APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2008-01 > 1200952114


From: "Kory L. Meyerink" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Genealogy Definitions/updated 10 Jan 08
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 14:48:34 -0700
References: <02a001c853fa$48e0ca80$2101a8c0@CEB>


Carol, Joy, et.al.

I'm coming late to this discussion, since both the Salt Lake Institute of
Genealogy and the new college semester began two weeks ago. First of all,
great thanks to Carol for beginning and editing this list. I will be sharing
the current "draft" with my current class on professional genealogy as well
as my Summer class for librarians wanting to learn "Genealogy for
Librarians" (with San Jose State U). I hope APG will "sign-off" on a final
version, after appropriate vetting.

Second, to answer Carol's question, the AG program does require renewal on
five year intervals. Borrowing the language used for CGs, this could be
added to the AG definition: AG's must submit reaccreditation applications
for review every five years.

Joy, as a former genealogy librarian myself (and current instructor of same)
I appreciated your edits to Carol's excellent beginning.

Thanks again to all for this important exercise.

Kory Meyerink, AG, FUGA
ProGenealogists, Inc.


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [APG] Genealogy Definitions/updated 10 Jan 08


> My VistaPrint Electronic Business CardWhat happened?! I'm off working on
> something else for two days and y'all don't have this list of genealogy
> definitions all whipped into shape and ready to go? What's the deal? <G>
>
> I apologize to those who felt as if they were being ignored. I had other
> stuff to do for the past couple of days. As you can imagine, doing this is
> very time-intensive as well as mind-bending, in addition to having the
> potential to really hack people off--which has definitely happened in some
> cases. (That's what I expect, however, when I start something like this;
> we can't get anywhere if we just back away every time there is a
> disagreement.)
>
> I have just sat down and gone through ALL of the public and private emails
> on this topic, and I have incorporated and rewritten just about everything
> to the best of my abilities, generously stealing from what y'all have
> written, but still using my own skills and goals to finalize.
>
> Only it's not "finalized." I've had the most trouble with forensic
> genealogist and heir searcher--hell, y'all don't even agree on what y'all
> do. So the definition has to cover the bare essentials that make one
> either a forensic genealogist or an heir searcher, without getting into
> all the various modes of operations and details. I'm sure y'all will let
> me know if I've failed yet again to get it exactly right <g>.
>
> I think all the discussion (I avoid using the word arguments) about these
> definitions only highlight the need for them.
>
> ==Dee Dee King wrote: "Jeanne Larzalere Bloom and Sharon Sergeant have oh
> so eloquently summed up why I cringe every time someone comes to the APG-L
> with a statement that they've done family genealogy for years and now they
> want enter the profession as heir searchers or forensic genealogists
> because that's where they heard the money is. We should not be shy about
> saying that some of these job descriptions are advanced disciplines."
>
> My comment is that is one of the very reasons such a list of definitions
> pertaining to the field of genealogy is so worthwhile. If you have
> thoughts about becoming a professional or doing a particular type of
> genealogical work, wouldn't it be instructive to go to one site (hopefully
> APG) and find this list that enumerated exactly what was involved in all
> fields?
>
> ==Jack Butler wrote: "Consequently, I agree that there is no need to
> distinguish between amateur and professional genealogists. As with the
> arts described above, the distinction is between genealogists and
> professional genealogists."
>
> My comment: EXACTLY! No where in this list is the word amateur used. Even
> the simplest category "genealogist" is the one I use the most in
> identifying myself, even though I fit into other definitions on this list
> as well. No one should feel in the least bit slighted to fit into the
> category of "genealogist."
>
> ==Patricia Summers-Smith disagrees with the simple definition of
> genealogist and wrote: "I've considered the description of "genealogist"
> since this topic first appeared on the list and feel the definition of a
> "genealogist" on the compiled list is inadequate. All of the other
> descriptions define and differentiate somewhat in terms of "what they do"
> in order to explain "what they are".
>
> Comment: Nope, the definition of genealogist is just like the others. It
> pares the category down to precisely what it means and what training or
> credentials or education are required--nothing more, nothing less. As
> such, it works perfectly, IMHO. To list all the things a genealogist does
> would be redundant to the topic of genealogical categories, and it would
> force the definition to address the quality and level of
> training/qualifications to be a genealogist. In fact, there are no
> training or qualifications required to call yourself a genealogist. Most
> of us that fit into that category are secure enough to simply call
> ourselves genealogists, with added explanations only for clients or people
> who inquire further, i.e., in a professional venue or situation--like on
> our web sites, business cards, or brochures.
>
> And as I wrote previously: And as for the many discussions about the
> intricacies of what it takes to be a forensic genealogist or a
> librarian--those more lengthy explanations are more suited for an ARTICLE
> about that specialty. Here we are ONLY trying to inform people about the
> general categories that fall within the purview of genealogy.
>
> OK, let the caviling and complaining commence! Read on . . .
>


This thread: