why I believe it to be unreliable and incorerct, should be included in my written proof of why Margaret was a McCormick. 

Why should unreliable information be included in my proof showing something else? There are two reasons.

1) To show that I didn't overlook (or ignore ) the wrong stuff. 

Incorrect information (especially when it's been spread numerous times) should be referenced so that readers of my proof know that I was aware of the information and had not overlooked it or left it out because "it didn't fit my theory." If I (for valid reasons) believe that  something commonly repeated and reported to be true is actually false, I need to at least acknowledge it in my proof that a contrary statement is true. Acknowledging it does not mean that I think it is true, but rather, in my opinion, it strengthens my argument that something else is true because it cannot be said that I ignored what I did not want to believe.

2) It strengthens my case.

If I have evidence that the incorrect information is untrue, then that evidence (and my clearly written agrument summarizing that evidence) helps me to make my case that something else is true. It does not automatically mean that my alternate theory is true--I still need solid evidence. If I have evidence that Margaret's maiden name was McCormick and I also have separate evidence that her maiden name was not Taylor or Taliaferro, my case is for the McCormick name is stronger.

Don't just ignore what you know is wrong.

Is This Evidence Anne E. D. Rampley is Buried Here?

This is the tombstone of John C. and Anne E. D. Rampley is located in the Buckeye Cemetery, Walker Township, Hancock County, Illinois.

John and Anne Rampley tombstone, Buckeye Cemetery, Walker Township, Hancock County, Illinois. Photo (c) 2005, Michael John Neill. 

The question is:

Does this tombstone provide evidence that Anne E. D. Rampley is buried in this cemetery?

Husbands and wives are typically buried in the same location and in the last hundred or so years, it has become common to "complete" as much of the stone as possible at one time. This usually means that everything is put on the stone except the surviving spouse's date of death.

Note the use of the word "evidence" instead of the word "proof." Genealogists generally reserve the word "proof" for that discussion that encompasses all the records that contain information (evidence) related to a specific event.

I'm not thinking that this provides evidence that Anne's buried here. Some things that provide evidence for her burial in this location would include the following (as long as they mention the burial location):

• death certificate
• obituary
•  church records
• family letters, stories, etc. that mention Anne's burial in this location

Then all of the information (evidence) from those items could be organized and written up as "proof." 

The stone suggests Anne is buried here and suggests that I perform some additional research.

The lack of a date of death could be for the simple reason that no one bothered to have the stone inscribed. 

Position Matters

One of the concerns I have with sites that post tombstone information is that the relative positions of the stones is not always something that is recorded. Position does matter and it frequently can provide us with clues as to additional family members.

It is fine to know that John M., Franciska, Sophia, and Anna M. are three among the many Trautvetters buried at the Bethany United Church of Christ Cemetery in Tioga, Hancock County, Illinois. A transcription of the stone should indicate that John M. and Franciska share a stone and that she is listed as his wife. What transcriptions alone will not state is the proximity of the three Trautvetter burials as shown in this photograph.

John M. Franciska, Sophia E., and Anna M. Trautvetter grave markers--Bethany United Church of  Christ Cemetery, Tioga, Hancock County, Illinois. Photo (c) 2004 Michael John Neill

The proximity of the stones does not prove anything, but it is potential evidence of a relationship among the four individuals.

Transcriptions should include maps of some type. Those proximity clues are clues as well.