Talk:Jane Austen's family and ancestry

Section without a heading

Originally, I had proposed in the Jane Austen talk page to add a 5-generation ahnentafel chart for Jane Austen which would give the Jane Austen article's "Family Tree" section more depth. I have moved over the discussion from Jane Austen's talk page that relates to this issue (see below). An idea advanced by Lingzhi was that I create a separate article dealing with Jane Austen's family and the family trees and ancestry chart, rather than add it to an already very busy article. This is similar to what the Darwin-Wedgwood family article does to alleviate the Charles Darwin article from an in-depth discussion of his family and ancestry background.

My hope would be that this article could grow as other contributors add many more stories and interesting facts about Jane Austen's family members and her ancestors. Other interesting commentaries might ensue from the five-generation ancestry chart, such as for example the question of who was Jane named after? Jane Austen has three different ancestors within the four generations that precede her named "Jane". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekvcpa (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

From Jane Austen's Talk page

I am proposing the following addition to Jane Austen's "Family Tree" section directly following the two trees that are presented there. I believe it adds value to see her family background in a wider context, including that her grandmother and great-grandmother were both named "Jane" and Jane's wider connections to the English aristocracy. Please comment. Ekvcpa (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ekvcpa, you've put a lot of research into that. My only concern would be the sourcing for some of the entries. At FAC, the question would be asked "What makes trees.ancestry.co.uk a reliable source for these claims?" I think that being able to use the tree here would depend completely on the ability to answer that question convincingly. --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, but emphatically suggest that you create a new article, appropriately named, rather than dropping this huge thing in an article that is already long and gonna get longer. Please don't find links to other articles that have family trees; I don't give a flying hoot about WP:OTHERSTUFF. make your family tree article, wikilink it appropriately in this article AFTER yours is very demonstrably WP:RS. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Lingzhi, great idea. A good example of this is the Darwin–Wedgwood family article which supports the main Charles Darwin article. I'll work on that and move this content and discussion over there and respond to RexxS from there.Ekvcpa (talk) 06:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to RexxS regarding the use of Ancestry.com as the initial source for presenting a complete ahnentafel tree for Jane Austen

Thank you RexxS for the opportunity to comment about the use of ancestry.com.uk as a source for a starting point for a 5-generation ahnentafel pedigree chart. Ancestry.com provides the ability to perform wide searches for ancestry information that is otherwise extremely difficult to obtain. It provides a starting point from whence additional research may be performed to prove or disprove the ancestral connection. Without a starting point for performing serious scholarly research, it would be hit or miss and nearly impossible to present a complete 5-generation chart, unless the person in question happens to be descended from either famous people or from peers of the realm in all four main branches.

Ancestry.com ranks trees by the level of documentation that is provided. Thus, a tree that provides a copy of a birth certificate will be ranked higher than one that does not. A tree that provides photographs and other historical bits of information will also be ranked ahead of one that does not.

Searching by “Jane Austen” and birth year 1775 and year of death 1817, there are 7,802 trees within Ancestry.com that provide a result for this search. From these, one can sift through the source data used by the various trees and eventually replace the reference to the trees with more reliable sources. I have tried to do that over the past day to illustrate how sources may be gathered.

If one clicks on “edit” for Jane Austen’s pedigree chart that I am proposing, there is a source given for every single name to the right of that number. With some additional hours of research, I have been able to bolster all but 4 out of the 31 names with additional documentation outside of the ancestry.com.uk trees. With a little more work, the entire tree can be sourced outside of ancestry.com.uk. However, there’s no way I could have done that without first availing myself of the vast data within ancestry.com.uk and then digging deeper.

I would argue that it is better to start out with all 31 names on the board, with disclosure in the “edit” section as to which are sourced only to ancestry.com.uk, than to have a moth-eaten tree that has only 14 out of 31 names filled out where no name can be added until fully vetted. As time goes by, some of the names may be challenged and even disproven. This will then strengthen the tree. But without the names being there in the first place, there will not be the opportunity for the work to go forward and become completely reliable.

Genealogy helps unite mankind by making us all “brothers” and “cousins”. A standard 5-generation pedigree chart typically contains 16 different surnames. Thus, when a reader looks at Jane Austen’s chart, they see 15 other last name besides Austen. Perhaps one of the last names is their own! This brings potentially thousands of readers into the fray, wondering wistfully if perhaps somehow they might have a familial connection to this inspiring author. Thus, I would argue that as long as the sourcing to ancestry.com is disclosed and available by clicking under the “edit”, that it is better to have a name there than no name at all. It becomes the starting point for discussion. As an example, see under #23, Susannah Viell, where there seems to be controversy as to whether she belongs in this position or whether Susannah Viell is an earlier ancestor of whoever should occupy this slot. Hopefully this question can be resolved later. But leaving it blank means the likelihood of resolution will be lower.

Lastly, please keep in mind that even the highest and best sources sometimes make mistakes. Such as, for example, a highly reliable source which lists one person, when in fact it is another with the same name, perhaps an uncle or a cousin of the same. Finally, the ultimate test, DNA, is not typically available and therefore (at least in the 21st century) no five-generation pedigree chart, no matter how well researched, is completely fool-proof. Thus, the primary benefit of the ancestry chart is not as much scientific as it is social. Consequently, I would argue that the level of proof in order to be acceptable under wikipedia’s standards, should be lower than would be for a scientific article.

Respectfully submitted.Ekvcpa (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Missing bibliography

Shortend footnote references such as "Honan 1987, pp. 29–30." are meaningless without a Bibliographic list that gives the full details of the publication. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)