Challenge of the Week: Add missing Find A Grave connections between existing profiles

Question

Hi WikiTreers,

Aleš's WikiTree+ data analysis has found thousands of people who are connected as parents and children or spouses on Wikidata pages or Find A Grave memorials, but are not connected on WikiTree even though they both have profiles.

The Wikidata hints can be difficult to address. The Find A Grave hints are much more abundant and easier to handle.

For example, here's how to handle items on the table for FindAGrave - Possible mother (1900-1999), i.e. 20th century mother-child connections.

Look in the Relation (Rel.) column for any child and mother pair and click the links to open their WikiTree profiles. Then click the links below those to open their Find A Grave memorials. You might want to right-click the links and keep all four open in separate tabs to review them.

Not all the information on Find A Grave is reliable. If there is a photo of a single gravestone that connects the mother and child, you can use that as your only source to connect them. Otherwise, either look for other sources to verify the connection, or mark the relationship as uncertain and add a Research Notes section on the child's profile saying that the relationship is based on Find A Grave and has not been independently verified.

Will you work on some of these with us? If so, or if you have any questions, please post below.

Thanks for helping!

Comments

Challenge is active.

---

Ugh. This sounds like a recipe for unsourced genealogies being propagated to Wikitree.

I can't believe the new Wikitree policy is to connect people as parent/child/spouse with no actual evidence,  and just mark it as uncertain... yet I keep seeing this concept being promoted on g2g.

---

I agree with Daphne, this has the potential to create more problems than it solves.

Other sources must be used to validate any information found on Find a Grave.

---

the list includes a Wikidata section

---

Wikidata according to its own website

'Wikidata is not a database that stores facts about the world, but a secondary knowledge base that collects and links to references to such knowledge'.

Wikidata is only as reliable as the sources used by individuals, the editor who adds, changes, or restores statements on Wikidata.

Having seen in the past many suggestions based on WikiData that are incorrect, I would not use WikiData as a source in this challenge.

As always original sources are needed, if WikiData can provide a way to access those sources, then use them.

---

Well, I was able to use this to find the first spouse  and child of  Lemmon-1051 who married a 4 times removed first cousin.  I can see where it would present problems, but hopefully help to find some gaps in connections!

Answer 1

I'll look at a few.

Answer 2

Becareful, some headstone "Photos" are computer made memorials, not real headstones.

Comments

I just came across one of these for an ancestor of mine the other day. What a shame -- an abuse of the platform to spread a falsehood.

---

I have not run across a computer-generated Headstone on FG. I would like to think I could tell the difference between a photo taken in a cemetery and a faux Memorial one. Can you pls provide a FG link to an example of one of the type you are referring to?

---

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/136176905/armina-knox (compare to, say, the stones of her parents,both of whom died well after she did). Note the sharpness of the text and the deep black.

---

This is a photo of a real stone, not computer generated. The stone shows signs of weathering. Probably erected in the last 40 years to replace an older stone. Also has EXIF data "SAMSUNG SGH-M919 | 4.2mm F2.2 1/1120 ISO50 | 2016:03:20 14:29:37 | Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384"

---

Yup, Aaron. I'm with you, looks like a real photo and real stone. Pre-2016 replacement by a caring family. All you point out plus the FG timestamp of the date of upload to FG is one day after the EXIF datestamp on the jpg image indicating the date the photo was taken.

---

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/145539769/flora-arabelle-stinson  computer made.

---

No, this has too many things for that to be computer-made, including the reflection of the person taking the photo, a stray piece of grass and what looks like oxidized paint in the letters. EXIF data: SONY DSC-H300 | 4.5mm F3 1/200 ISO80 | 2015:04:14 15:43:57 | 1.0100

---

This is one that I thought is PhotoShoped.  Notice that all headstones in the background are lined up as expected.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/105010233/thomas-raymond-mcginnis

---

The photo has this comment: Photographed on 20 September 2021 by Tom Brocher using a Nikon camera on a warm sunny afternoon around 1 PM. No Exif data, but the photo has obviously been cropped from the original which is also there. Nothing to suggest photoshopping that I can see.

---

I agree that the photo has been cropped, but the fact that the shadows don't appear to be the same as the headstones in the background and the headstone in question does not appear to be in alignment with the rest of the headstones in the background appear really odd.

---

All the shadows seem to be fine. Taken at 1pm, so the sun would be almost directly overhead and behind the photographer, meaning minimal shadows. This monument can also be seen in the photo in the background. 

---

Responding to Aaron, re Armina Hanks -- yes of course it is a real stone. I was not asserting the stone itself is not a real gravestone. What is not real is the text on it.

EDIT: Ok, so now I see what has been written, ***my bad for jumping the gun.*** I could believe this is a modern stone -- what I can't believe is that that text was carved anywhere near the time when she died (and thus the dates given are of secondary relevance to genealogy, given how frequently people are mistaken about their ancestors)...

Answer 3

It seemed like a good idea at the time - but I seem to have wadded into quicksand.  I'm getting it all sorted out: I've added 15 profiles, still trying to find the connection named on Find A Grave.  It's possible the proposed father is correct, but no source. Lots of research notes! This may become a G2G post.

Answer 4

I will try to do a few

Answer 5

There’s a bit of a hazard here, right? Just because they’re connected on Findagrave (a notoriously sloppy and over-relied-upon site) doesn’t mean they should be connected at all…much less here.

Answer 6

I would clarify that what is meant by "a photo of a single gravestone" is a picture of a stone, on at least one profile, that confirms the relationship.

So a mother's stone that lists her children, or a child's stone that says "daughter of John and Jane Smith," or such.

The way it's worded, some might think that simply one of the two profiles having a photo of an illegible tombstone makes it a confirming source, which of course we don't mean at all. :)

Answer 7

I will look for a few

Answer 8

I too am concerned that we could be creating significant problems. 

I have several Find a Grave suggestions that are wrong and I dismiss them with explanations of why they are wrong. In particular Find a Grave has problems with families who have several people with the same or similar names. 

Be very careful, the only information on Find a Grave that should be used is an actual headstone transcription from an inscription that is legible. 

Any implied relationships based on other information provided by the Find a Grave contributor are often not sourced. 

If there is no headstone transcription usually because the inscription/ carving is illegible any implied transcription cannot be relied on. 

Look very carefully at any photographs provided, if you cannot read the inscription, don't use any information provided. 

Be aware that the names on a headstone do not necessarily mean the person is buried at that location. They are added when the headstone was created for a relative in anticipation that the person would also be buried at that location. 

I frequently find that the 'other information' is not accurate and is based only on Ancestry or other trees that are unsourced and not researched. 

I recently requested a change to a memorial that has been incorrect for at least 10 years, the person who is the manager stated ' I have not researched this person, I used information found on Ancestry'. They did thank me for providing accurate information. 

Comments

I'm another appalled at Find-a-Grave being considered source information without supporting evidence; given its mis-use by over enthusiastic amateurs.  

I could write screeds about the errors, therein, but three in particular are frustrating beyond belief.

Some idiot (and there is no other word in my vocabulary I feel I can use) has entered an entire parish register of *BAPTISMS* into find-a-grave. I've complained endlessly, to no avail, to have them removed. 95% of the people baptised in said village did not die in said village!

Another distant family member has *memorialised* my ancestress in a cemetery for which there are *NO KNOWN* existing records. I know the history inside out of the cemetery... (and why there are no records) and although there is a possibility that's where she is buried, to state so,  is just wrong.

The third was resolved, however, but this is the ultimate problem with linking to find-a-grave supposed relationships. Someone decided, that the son mentioned on my gt.grandmother's first husband's memorial inscription, was her son.  This was a complicated scenario of two wives, two *sons* (by surname) and the same Christian name, but the second (the one *not* named) was born to my gt. grandmother to another man many years' after the first; whom she probably didn't even know.  Including biographies from some half-sourced facts, of non-relatives; (like the instance of the aforementioned baptism register) is a problem with find-a-grave which has no means, overall, of mitigation if wrong.

---

This is yet another example of a tendency to encourage and reward quantity over quality.

I am personally getting quite annoyed that someone whose only contribution to a profile is importing an unsourced GEDCOM, or who created a profile, based upon their "first hand knowledge" of someone who lived 300 years ago, has the power to control a profile's watchlist and is placed in the position of being gatekeeper of a merge of a profile (where their own sloppiness may have contributed to the duplication). Others who come along later, contribute significant research and analysis, who detect duplicates or find reason to suspect parent/child relationships are placed in the situation of having to beg for a merge to be done or to be "trusted". Because of the preference for quantity over quality, the sloppy contributor will tend to be rewarded for entering a profile first. If we are going to have gatekeepers, shouldn't they gain that status by merit or reputation?

So, let's add the privilege that comes from being the first to copy sloppy family relationships from FindAGrave and toss in a few badges based upon the number of contributions made.

I have personally held back on creating new profiles based solely upon them being on a sheet passed around at a family reunion, even though the people in question are well known to have existed and been a part of the family. I've held back while taking the slower path of finding official documentation. I'm beginning to feel like I am too conservative in that respect. The message I'm getting is that proper sourcing may not be all that important anyway.

---

I'm also surprised to see the Find A Grave connection recommendations.  Just a few weeks ago, I was working on a branch of my family and noticed that FindAGrave had a bunch of "new" information on family connections - some of it was blatantly wrong and the rest very much unproven (I put quite a bit of time into exploring the possible connections so I think I would have found something if they were correct). I simply ignored it, but now I'm worried that someone else might make those connections on WikiTree because they were just invited to.

Answer 9

I will try a few, and include sources other than FindAGrave that confirm the relationship.

Answer 10

I'll try to connect a few

eta: found a couple that I could verify and connect, but with the new system this is not an enjoyable task. Used to be so easy - just plop the profile ID in the box and presto it is connected.

Answer 11

Terrible idea. I deliberately leave FG out many times because it is wrong, with no verifiable sources. And getting managers to change them is nigh impossible at times. Don’t even get me started about all of the bogus middle names attached to FG profiles. This has potential to upend carefully constructed profiles.

Comments

Jana, the official abbreviation is FG. Please see this link.

---

Thanks. I didn’t know that. Fixed it.

---

Thanks Jana!

Answer 12

I'll try a few. As always, verify first.

Comments

Three were verified and corrected by census records.

[[Lawson-5388|Alice (Lawson) McWhorter (1831-1911)]]

[[Wilgus-52|Ailene (Wilgus) Eberly (1890-1963)]]

[[Etchason-2|Ailsa Isabell (Etchason) Landreth (1866-1901)]]

Answer 13

I'll work on some tonight.  But another thing I am seeing more and more on FG is that the information on the gravestone doesn't match the information entered for the memorial.  I put in an edit request on FG but on WikiTree, I just note that I'm using the information from the gravestone (and only if it looks like the original stone, not a replacement.)

Comments

I see this sometimes, usually when the memorials were created first from a transcription and the photos added later by someone else. Faded inscriptions also create errors.

Answer 14

Some comments and recommendations: More defined guidelines/rules are required.

The link given above is not for Possible mother, it is for possible spouse. Yes just an error in the link.

I looked carefully only at the Ontario burials as I have very little experience with US records.

In the list there are people listed that have no headstone photo, without which it is impossible to make any determination about connections to other people.

My Rule # 1, no photo means the Find a Grave page is not eligible for inclusion in this challenge.

There are people listed on the Find a Grave record who are not on the headstone.

My Rule #2, if the names are not on the headstone they are not eligible for inclusion in this challenge

There are many illegible headstones.

My Rule #3, if the headstone is illegible it not eligible for inclusion in this challenge, it doesn't matter if there is a 'transcription' if we can't read it we have no way to decide if it is correct.

Because we are aware that many Find a Grave memorials are often wrong.

My Rule #4, at least one other record/source must be be added to the WT profiles and it cannot be another burial record, it must be a record that shows where the deceased lived, or who they were related to, or when and where they were born or died.  

Other oddities: There are also entries with the suggested spouse being the same sex and in a least one case it seems a sister is a possible spouse to her sister. Caulfield-445 and Caulfield-444.These sisters were born in the 1880s.

My intent is not to be difficult, my hope is that more defined rules for participants in this type of challenge will make it more likely that any new connections are accurate.

Answer 15

It sounds like a really interesting challenge at first, but...

I just picked one such pair more or less at random - Hoenig-79 and Heany-4, along with the FG counterparts 18919266 and 73729990. (I opened this pair because it gave "Wurttemberg" as one of the locations.)

John Heany (the father in the pair) has no sources in FG and uses the FG entry as the only source in WT, and the last name does not even match. (There also is no relationship entered for the father.) Abraham, the son, has a tree in FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/sources/K4DG-YYH) with a bunch of sources that may or may not be useful  --- didn't go that far --- but in that tree Abraham's *grand*father is Johannes Hoenig. All in all, a total mess. I don't see how a silk purse is ever going to arise out of this sow's ear, and if this is a typical case, well...

Answer 16

If you all read the text under the headstone you’ll see this:

She is listed as living with son Clay and family in 1940, Mountain, McCurtain, Oklahoma. Daughter Minnie Bell Stinson Vines had died in 1937. The photo is not the original headstone, but was a created memorial.

Comments

Given the context, "created memorial" refers to a stone created to replace an original stone, and not a reference to an elaborate computer made creation. Compare the photo on the memorial for her son, Frederick which is also quite similar to others of her relatives that do not have that notice. I've sent a message to the photographer to ask for an explanation.

---

Thank you for sending a message to the photographer. I find the sentence “ The photo is not the original headstone, but was a created memorial.” a bit confusing and somewhat contradictory. I’d like to know for sure. Thanks again. 

---

Thank you for sending a message to the photographer. I find the sentence “ The photo is not the original headstone, but was a created memorial.” a bit confusing and somewhat contradictory. I’d like to know for sure. Thanks again. 

Answer 17

If we search high and low for a secondary source, since the find-a-grave does not have a gravestone providing any tie to the mother (just the memorial contributor's unsourced claim), can we mark the WikiData as False to pull it out of circulation?  I see the risk as I'm researching this.  The Ancestry trees are all unsourced. Nobody has a marriage record, a death record, not a family bible picture, nothing to tie mother and child. They all seem to have copied each other. I could just put a research note, of course, to help caution a future DD.

Comments

Gosh, digging through MyHeritage, same thing.  No evidence.