the URL of this page (with the data that is now on the screen):
birth
1929, WI, USA
● parents
Click on this plus button to see the "standard estimate" for each of the two mentioned parents whether he/she is the parent.
"Standard" estimates about whether a mentioned parent is the parent: 1. (almost) certainly true 2. probably true 3. possibly true 4. perhaps true 5. no clues of parentage
If the estimate of parentage for both parents is the same then the plus button contains one circle. If not then the button contains two differently colored circles. The circle of the least likely estimate is in the foreground: ,,,,,,,, or
Explanation of the above standard question and corresponding answer
I use "standard" estimates like the ones above about who someone's parents were, because it clearly shows what is true and what is an assumption.
The estimate may vary by parent. These estimates are not very precise and very subjective, as data were often too limited in earlier centuries.
So it is important to clearly show where I use these estimates and how reliable I think they are, because they can be wrong.
(In addition to the standard estimates, there may be more specific assumptions and considerations in the info & remarks field.)
I use these "standard" estimates almost exclusively with the Krupiarz, Wykurz, Tomaszewski, Buzała, Kujawa, Switała, Prosser, Borowiak and Geselle ancestors because that is where the focus of my research is.
In genealogy you look for a person's parents and then their parents and then their parents etc.
The problem is often that, especially before 1700, it is not possible to ascertain the baptismal records of the parents, with the data from baptismal records of their children, because baptismal records do not (or almost never) include the names of the grandparents.
If other sources such as marriage records, death records and non-church records are absent or also do not contain grandparents' names, then there is nothing left but speculation.
Parentage estimation is done separately for each parent. This is because it may happen that, for example, the father is not known or, in the case of old baptismal records, the mother's name is not given in the baptismal record.
I have divided the estimate of reliability into four classes, each indicated by its own color:
1. (almost) certainly true
fact, the person's parent is listed somewhere
person is linked to a parent
2. probably true
assumption, strong indications
person is linked to a parent
3. possibly true
assumption, weaker indications
person is linked to a parent
4. perhaps true
speculative assumption, vague indication(s)
person is linked to a parent
5. no clues of parentage
person is not linked to a parent but may be linked to the other parent
If there are no clues as to the identity of either parent, then the person is not linked to parents.
These 5 colors are used to show the estimate in trees, ancestor and person pages.
The consequence of dividing into classes 2, 3 and 4 is that I am linking a person to a parent based on an assumption that may be wrong. That's why I make it clear.
The degree of reliability is indicated in roughly the five colors above:
- in trees:
with colored bullets in front of the descendant's name: 1. ●, 2. ●, 3. ●, 4. ●, 5. ●.
If a different probability applies to the other parent then the bullet will have a colored background for this other parent:
21. ●, 31. ●, 3.2. ●, 4.1. ●, 4.2. ● and 4.3. ●, 5.1. ●, 5.2. ●, 5.3. ●, 5.4. ●.
- in ancestor pages:
with colors in the leftmost column:
1. ↑, 2, ↑, 3. ↑, 4. ↑ and sometimes also in the rightmost column:
1. →, 2, →, 3. →, 4. →. These last four are clickable. They give access to the ancestor page of the
person listed to the left of the button
- in personal pages:
with text, question and answer, in the corresponding color. The answers are:
- 1. yes or
- 2. yes (likely but not proven) or
- 3. possibly (certainly not proven) or
- 4. perhaps (only vague clues).
If one of the parents is unknown (listed by me with --- as the name) and there are also no clues then no question and answer is listed for that parent because there is no assumption. There may be speculations elsewhere on this page though. .
The questions are (depending on whether a person had children, was married or not) as follows:
- was A, parent of n children, the same person as A, child of B?
- was A, partner of C, the same person as A, child of B?
- was A a child of B?
If the estimate of parentage for both parents is the same then the +/- button to the right of the text "parents" on the "parents" line contains one circle: ,
,
,
, or
and
,
,
,
, or
.
Otherwise the button contains two differently colored circles: ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
or
and ,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
or
.
The advantage of making assumptions is that they can be confirmed or invalidated by (facts from other records and/or)
assumptions based on other records and thus you can sometimes still get further in establishing blood relationships.
Failure to mention that these are assumptions and not facts can lead to them being taken as fact by others, and can lead to these partially speculative ancestor pedigrees being falsely adopted as 100% true on other sites.
The above information can also be accessed on homepage 1 via the button:
info & remarks
US census 1930, Eaton, Brown, Wisconsin, 09-04-1930: House 44 (in order of visitation): - Leo Gezella, 44, head, farmer on a diversified farm - he and his parents were born in Poland, mother tongue: Polish - immigration in 1882, naturalized -married at the age of 22 - Julia Gezella, 42, his wife, born in Wisconsin - married at the age of 20 - her parents were born in Germany - Agnes, 21, born in Wisconsin - John, 20, born in Wisconsin, laborer - Edward, 18, born in Wisconsin, laborer - Joseph, 16, born in Wisconsin, laborer - Frances, 14, born in Wisconsin - Adolph, 12, born in Wisconsin - Chester, 10, born in Wisconsin - Cecilia, 7, born in Wisconsin - Eleanor, 4 9/12, born in Wisconsin - Robert, 10/12, born in Wisconsin - Bernard Piontek, 80, father-in-law, widower -married at the age of 23 - immigration in 1880
Source(s):
Birth Familysearch Census 14, 15 & 16, USA, 1920, 1930 & 1940
(almost) certainly true
probably true
possibly true
perhaps true
no clues of parentage
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
or 
,
,
, or
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
or
.
