Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [S-R] Lupcho Family

Expand Messages
  • Bill Tarkulich
    Hello Bob, While you directed your remarks to John, you posted this to a public forum, so I won t apologize for responding as well! I have two comments.
    Message 1 of 34 , Apr 21, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello Bob,
      While you directed your remarks to John, you posted this to a public
      forum, so I won't apologize for responding as well! I have two comments.

      First, 100 years ago and earlier, birthdates were not a big deal. In
      fact, people often didn't know their correct year, month, day of
      birth. There was not such thing as "positive Identification", no
      photo IDs,no social security numbers etcetera. In many cases,even the
      mother didn't know the exact birth date. What was important was your
      saint's name day.

      What to do with discrepancies? Note both dates as part of your
      research, make sure you use the term EST (estimated) adjacent to the
      date if you are using software to store results. Then, attempt to
      validate the information by contacting the source, even if it's posted
      on the FHL site. Anyone can post information there. I once found
      information on a web site that contained my family tree. Some of it
      was wrong, much was omitted. I contacted the poster and found out he
      got it third-hand, there was a cousin who married someone from my
      tree, he had no idea who any of these people were, and he just blindly
      posted it. Unfortunately, it includes many living relatives and I
      could not get him to retract it. The bad information is still out there.

      I have five birth dates from five independent sources for my
      grandfather. It's still unresolved. The last thing you want to do is
      run around declaring an unverified or uncorroborated date. You can
      just make matters worse by using assumed information. It can confuse
      other researchers, family members or take people on wild goose chases,
      or send them down incorrect research paths. Collect the information
      you have, note it well (especially the source) and continue to search
      for another independent that can validate.


      Regards,
      Bill Tarkulich
      --- In SLOVAK-ROOTS@yahoogroups.com, Bob Lupcho <boblupcho@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi John:
      >
      > The material we discussed will be in the mail in the morning.
      >
      > I have a question: I found family info on the LDS site for most of my
      > GF's family. It said the birth date for Barbara Csintala was 1876.
      > The records in Kemmerer where she died in 1915 say her birth date was
      > 1876 and her age was 39. I have a church record saying the birth date
      > is 1870. What does a person do with conflicts such as this? I would
      > think the LDS data is verified prior to posting.
      >
      > Bob
      >
      >
      > On Apr 19, 2008, at 5:59 PM, johnqadam wrote:
      >
      > > >>> To repeat, I strongly suggest you look at the microfilmed records
      > > for both Trebisov and Hlinne to establish firm dates of birth and
      > > marriages. Although John doesn't think there could be a connection
      > > between the two places, it is possible that Andrew was from
      > > Agyagospatak/Hlinne, Barbara was from Tokoterebes/Trebisov, and they
      > > moved to his home village after they married. <<<
      > >
      > > >>> The marriage itself would most likely have taken place in
      > > Barbara's
      > > home town. <<< AGREED
      > >
      > > Janet, I am willing to put an entire Canadian Loonie on the line. My
      > > bet is that when data is finally confirmed, The Adam Theorem will
      > > apply, even though the marriage apparently took place in PA.
      > >
      > > The theorem states that Lupcso and Csintala came from villages not
      > > more
      > > than TWO villages apart, or one day's walk, round trip.
      > >
      > > We will see. Let the archived church records speak!
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > Bob Lupcho
      > boblupcho@...
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Bob Lupcho
      John: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Progress has been slow but I believe that that I will get there. Regards, Bob ... Bob Lupcho
      Message 34 of 34 , Apr 30, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        John:

        Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Progress has been slow
        but I believe that that I will get there.

        Regards,

        Bob
        On Apr 30, 2008, at 5:02 PM, johnqadam wrote:

        > Bob, your 41-page 1981 family reunion document has arrived. The only
        > certainty is that lineage on your Csintala (GC)/Kocanova (RC) side
        > goes back to Trebisov (GC) and C'elovce (RC). We have already covered
        > the availability of those church records as well as the 1869
        > Hungarian Census for both those communities.
        >
        > As nearly as I can determine, there is no mention whatever of the
        > origins of the Lupcso/Lupc'o side of the family. Some focussed
        > research in US documents might serve to determine that.
        >
        > You have three independent streams for your current research:
        >
        > 1) Follow Csintala in Trebisov GC church records 1775-1924 and the
        > 1869 Hungarian Census
        >
        > 2) Follow Kocan in C'elovce RC church records, 1723 & onward, and the
        > 1869 Hungarian Census
        >
        > 3) Search for Lupcso village of origin in US records. Running through
        > the 34 listings for "LUPC Hungarian/Slovak" on Ellis Island might
        > possibly yield a clue but most point further north in Zemplen Magye =
        > county, as do phone listings.
        >
        > My standing bet of one Canadian Loonie is that Lupcso was known to
        > Csintala and the marriage was "arranged". That would place Lupcso's
        > village of origin within TWO villages of Trebisov. That remains to be
        > seen.
        >
        >
        >

        Bob Lupcho
        boblupcho@...





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.