Talk:FamilySearch/Archive 1

History
Back in the late 80s/ early 90s the International Genealogical Index was available on CD ( the old format, with the disc inside a plastic case like a VCR and the whole thing was inserted into the disk drive) at the State Library of Victoria. Its now available online at the familysearch as one of the search engines. Surely we can consider it the pre-internet forerunner of the familysearch website? Proberton (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, the IGI did not go onto CD until the early 90s, in fact, the name 'FamilySearch' was only adopted after the first DOS-based computer software was developed and called that. The last version of that DOS software (still used in Windows by use of a 'wrapper' program for two databases, the Scottish Old Parochial Registers, and the US Military Index - Vietnam and Korea) is at version 2.27. This older software is in 'legacy' status, and will not be further developed.

But before that the IGI was available on microfiche, and you could buy it by the card, at 15 cents a fiche. Also, the IGI was originally called the 'Computer File Index' or CFI, and it came into being in 1970. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.128.110 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'History' section may be a little behind (at least the TALK comments) What's happening? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Three years later now, you will be interested to know that migration is happening from (1) FamilySearch.org; to (2) new.FamilySearch.org; to (3) FamilyTree.org. Watch for announcements. (FYI: My wife and I are directors of family history in a Southern California LDS stake, and also volunteers at our Los Angeles Family History Library). Just so you know, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just added some matter about the transition to Family Tree in the 'new FamilySearch' section, admittedly it's not the best writing, but will have to do until we can (1) transition text in the 'new FamilySearch' section from the preent to the past, i. e. take out future and present tenses associated with some adjectives, verbs, and adverbs, and (2) if appropriate, begin a new section on FamilySearch Family Tree, and clean up the slightly choppy writing I left behind there. Things are going to move fast in relation to Family Tree from this point, and new FamilySearch will likely be gone by the first of February, I didn't put that in the article, just said 'early part of 2013' for the final date for new FamilySearch as a website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.156.159 (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * More has happened, on 5 March 2012 Family Tree was made available to all users of FamilySearch, I added some information, leaving out details on how to log in and use the tree as that was not germane, just mentioning it was possible for anyone, not just LDS members, to use Family Tree was enough. A citation is available for the announcement, since I'm not adept at putting footnotes and source into Wikipedia, someone can do that. Just go to familysearch.org and look at the blog, it was posted on the same day as it went live for everyone to log in and use, that being 5 March 2013.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.130.216.233 (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that FamilySearch be merged into Family History Center (LDS Church). I think that the content in the FamilySearch article can easily be explained in the context of Bar, and the Family History Center (LDS Church) article is of a reasonable size that the merging of FamilySearch will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Familiacoqueirobrumadobahia (talk) 07:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Family History Centers are being renamed to FamilySearch centers and are branches of FamilySearch.  FamilySearch is the parent entity and should be standalone.  If anything, "Family History Center (LDS Church)" could be merged into FamilySearch. Bgwhite (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than merging this article anywhere, I suggest it stands alone, and in addition, a new article is needed. (1) the FamilySearch article here as the organization; and (2) FamilySearch software. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is a valid website with a large following outside the Family History Center. You wouldn't included "IE explore" on a Microsoft page.  This website was featured on Good Morning America is worth an article.  There is far to much to be put on the Family History Center page.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agreed. It will grow. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Security is solid
From the first, security in FamilySearch was a top priority. With recent disclosures, an announcement was made about security being solid in FamilySearch and FamilySearch.org/Tree -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have just been informed that certain uk source documents can no longer be displayed by Family Search UK, which has been requesting its users to proceed to its "partner site" run by brightsolid (DC Thomson) which charges additionally for access. Has the 2008 agreement broken down? Or expired?Delahays (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good question. Can you ask at Support@FamilySearch.org and get back to us with the answer(s)? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Citation to add
Under Features, second paragraph, this line: "FamilySearch does not allow users to input same-sex marriages or other unions.[citation needed]"

Here is the citation: 

Cami T. 20:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Cami T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cam T. (talk • contribs)


 * Done —Eustress 20:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The 15 Other FamilySearch Libraries
When a 'center' is large enough and doing well enough, it could be renamed and supported as a 'Library'. There are now 15 FamilySearch Libraries. Here's a quote, FYI: "NOTE: The large centers, previously called multi-stake or regional centers, are now called FamilySearch Libraries." Also, "As of September 2014, there are more than 4,700 FHCs in 134 countries. There is no cost to visit a Family History Center or FamilySearch Library. They are open to anyone with an interest in genealogical research. They are operated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Purpose
Is it worth noting within the article (or perhaps even in the intro, which is rather short at the moment) the reason why the Church of Latter-Day Saints is so interested in collecting, indexing and providing all of this genealogical data? It is mentioned at one point in the section describing the new website that "The ultimate goal of this effort is to document the complete descendancy of Adam and Eve, or as much as can be done", although that sounds more like an internal description of the goal than an encyclopedic explanation (after all, it takes for granted that Adam and Eve were real people and the ancestors of everyone. I think I have some idea about why genealogy is important to the religion, but am not certain of my ability to write it in a verifiable way. Any thoughts? Cuffeparade 13:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is relevant here; perhaps a link to whatever article discusses geneology within the LDS Church would make more sense. Eran of Arcadia 20:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Family are a very basic but extremely important tenet of mormon faith. I found this in the "About" section on family search: "We believe that every person is important and that families are meant to be both sacred and eternal. We encourage all people to find their ancestors and preserve their family histories. To help in this great pursuit, the Church has been actively gathering and preserving genealogical records worldwide for over 100 years." ( Just an aside, I think they're doing rather well) Proberton (talk) 02:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many, sometimes most, of the patrons of the SLC Library and the 15 other FamilySearch Libraries are not LDS and the focus is on benefiting everyone. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * From the link another WP editor provided: "PURPOSE: It's all about family. FamilySearch is a nonprofit family history organization dedicated to connecting families across generations. FamilySearch believes that families bring joy and meaning to life." This has been added in the lede. -- AstroU (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Research tools
Become aware that a new extension to Chrome websearch is becoming popular to work within FamilySearch software. Do a Google-search. I'll write more how this will apply to the article herein as we learn more about it and its acceptance. FYI, Lynnette and I work (sometimes) at the Los Angeles Family History Library (by the Los Angeles Temple, and under the Visitors Center); my brother in Idaho is our Shipp/Petty research coordinator; and my sister-in-law in Utah is a Ward Family History Consultant who first among us used Pandora's Hope Chest, to her total-amazement! She is a 'Valley Girl' now in Utah. :-) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Hope this helps and that you will join in to share success stories. Narnia.Gate7 (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is now a LinkedIn group for "Pandora's Hope Chest"
 * For Google+ look for "Pandora's Hope Chest Users Group"


 * Another research tool provided by FamilySearch engineer-programmers is PUZILLA, to find descendants that may have common research and socializing interests. "The Puzzilla Descendants Viewer lets researchers see descendants in FamilyTree ..." Puzzilla can extend research contacts. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tone
This article needs to have the "love" removed from it in order to make it more encyclopedic. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  02:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By now, six year later, I trust the article is 'cold' enough, although I disagree with the premise. For those of us that 'love' Wikipedia, family search, and related areas, it is fun to read what is loved. What is wrong with providing to Wikipedia readers and editors what is 'fun' to read? So is the 'tone' now OK? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I think what the gentleman with the Japanese characters as a user name is rightly refrring to is the lack of neutrality. The entire article reads like a promotional blurb for Familysearch, and lacks the neutrality of an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.21.165 (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, both objectives and points of view can be achieved. This comes from proper editing and sourcing. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Family history research is a great hobby and many Wikipedia readers have a very high interest. Content is more important than encyclopedic style to them. Still, the article reads well to me. Feel free to improve the article, and hopefully informative content will remain. -- AstroU (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS, for future editing
Salt Lake City (Joseph Smith Memorial Building) and then Seattle get the first Discovery Centers. Headline-1: https://www.lds.org/church/news/familysearch-opens-hi-tech-discovery-center-in-salt-lake-city?cid=HPFR021315694&lang=eng QUOTE: "They’re calling it the “museum of me.” It’s the Family Discovery Center, a high-tech, high-dazzle experience for acquainting people with their individual family heritage. It is a series of fun and interactive stations aimed primarily at youth from 12 to 18 but expected to wow their parents and grandparents as well. FamilySearch International showed off the new discovery center, the first of its kind in Salt Lake City, at a grand opening February 11." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
 * https://www.lds.org/church/news/familysearch-opens-hi-tech-discovery-center-in-salt-lake-city?cid=HPFR021315694&lang=eng

"New FamilySearch.org": names, status, etc.
Officially, the name of the new product currently under development is "New FamilySearch.org", not "FamilySearch.org v2".

The engineering teams are working on "New FamilySearch.org version 0.9" which has a limited set of features, and will be available to members of the church only. It will be rolled out to the worldwide membership gradually over the space of a few years. There is currently no estimated release date, but as of now, a second beta release is in preparation.

Additional teams are also currently working on New FamilySearch.org version 1.0, which will be released to the public. Wadsworth 19:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was at a tech presentation early in December 2009 that was informal, and there would learn of the scale and extent of the project, and that this is an epic technological project of monumental proportions, and I doubt many web programming or other projects ever will be able to approach the magnitude of the work that has gone into this. After all, it's not just developing a database, anyone can set up one, it's linking sets of like data with other sets of like data (the data for a child being linked to his/her parents, and minimizing false positives that result from similar names, managing 'folders' with hundreds if not thousands of entries with their assertions for the same person showing on the tree, and so forth).

At another presentation showing new FamilySearch about three weeks before it went into the second beta, a presenter said that they had approached Google for advice on managing the data. Google took a look and basically said that it was too big for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.128.110 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that due to the massive nature of merging five huge databases such as IGI (International Genealogical Index, I think) and putting a neat user interface on top (pedigree charts, residence/move maps, family group sheets and other details), new.FamilySearch.org was never released to the general public; rather it was released to LDS members, a temple district at a time, Orlando Florida being first. This turned out to be a wise and inspired decision — we appreciated being one of the first in Southern California.  Reason/validation? When AZ temple districts joined, it brought the database/system to its digital knees. So the public version has been FamilySearch.org although some professional LDS researchers can help others without access with their family history lines.  So when will this software become available to the general public? What I hear is that the target date is December 2012 or 1Q2013 (as FamilyTree.org) .  Others can chime in here, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the status now? -- AstroU (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I was unable to attend the 2015 Roots Tech annual conf. What was the development news? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am new to FamilySearch, and came to Wikipedia, as I often do, looking for an evaluation of the site sans promotional hype. I can understand that those who are most knowledgeable are also usually those who are involved with the church, and I don't have a problem with that, as long as proponents keep in mind that Wikipedia's OWN reliability as a source hinges on an encyclopedic presentation.  It's not just a popular style of writing which has achieved consensus.  Being encyclopedic is one of many methods which have evolved to control and prevent the devolution of Wikipedia into a forum for free advertising and self-promotion.  Self-promotion still happens here, but there should always be a strong effort to present both sides.  I love Wikipedia, and I contribute, because there is a positive thrust towards making information freely available, not only free of monetary fees, but free of the burden of wading through advertisements, and freedom from hidden agendas in slanted presentation.  I am researching FS today in order to decide if it, also, is an organization worthy of my contributions of time and information, or if it is primarily a tool to serve a hidden agenda.  A church, ANY church, is AUTOMATICALLY in the business of presenting, selling, if you will allow me, a point of view.  I am not anti-church.  I belong to a church, and also attend other varieties of churches.  I believe our churches hold our cultural community together.  All that said, it is even MORE important for an organization wholly owned and operated by a church to be scrupulously fair in presentation, and, I would insist that it is important that NON-CHURCH contributors have plenty input, maintaining NPOV.  FamilySearch should not "get a pass" on NPOV and encyclopedic style 'cause they are good folks, doing a good thing free for all the people.  I hope and want to believe they are every bit of that.  The basic rules are the rules, and the policies are the policies, with good reason.


 * When I did my search, the page New FamilySearch seems to be permanently closed. As stated above, the new search and databases seem to have been renamed and incorporated into Tree or Family Tree, or similar, rather than replacing the old public access.  As I stated, I am new, so if I am incorrect, please correct me.  Rags (talk) 04:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FamilySearch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021215344/http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53667482/church-names-radkey-proxy.html.csp to http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53667482/church-names-radkey-proxy.html.csp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Propose merging Genealogical Society of Utah into this article
I think Genealogical Society of Utah should be merged into the FamilySearch article. Sources referenced in both articles state that FamilySearch International was historically known as the Genealogical Society of Utah. www.gensocietyofutah.org, linked to in the Genealogical Society of Utah article, redirects to FamilySearch.org. Both articles need a lot of work, but Genealogical Society of Utah is almost a stub, so it shouldn't be too difficult to merge the two because of article length. Tea and crumpets (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also see my sandbox for a rough draft/outline of an improved version of the FamilySearch article, with the Genealogical Society of Utah article merged into it. Tea and crumpets (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a merge makes sense. Since GSU and FamilySearch are really just names for the same basic organization, it becomes a matter of showing the history. I made one change on your sandbox page to add the GSU logo. I don't know what years it was active, but that might be a good caption (e.g. The Genealogical Society of Utah logo from 19XX to 19XX) Glennfcowan (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I decided to wp:be bold and go ahead with the merge. I think it is pretty obvious they are the same organization. I hope I didn't do too sloppy of a job, it's my first time doing a merge. Tea and crumpets (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC).
 * Looks great, thanks for all your work. Good job being bold, I think sometimes its easy to overthink major changes and shy away. Speaking of changes, I see there is a section about controversy regarding baptism for the dead. It kind of seems out of place to have in this article since it has its own article and it seems to be more of an issue with the LDS Church rather than FamilySearch. What are your thoughts? (Or anyone else's?) Glennfcowan (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My thoughts on the controversy section: The one sentence about Catholic church records was inserted into the article inside a paragraph where it didn't make any sense. I separated it out and put it in a section where I felt it would fit best. I wanted to remove it, but didn't want to offend anyone by doing so. I just looked Wikipedia's guidelines on "Controversy" and "Criticism" sections, and it looks like the best practice is to interweave any notable criticism throughout the article, unless there is a significant body of criticism in reliable sources. The controversy over baptism for the dead is mainly targeted at church doctine. It is worth mentioning within the FamilySearch article (maybe in the "History" section? but it is so disorganized now I did not know where to put it), since the FamilySearch website handles temple ordinance requests. But I think most of the coverage of that controversy is suited for the Baptism for the dead article. Other criticisms of FamilySearch I know of would be complaints about the website's software. Those are best discussed in the sections about the relevant features. Other thoughts? Tea and crumpets (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed maintenance tags
I removed the maintenance tags at the top of the page. I think I fixed the issues. I found sources for the unsourced statements and added several third-party references from popular magazines instead of self-published blogs. I also reworded several sections so it sounds less like an advertisement. If you see more issues, feel free to tag it again and discuss here. Thanks. Tea and crumpets (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

FamilySearch no longer allows open access to public domain records
The article claims that it allows open access, but the site changed this for no obvious reason in late 2017. Now the whole FamilySearch site is useless unless you sign up for a FamilySearch account; and all previous links to FamilySearch URLs are broken for the general public to access. The article should be revised (if the community can't get them to undo the process of closing up the site). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnuish (talk • contribs) 05:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like this has been fixed: "While access to the records is always free, some records have restricted access, and can only be viewed at a Family History Center, an Affiliate Library or by LDS members." Tea and crumpets (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * , it isn't fixed. In the past, any URL would just work, producing the public domain records in your browser.  Now, you must sign up for FamilySearch and log in before any URLs will work.  Every access you make is tracked and logged by FamilySearch.  "Access is free [of cost]", but restricted to only those people who will agree to be registered and tracked.  Gnuish (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While the site may not work how you want, the section in the article reflects the current status, which I believe is what T&C was making reference to. Maybe the sentence could read: "While access to the records is free, a user account is required. Additionally, some records have restricted access, and can only be viewed at a Family History Center, an Affiliate Library or by LDS members." Glennfcowan (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant the article appeared to be fixed, not the website. You are welcome to change the wording to make it more precise. Tea and crumpets (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Most websites these days track your use of their website if you create an account. Unless there is a reliable third-party source that describes a significant use of the tracked information, it's probably not worth mentioning in the article. I agree with Glennfcowan's suggested revision. Tea and crumpets (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Licenses and Rights Granted to Us
I think it should be noted that viewing public records made available online via FamilySearch (but not available online from public sources) requires (without any opt-out option) agreement with the following at required registration:

Licenses and Rights Granted to Us In exchange for your use of this site and/or our storage of any data you submit, you hereby grant us with an unrestricted, fully paid-up, royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable, sublicensable, and perpetual license to use any and all information, content, and other materials (collectively, “Contributed Content”) that you submit or otherwise provide to this site (including, without limitation, genealogical data, images, writings, documents, materials, recordings, discussions, information, and data relating to deceased persons or anything else) for any and all purposes, in any and all manners, and in any and all forms of media that we, in our sole discretion, deem appropriate for the furtherance of our mission to promote family history and genealogical research. As part of this license, you give us permission to copy, publicly display, transmit, broadcast, perform, distribute, and otherwise use (and allow others to use) your Contributed Content throughout the world, by any means we deem appropriate (electronic or otherwise, including on the Internet). You also understand and agree that as part of this license, we have the right to create (and to allow others to create) and use derivative works from your Contributed Content by combining all or a portion of it with that of other contributors or by otherwise modifying your Contributed Content. Alannyny (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think if this sort of idea were to be included, it should be summarized to a very general degree. This level of detail seems unnecessary to understanding the subject. I wonder how this compares to the fine print that is surely present on other genealogy websites, such as findagrave, ancestry, or any other crowdsourced genealogy sites. I would imagine that the terms would be similar. I think the appeal of a crowdsourced genealogy site is that many people work together to make a very large and comprehensive pedigree, but it does come with tradeoff that your contribution might be changed, viewed, or used by the public or the organization hosting the site. I bet that Wikipedia's terms have similar type language as well. Glennfcowan (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)