Ragnar "Lodbrok" Sigurdsson - 31st Great Grandfather

I agree with both Justin and Remi, but I don't see sagas as useless sources. Well they are not scientific and can not be proven to be accurate, they are as Justin says more reliable if they are written close to the events, but they are the only source that tells anything about the society before the Diplomas and letters that Remi refers to. But one should be careful to trust them when the stories are contradicting, to far from the event or facts that just doesn't make sense.. But one has to make a choice where history and legend just doesn't fit together, to me sagas are something between them both and contains both history and legends..

@Remi Trygve Pedersen - you wrote: "....Yes, I sincerely hope so to, and then most of the sagas are out the window because they are not scientific reasearch, so are most of the cronicles when it comes to the stories about events a long time before they were written..."

Seriously Remi should I take what you write seriously?

I find some of the younger sources ("likprekener") less reliable than some of the Icelandic sagas. I have no doubt that in a society where its important to know where you from and your roots, people can know their ancestors at least six generations back or even some generations more. But further back the stories often gets mixed together and with legends. Its sad that we lost the saga tradition after the "Black death", because its mostly the rich parts of society we know of until the 1600`s.

Anna, wether you take it seriously or not is none of my concern. The facts are still that the Sagas and the Chronicles are not viewed upon as scientific research. The reason being that they usually are written a long time after the events. But they are also more reliable the closer to the events the writer lived. You can like this or not, still none of my concern.

As David writes, I have also found information in "likprekener" that obviously is wrong, but the wrongness is about the information of the people several generations before who the main person is, which also goes into the category that the further away in time the writer is to the events, the more wrong the information possible is.

Remi Trygve Pedersen in my opinion the word "scientific" should not be applied to any of the sources we use. It's just inappropriate to use that word about sources.

The word can be usefully applied to the process by which we try to decide on how much we trust the information in them to be accurate, but neither baptism records nor sagas are "scientific research", and both the process of sifting through sagas and the process of sifting through baptism records can be undertaken in highly scientific and highly unscientific modes.

@Harald Tveit Alvestrand I agree with you. Science and all research are based on constantly repeated research that lead to one conclusion.

Sources such as manuscripts and other written sources are therefore not scientific - they are often a material that a scientific research could be based on. For example the fact that all the data Geni has today is probably the foundation for their research. And if we are messing with the data that others have gathered, we could be compromising future research.

Scientific research isn't just about finding something out from a given fact or knowledge - but also to rule out something that has been taken for a fact. If I was a a shareholder in Geni I would require that generally accepted pedigrees were locked for changes.

You know what I mean, Harald. Don't make it any harder than what it is.

To make it easy, let's go back to basic genealogical use of sources.

We have primary sources, written at the time of the event. These are mostly the only one that can be trusted 100% allthough we all know of information in these that are wrong to.

Secondary sources are sources written by persons that use primary sources to write their books or trees, where they also write the Sources they have used. These aren't as trustworthy as primary sources, but usually good enough as long as the primary sources they have used are identifiable for each information. Examples are Bygdebok, Familybooks, Historical book and so on.

Tertiary sources are the least reliable ones. These sources doesn't say where they have their information from, they can look like they are written as primary or secondary sources, but lack information about where they have their information from and are written a long time after the events. They can be unsources familytrees found in books or on the web. We should usually not use information from these sources since they can be full of errors, fantasies, fiction and wrongful stories. Sagas will usually fall into this cathegory, since they are unsourced, are written a long time after the events and have parts that obviously or partially are fictional.

Remember, we are after the genealogies, not the histories. If the genealogy is wrong, it doesn't matter how good the story is. The genealogies should be provable to a degree, and if they are only stories or theories they do not belong in a familytree as links between people.

Harald, almost every ethnic Norwegian living today is a descendant of Harald Haarfagre, but there isn't a single person living today that can prove that Harald Haarfagre is one of their ancestors. That is the difference between history and genealogy.

The scientific part comes with the type of sources you have used in your research. If you have used mostly primary sources you have done a good scientific research, if you have used basicly tertiary sources, your research is probably not worth the paper you have printed it on. That is also why most norwegians aren't able to get far into the middle ages in their genealogical research, if they at all are able to get earlier than 1600, the reason being lack of primary sources.

I think it is important that people write in each Profile in Geni where they have the Information from. That way is is easier to know how reliable the Information is. Is is also Possible to use the Discussion Dialogue in each Profile to have a Discussion, in the Event that One disagrees.

Remi Trygve Pedersen I know what you mean; you have made the same argument enough times that I know it quite well. While we mostly agree on premises, I don't agree precisely with you (for instance, there are lots of instances where primary sources are wrong or even deliberately lie, so we're dealing with some degree of uncertainty no matter what source we use), and I don't agree with you on the conclusion (that we should only add information for which we have primary sources on the tree).

It's not a misunderstanding, it's a disagreement.

Harald, you are still misunderstanding, I'm not saying that we should only use primary sources, we shall ofcourse use every source availble to us.

I'm talking about how we should trust these sources.

There is a big difference there.

Remi Trygve Pedersen glad to hear you say that!
When you say "most Norwegians aren't able to get into the middle ages", I tend to disagree with you - if you say "most Norwegians aren't able to show a trustworthy path into the middle ages", I agree wholeheartedly!

Harald, most Norwegians aren't able to get into the middle ages since trustworthy sources are scarce.

Those Norwegians that aren't able to show a trustworthy path into the middle ages, should ofcourse end their trees where where the untrustworhy begins.

Remi Trygve Pedersen and that's where we disagree.... I see value in sharing the information that we place less than perfect trust in, and see the tree as a good mechanism by which to share it.

Which leads to a tree that does *not* end where trustworthiness declines. Where exactly it should end is a judgment call, where reasonable people can differ.

And that is why most genealogists in Norway call Geni and other sites where fantasytrees are published for genealogical viruses. Publishing trees with untrustworthy information is also making these links more legitimate and since people on Geni are publishing untrustworthy information, or even worse fantasies, wishful thinking and even information that allready is proven wrong, makes Geni one of the places which is spreading genealogical information that really shouldn't be spread at all, since us genealogists are trying hard to stop the spreading of trees where the information is untrustful.

Do you see that problem, Harald, or do you think it is ok to spread these types of genealogical information?

Remi Trygve Pedersen I see your argument. I don't agree with it.
I think the way to move the general information in the field forward is to share - share sources, share theories, share hypotheses, share wild guesses. But always mark them with what they are.

I think the traditional genealogical "each man his tree", where each genealogist has to weigh each fact on his own golden scales, is a massively inefficient mechanism that leads to tons of wasted effort, and fragility of discovery as genealogists, with their archives full of notes and half-proved hypotheses that nobody else can get to because they can't (and perhaps won't) share them effectively, see their work pass away with the fading of their memories - because nobody else will be able to build on their work when they only present their findings, not their work-in-progress.

I think putting a hypothesis - ANY hypothesis for which there is evidence worth considering - out there in the open, letting it be challenged, letting it be augumented with new facts, and letting it be removed when it's shown to be an invalid hypothesis - is the only way in which genealogy can truly move forward in a different way than the haphazard, family-at-a-time way that genealogy is currently done.

If we try to limit the spread of hypothesis - they will find other means of spreading. If we nail them up on the wall, examine them in the cold light of sources, and document why they are accepted or rejected - I think much more is possible.

I'm an amateur at genealogy. I'm happy to be an amateur.
I would never have found the information I now have if I only relied on people I had personal contact with - and would never have found the same information if they kept their theories to themselves.

I believe sharing is powerful. And I think encouragning it is vital.
Even when what we share are theories.

I am also for sharing of information, but there are different ways to publish the information.

Hypotheses and unproven theories should ofcourse be published, but not as links between people in a familytree, that is where you and other people are doing it wrong in my eyes.

These types of informations, postulations and hypotheses can be mentioned in the biographies, in discussions and publications where this information is suitable, not as links between people.

It is the links between people that makes the genealogy look legitimate, so why not then keep this information in Places where all People understand that the information is a theory, a hypothesis and that it is untrustworthy, instead of makinng them look as confirmed links and theres as trustworthy information?

But you didn't answer my question, Harald. Do you think it is ok to spread untrustworthy information looking like proven information, as People on Geni do when they link persons without trustworthy sources?

Yes, I think it's better to spread hypotheses - even hypotheses where the ultimate source is not provided, such as when I quote from a "bygdebok", another secondary source or another's uncorroborated information - via links on the Geni World Tree than to leave them in notes and other hard-to-find places.

Most of the links I've cut on the tree have been found *because* they're links on the tree. The fact that they're there makes it a lot easier to find them, challenge them, and correct them.

I think the World Tree has proved to be a superior veichle for sharing of theories. And that's how I want to use it.

Sorry to hear that you think it is ok to spread false genealogy through the links between people on Geni.

I have found that the World Tree is one of the main places where false genealogy is spread.

Then your goal and mine is opposite in this area, since I'm trying all I can to get rid of false, untrustworthy, fantasies, and allready proven wrong genealogies on Geni.

I don't want uncorrect persons in my part of the world tree, sorry to see that you find that ok.

Where Norwegian and and Scandinavian written sources are missing or scarce, we can relate to written and trusted historical sources from other parts of Europe who interacted with our ancestors both culturally, religiously and in war contexts. Comparing these sources with our own sources, both oral and written may give us the best comprehension of and our ancesters lives. Let us though keep in mind that the victors mostly managed to have history written in their own favor. This also include the pastoral power. In this view, archaeological remains and discoveries are important to balance the excisting written and oral sources. If advanced DNA -test are possible as tools in search for truth - lets use them!

Well, to me its more important to show the sources used and how its been interpreted, then doing everything right.. That means that I think one should never publish theories that have no sources (with sources i mean every webpage, book, family member or whatever the source). I think its good to be able to cut, where we know for sure that the connection is false. I don't think Harald would publish theories that he knows is false, if there are sources or good arguments against the connection I doubt he would refuse to change it..

Geni should have started with a maximum timeframe or start to just lock all lines that is copied from old scriptures, keep them clean as they are in the source and mark them as just what they are.. Genealogy according to Snorre, according to the sagas.., according to Greek mythology, according to the Bible, according to etc. But left them divided and unconnected to the tree.. In the different profiles in the world tree, it could say "This line continues according to.... and then mention a link to a profile to one of these "older trees". But I guess its way to late to change now..
It should also have been possible to lock known lineages and mark profiles and lineages in a special color when they are unsourced or unreliable..

But I don't think the problem really starts in these scriptures, we can debate over the contents and reliability, but none will ever know for sure what is true. So I think its better to do what Remi has started, and that is to cut further down on the tree, where we do have sources, that can tell us what is right or wrong.. And where there is no evidence, good arguments, published theories or nothing just remove the link..

David: "Geni should have started with ......" Rub an oil lamp... :-) I have learned that it is never to late.

@David Widerberg Howden - what are you meaning wnen you talk about "cuting further down the tree"?

Are you and Remi Trygve Pedersen going to delete the work of others here on Geni?

I read somewhere in Geni's regulations that compromising or destroying the work of others is strictly forbidden. Please explain.

No, it means that where the connection is according to sources or scholars without a doubt wrong, then the line should be cut. I would of course not consider cutting anything if there are good arguments, theories and of course sources..

That is not the same as deleting or compromising anyones work, our ancestors far back in time is our common ancestors and when I say further down the tree, I meant the period between church books and sagas, where there are a lot of false lineages (At least in Norwegian genealogy).. The lineages in older scriptures and sagas is not part of my issue, I look on them as important for history and I have no intention on falsify any of those lineages..

Harald's instincts here are very good.

Our Norse ancestors had a culture that favored oral traditions. They would have preserved information over many more generations than we would today. But, an oral tradition can also be manipulated for political reasons, particularly during the transition to a written culture. It's an interesting debate.

If we have an ancient source and nothing to contradict it, we can't just start cutting because we feel like it. The sources says what it says. We can put up the links and the source, and let people draw their own conclusions.

Where we have two sources, we can start a dialog. Maybe the sources agree. Maybe they disagree. Maybe one is more reliable. Maybe there is some reason to cut. Maybe there isn't.

I don't see any reason to abandon good historical methodology just to avoid the problem.

I will also note that there are signs that we are winning.
When I started merging the line to Fornjot, there were a couple of glaring errors that would occur again and again:
- A son named Hlessey that never existed (I found the citation that had been misread)
- Two names occuring in different versions of the mythology (Frosti and Jøkull) that were listed as two different generations (I merged them)

New people who enter duplicates of these lines tend to enter the lines the way we have them, not the way the thousands of other sources have them. By being easily findable and correct to the sources, even when mythological, we are making the universe of genealogical information easier to navigate.

No, Harald, we are not making the universe of genealogical information easier to navigate, when using mythological sources as genuine genealogy, we are making a laugh of our self, our work and of Geni. Spescially when there also are links from more modern times that links people of today with these mythological persons.

Having these links in the tree is making them look more legitimate, and we all know that a lot of people think that since it is shown in the tree it must be true. Harald and Justin can't be so wrong, therefor I'm just going to copy this into my own tree and publish it on my internetpages. Justin and Harald are administering these persons and I trust their judgements, so it must be true!

And now Justin and Harald has been active in spreading false genealogy.

But if that is what you wish......

Harald's Instincts are not good at all, in fact they are making the spreading of uncorrect, unproven and false genealogies out the the genealogical community. And I'm not only talking about more than 1000 year old stories, I'm talking about genealogy in general. If it is ok for you to add speculative lines into the tree in the mythological period, it probably also is ok for you to add speculative lines in the last 300 year period, which I hope you will see will lead to no good.

Remi, it serves no useful purpose in a debate like this one to increase the drama by making dire warnings about the coming collapse of the world. Better to focus on specifics ;)

Something I see in the Colonial American tree is that there are often theories about the origin of the immigrant. Often it's just someone's guess, and often the people who put it on Geni don't know it was a guess.

But, once it's here people have a chance to critique it. It's often news to someone that there are several different guesses about the origin of their immigrant ancestor. Having the wrong information, or questionable information, or conflicting information, stimulates dialog.

The line gets corrected and sources get added. In the process, I've seen many users motivated to add the details of their research because there's actually a chance of being heard. I've seen theories confirmed by new evidence. And I've seen fakes come tumbling down. To me that seems like a kind of genealogical heaven.

Please - do not merge gods and godesses into Geni. They belong in the diversity of religious story books. Personally I certainly do not believe that Adam was my forefather, nor one of the scandinavion gods or godesses. This may kindle the unwanted religious traditions in a setting where they do not belong. If there is not a bone or a legitime script referring to a person that once was alive , leave it out....

Kari, they're already here and some users want them to stay. That's the heart of this discussion -- how to get rid of the connections are truly fake, and how to handle the ones that are supported by a chain of sources.

This letter is written in Norwegian.

Til Kari Lian: Gidder du å hjelpe til med å granske om Erik Jacobsson Eklund ? Det mangler flere slektsledd i dette treet. Dessuten er det noe unøyaktig avskrift fra kilder som i dette tilfellet er kirkebok Kistrand og kirkebok Talvik. Det mangler også noe sammenslåinger av like profiler.

Jeg har tillatt meg å revidere de profilene som jeg har tilgang til, men de profilene som er "ikke offentlig" kommer jeg ikke innpå.

Arnfred Nilsen