Corrections
Every claim this archive has published, or was about to publish, and then had to take back. It is the most useful page here, because an archive that never corrects itself is only telling you what it wanted to be true.
Genealogy fails in one direction. A wrong name, once written down, gets copied; a right name only gets found. So this page exists to make the wrongness expensive — every retraction is dated, graded, and says how it was caught, because the catching is the transferable part.
Nothing here has been quietly edited away. Where a page elsewhere on this site once said something different, it now says the corrected thing and says that it used to say something else.
It said: The register said they were excluded because "LERINA here is an Italian surname, not a variant of the Spanish Lerena." That is a claim about the NAME, reached from an index without opening the manifest - the same move that got the Armando Lorena card wrong and had to be corrected in public. The four are still excluded, but on the dates and the composition of the party: they arrive in 1889, aged 59, 55, 21 and 17, seven years after Pablo Armando was born at Rosario, and the party contains no Juan Carlos and no Maria. The surname claim is withdrawn as a reason. Flagged by this archive's own search box, which noticed that all four LERINA entries carried the same unexamined label.
It is:
Caught by:
It said: A table published this evening said the Arturo Lerena in army drawer Cajon 985 was born at Montevideo in 1858, son of Avelino Lerena and Ambrosia Traibel. That was a conflation. The Uruguayan record it rested on names the man's wife as EMA REGULES - and Ema Regules married JUAN ARTURO Lerena Traibel (1861-1936), whose children were born at Montevideo between 1881 and 1887. The Arturo in the drawer married AMALIA DIAZ and had children in La Pampa, Mendoza and Entre Rios between 1889 and 1897. Two men, one surname, one given name. The row is withdrawn and the "four branches" claim is now three. Caught by opening the FamilySearch Tree profile that the record was attached to, which is the same move - go to the underlying record - that this archive keeps having to learn.
It is:
Caught by:
It said: That "Armand[o] Lorena", born 1882 at Rosario de Lerma, Salta, was "probably not him" - written off on four objections
It is: It IS him. The image reads "Clase de 1882 / LERENA - Pablo Armando / hijo de JUAN CARLOS LERENA y de MARIA LERENA / Nacido en Rosario de Santa Fe / Oficina enroladora de CAPETOWN". Three of the four objections were artefacts of a machine index that dropped "Pablo", moved him 1,400 km, wrote Lerena as Lorena, and invented the surname "Serena" out of the printed word SERIE.
Caught by: Opening the image. It took two minutes. *** This is the most serious error in the archive: the central finding of the project was nearly discarded. ***
It said: That Roque's first wife was "Rosalina Wilhelmina CHAPPELL", read from a marriage index
It is: CHAPPELL was her MARRIED name. She was Roseline Wilhelmina FORBES, widow of Frederick Christian Chappell. The 1936 register calls her "Rosaline Wilhermina Forbes Chappell" because that is what a remarrying widow is called.
Caught by: The 1920 Chappell-Forbes marriage, found in BOTH the civil and the Anglican registers, plus Chappell's own estate file.
It said: Margin readings taken from register openings rendered at 42% scale
It is: Not reliable. At that size "Timoteo Lucero" was read as "Armando Sara" - both words wrong, and an L-surname missed, which is the exact failure that matters when hunting one L-surname. Every opening was re-read from the margin strips at maximum resolution.
Caught by: Zooming on a single doubtful entry, and finding it was not doubtful at all - it was simply wrong.
It said: That the Lerena palette was identical to the FALCO archive's, with hex values quoted
It is: The values quoted were Falco's, not ours. The Lerena styles.css is byte-identical to the DEFRANCESKI archive's. Falco is the outlier, with a warm palette against the shared cool one.
Caught by: Reading both files side by side instead of trusting memory.
It said: That there were 29 places in the register
It is: 28. "arr. Buenos Aires 1907-07-14" had been sitting as its own one-person place beside the 43-person "Buenos Aires - arrivals" because the normalising pattern only matched "arr. YYYY".
Caught by: Looking at a person page that had no business having its own place.
It said: Layout: a bare "6" floating in the middle of a sentence on every person page
It is: .prose is a flex COLUMN, not a paragraph class. Using it on a <p> made every inline <strong> its own row.
Caught by: Looking at the rendered page rather than the built HTML.
It said: That the Italian-origin hypothesis was "the most consequential thing on this page"
It is: Within the hour, the low-confidence genetic groups showed no Italian group among the five legible ones - evidence against it. Downgraded the same day to "already weaker than when it was written".
Caught by: The next screenshot.
It said: That the Rosario marriage index showed "Larena V x Sarmiento A" at Libro 9 folio 20 - and that this was a candidate
It is: The entry reads *** LAVENA V. x BELMONTE A. ***. It was misread at low resolution and kept a false candidate alive for two days.
Caught by: Read again at the film's maximum resolution on 10 September. Not close: the hand is unambiguous.
It said: That a cluster of Larena/Lerena at Cayasta might be a kindred
It is: Cayasta is an ITALIAN colony - Laurini five times, Lauron, Castelarin - and the same mother is transcribed Azela in one act and Raiela in another. The "cluster" was a transcription artefact.
Caught by: Reading the acts instead of the index. Retracted publicly; the register entry is now EXCLUDED.
It said: That the 1869 census showed a Llerena HOUSEHOLD at Rosario
It is: The image shows twelve separately-numbered, unrelated individuals in a conventillo. There is ONE man of the name, Bartolome, not a family.
Caught by: Opening the image instead of trusting the index grouping.
It said: That Gabino L. Llerena was a Rosario-born link between the two countries
It is: Every other person on his record is Uruguayan, so the Rosario in question is Rosario, COLONIA, in Uruguay.
Caught by: Caught before it was published, by reading the rest of the record.
It said: That reading the Rosario registers needed the Chrome extension, because the in-app browser could not crop
It is: Wrong twice. The viewer has its own zoom, and - far more important - the Image Index panel is an HTML TABLE. The handwriting never needed to be read at all.
Caught by: David: "why do you need chrome? use your own browser?"
It said: That CEMLA lived at cemla.org
It is: cemla.org is a Mexican central-banking body. The arrivals index is at cemla.com/buscador/
Caught by: David went to the address given and found the wrong institution.
It said: That Mary Ann Hellen Brayley was a new find
It is: She had been in data/taylor-line.tsv since 8 September, from David's own MyHeritage tree. What findmypast supplied was a citation - the baptism of 30 Oct 1884 at Northam, ref 1843A/PR/1/16 - not the fact.
Caught by: David: "why is her mothers name new? its been in my myheritage tree forever."