Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

South Africa, Dutch Reformed Church Records (Stellenbosch Archive), 1690-2011

First of all: Thank you for providing an unprecedented and fantastic resource site for Genealogy research.

The above collection can be found here https://familysearch.org/search/colle...

This collection was apparently digitized in 2007 after an agreement entered into by the Dutch Reformed Church, FamilySearch and The Genealogical Institute of South Africa(GISA). Unfortunately it was only partially published online. It might be that at the time resources were not available or that permissions were only granted for a partial publication.

My recent inquiries confirmed that GISA nor the Dutch Reformed Church have any objection to the full publication of this collection. If needed, I can put you in contact with the right person.

Please, if resources allow it, could you make the rest of this collection available online?
2 people like
this idea
+1
Reply
  • Hopefully, someone from the archives group will read this post.

    Regardless, you may want to visit https://familysearch.org/archives/ser... and click on Find a Representative, fill out the form, and then convey the same information to whomever calls you that you posted here. They may even know what is going on or why the rest of the collection is not available online.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Hi,
    I don't know who is doing this behind the scenes, but somebody is making this data available online for us. I just want to say Thank you! You have no idea how much we appreciate it.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • Hi,
    It has been nine months since those records came online and I would like to thank you again. It has been wonderful to be able to do research in this way.

    Unfortunately something must have gone wrong somewhere because not all the records came online. It appears as if some films have older and newer records on them. I can understand that there might be some restrictions on the newer records regarding their publication, but does it mean that all the older records are lost to us until the newer records can be opened up?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • The link for the collection which was provided in the first post was for the images which have been indexed, and from there you can click through to the images.

    From the catalogue there is catalogue entry South Africa, Dutch Reformed Church records, Stellenbosch Archive, 1660-2011, which lists the constituent records, and again clicks through to the indexed records, and from there you can click through to the images.

    Using the Search term Dutch Reformed Church Records Stellenbosch Archive

    https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...
    Gives many results

    If you look at, for example, South Africa, Cape Province, Barkly East, church records, 1873-1971 https://www.familysearch.org/search/c..., there are three constituent microfilms, only one of which is stated to have been indexed.
    It therefore seems, according to the catalogue, that a lesser number of films have been indexed, as compared with those that have been digitised.

    When you say not all records came online, are you referring to index records, or to images? Are you able to find the records you believe are not online in the FamilySearch catalogue?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Hi Maureen,
    Please allow me to give you a few examples of the records I am referring to. The newer and older records are mixed on the film as such access is also restricted for the older records
    ------------------
    On this page
    https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

    baptisms (partial index; registers) 1833-1869
    Granite Mountain Record Vault
    International Film
    2232511
    Items 6 - 8
    8148210

    And on this film the older marriages, baptisms and memberships please.
    baptisms 1906-1944 -- memberships 1833-1910 -- marriages 1835-1854
    Granite Mountain Record Vault
    International Film
    2232513
    814821
    --------------------
    On this page
    https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

    Baptisms 1694-1799
    Family History Library
    International B1 High Density
    2214162
    Items 4 - 9
    8120997

    Marriages 1960-1976. -- Deaths 1810-1844
    Family History Library
    International B1 High Density
    2214270
    8147779
    -----------------
    On this page
    https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

    Baptisms 1745-1813
    Family History Library
    International B1 High Density
    2214324
    Items 7 - 8
    8147788

    Marriages 1957-1976, -- Deaths 1843-1919
    Granite Mountain Record Vault
    International Film
    2214509
    8147796
    -------------------
    On this page
    https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

    Swellendam - baptisms, 1836-1872. -- IV. Caledon - baptisms, 1811-1828. -- V. Caledon - baptisms, 1828-1834 Family History Library
    International B1 High Density
    2214885
    8148275

    Ladismith - baptisms, 1851-1879. -- Ladismith - marriages, 1851-1878
    Granite Mountain Record Vault
    International Film
    2232287
    8121099

    Willowmore - baptisms (index and registers) 1864-1870
    Family History Library
    International B1 High Density
    2262203
    Item 5
    812111

    Rossville - baptisms 1893-1929
    Granite Mountain Record Vault
    International Film
    2262296
    Item 5
    8148207

    Kenhardt - baptisms 1889-1893
    Family History Library
    International B1 High Density
    2262297
    Item 7
    8148189

    Kakamas - baptisms 1899-1911
    Granite Mountain Record Vault
    International Film
    2301225
    Item 15
    8148536

    Kakamas - baptisms 1907-1911
    Granite Mountain Record Vault
    International Film
    2301226
    Item 1
    8148535

    Tulbach (Tulbagh) - baptisms & memberships 1817-1889 -- marriages 1840-1884Family History Library
    International B1 High Density
    2302051
    Items 4 - 5
    8148545

    George - baptisms & memberships 1851-1895 -- marriages 1849-1860, 1872-1880
    Family History Library
    International B1 High Density
    2354580
    Items 7 - 9
    8148555
    -------------------------------
    On this page
    https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

    baptisms 1821-1878
    Family History Library
    International B1 High Density
    2214565
    Items 4 - 6
    8121013
    ---------------
    on this page
    https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

    Baptisms 1885-1908 -- Memberships 1788-1834 -- Baptisms 1815-1834 -- Memberships 1788-1862, 1835-1857
    Granite Mountain Record Vault
    International Film
    2214092
    Items 1 - 4
    4434404

    Marriages 1700-1788 -- Memberships 1732-1788 -- Marriages 1788-1807
    Granite Mountain Record Vault
    International Film
    2214092
    Items 6 - 7
    4434404
    --------------
    Burgersdorp
    On this page
    https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

    marriages 1931-1972 -- baptisms 1847-1849
    Granite Mountain Record Vault
    International Film
    2214736
    8039087
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • All microfilms will be digitised in time, and it is hoped to have them all digitised by 2020.

    If you particularly want to view records which have not yet been digitised, you can contact FamilySearch support to express your interest in having that particular film being prioritized earlier in the scanning process, through the "Help" or "Get Help" tab at the top right hand corner of the webpage, requesting the Historical Records Team.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Hi Maureen,
    Thank you for replying. That is just it. They are already digitised, they have just been censored by FamilySearch. I contacted the Dutch Reformed Church Archivist and he assured me in writing that they have not put restrictions on the collection and that FamilySearch indeed copied all their records. They feel that they have done their part for Genealogy and as such are not accepting any further inquiries.

    Apparently The Genealogy Institute of South Africa was also involved with the filming and they too assured me in writing that they have not put restrictions in place.
    Both received their CD copies of the records, as such the records are digitized.

    Now we have our only option left and that is to please request access to these records from FamilySearch.

    We have nowhere else to turn.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I'm confused about your reply. The records you quoted in your post above (dated February 24, 2018, 11.40) which I looked at showed a reel icon which means that they were previously available on microfilm, (microfilm has now been withdrawn) but they have not yet been digitised, but will be in time. What leads you to believe they have been censored by FamilySearch?

    The digitisation of the microfilms is an ongoing project, and it seems to me that a high proportion of the records from the Stellenbosch Archive have already been digitised, probably much more than in my field of interest.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Hi Maureen,
    I can understand that it might confuse you. The reel does not only mean what you say that the records was available on microfilm. That reel icon is also used to restrict access to records.

    For example, on this page
    https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

    We have a collection called: Marriages 1700-1788 -- Memberships 1732-1788 -- Marriages 1788-1807

    I personally accessed those records from that page before the collection was indexed. There was a camera that has now been replaced by a reel icon. I still have the link but it will just give you a lot of "Photo not Available" images.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • The only reason I know why records would be restricted is due to the attitude of the originating archive.

    As you say "I contacted the Dutch Reformed Church Archivist and he assured me in writing that they have not put restrictions on the collection" it seems to me to be more likely when you say "I personally accessed those records from that page before the collection was indexed. There was a camera that has now been replaced by a reel icon" that an error has occurred, rather than that the records have been censored by FamilySearch.

    You should contact Family Search through the "Help" or "Get Help" tab at the top right hand corner of the webpage, requesting the Historical Records Team.

    I would include catalogue details of the film(s) you have previously been able to access as images before, and details of the Archivist statement, and say that it appears that there has been a catalogue error that the records are not currently available as images.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • It's ok, I understand, because the top right said to post here.
    Anyway just for completeness here is the old link.

    "South Africa, Dutch Reformed Church Registers, 1660-1970," index and images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1... : accessed 26 December 2014), South Africa > Cape of Good Hope > Stellenbosch > Marriages 1700-1788 > image 8 of 39; State Archives, Cape Province.

    And this is what the archive wrote

    Beste Louis

    Die Argief het nie ander indekse as wat die GSU (Genealogical Society of Utah / FamilySearch) het nie.

    Die Kerkargief het nie ’n genealogiese doel nie. Die opstel van indekse of registers is dus nie ons besigheid nie. Die GSU het egter per ooreenkoms ons toestemming om ons registers te indekseer en te ontsluit

    Hartlike groete

    Bossie
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Use the original link I provided in the first post and start the process of contacting a member of the archival team.

    While every message thread is read by FamilySearch representatives, they may or may not respond due to work commitments.

    Failing that, call, during U.S. Mountain time business hours on a weekday, support. Ask to speak to someone who is involved with the contractual agreements digitized films.

    Keep in mind that original indexes are not indexed for searching. Also keep in mind that indexing is an ongoing project and is lagging seriously behind the digitization of the films.

    People who are fluent in the language of the Dutch records are needed to help index these records.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Hi Tom,
    Thank you for your kind response.

    The main issue is getting the records opened up not indexing. Indexing was just part of my conversation with the archive. If you check the records for which I provided the links you will see a pattern that where there are new (meaning recent) records and old( meaning hundreds of years (or almost) old records on a film, the whole film is restricted irrespective of the date of the old records. These records has been digitilised, else they archive would not have been able to receive the copies on digital media.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I looked at 2214092. The entire film appears to have been returned back into the queue for digitization. Back in 2010, when I spoke with a missionary involved with the digitization project, he said that some of the films were in very bad shape.

    It is possible (but I do not know this to be a fact) that the original digitization process failed at some point and as such, the images were withdrawn and cycled back through. That could mean that the film as at the bottom of the queue for digitization. It is a very low film number and likely was on very fragile stock.

    Even under ideal storage conditions, the microfilm stock does deteriorate. Testing for failure does not always result in accurate numbers. For instance, writable optical discs (CDs, DVDs) also do not hold their data as long as claimed. I have found that out from personal experience.

    So, in those cases, patience may be a key. If a film has been returned, you may want to go through the process of having it moved up the queue -- there is a link to do this, but I don't know what it is, but support should know the link if you call them -- so I would go through that process.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • None of us are getting younger, so I think maybe I'm too passionate about my family research. This might be a good incentive to leave those gaps for the next generation. No point in further addressing the issue, I'l accept the inevitable. The anticipation was there when we first heard in 2007 that the records were being
    photographed and digitized. Keep up the good work for the generations to come.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • All, Our Legal team here at FamilySearch has verified today that all patrons of FamilySearch.org accessing the collection - South Africa, Dutch Reformed Church Records (Stellenbosch Archive), 1690-2011 - should be able to view the 496,933 images associated with this collection. Your assertion that the DRC and GISA have placed no access restrictions on these images is, indeed, accurate. Just to be certain, we have resynched our backend systems today to ensure access to all patrons. Thank you for raising this concern. Orvill S. Paller, Technical Product Manager, FamilySearch (Rights Management)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Dear Orvill,

    You have no idea how happy you have made an old man to confirm that I am not lying or just taking a chance. I sincerely thank you for re-confirming the 496,933 images. I am aware of them and they have been there for it feels like almost forever, though they only represent a small part of the collection. After my original post nine months ago, a very kind person brought some of the rest of the records online in the catalog section, hence my recent post four days ago.

    Thank you again for your kind assistance.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • One of the points Lois made above in his post dated February 24, 2018, 12.34, was, and I quote

    "For example, on this page
    https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

    We have a collection called: Marriages 1700-1788 -- Memberships 1732-1788 -- Marriages 1788-1807

    I personally accessed those records from that page before the collection was indexed. There was a camera that has now been replaced by a reel icon".

    I have just looked at the catalogue entry, and the reel icon still shows for the records for which Louis said he had previously viewed images. So this part of Louis's complaint appears unchanged by Orvill's response above.

    When Louis said in his later post of February 24, 2018, 14.45
    "the top right said to post here ", I assume he is referring to the "Help" or "Get Help" tab at the top right hand corner of the webpage, which I had referred to in the previous post.

    If so, what else is this but "passing the buck" and refusing to try and properly pass on a problem to the correct Department, or otherwise try to find out an answer, as the impression I have from what I have read, is that specific problems should be sent to "Help" and this Forum is for general feedback and suggestions. What avenues does a person have when "Help" will not help? Louis's complaint about records, which were previously available as images, not now being available, should have been passed on the the relevant Department, I would think Historical Records, as to this point there is no indication he will get an "official" response from this Forum.

    I get the impression the "Help" area is manned by volunteers, but surely they must be receive some training? Management, how about diverting some "Campaigns" budget to training, or providing information volunteers can access? As a first step, how about setting out clearly in writing, accessible on the website, what queries the Help is to deal with/answer, and what this Forum is for.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited sad, anxious, confused, frustrated indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly

  • All, I have a partial explanation for what you are observing.

    First of all, my post from yesterday specifically addresses the ability of patrons to access images published to the collection entitled "South Africa, Dutch Reformed Church Records (Stellenbosch Archive) 1690-2011". The URL for this collection is = https://www.familysearch.org/search/c...

    In this collection, there are a total of 496,933 images which have been published and which I have confirmed are available to all patrons of FamilySearch.org. 100% of the images published to this collection were acquired digitally from the Genealogical Institute of South Africa in a joint agreement between FamilySearch, GISA and the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa. In other words, these images never existed previously on microfilm - they were acquired with a high-resolution digital camera.

    All of the images that patrons of FamilySearch currently do not have access to belong to an older - and entirely different microfilm-era agreement/contract - between FamilySearch and GISA. I have verified within our rights management system that, indeed, the image access permissions to these images do not presently allow them to be accessed by any patron to FamilySearch.org. This explains why you presently see the 'reel' icon from within the FamilySearch catalog and not the 'camera' icon.

    Obviously, this begs the question of why the image access permissions are different for these two separate agreements with GISA? The only difference I can see between these two agreements is that the one agreement covers our microfilm collection, and the second agreement covers our digitally-acquired collection. I have forwarded this question back to our Legal team here at FamilySearch, as well as to our field relations manager for South Africa, asking for their insight and response on this question.

    I will post a response once I receive an answer back.

    Respectfully,
    Orvill S. Paller
    Technical Product Manager, FamilySearch
    Rights Management
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • All, I have received a response from the Legal team here at FamilySearch and can now fully explain what is going on.

    As you are aware, there are different ways of accessing digitized images on the FamilySearch.org website. In some cases we have specific "collections" of images that are accessible and browseable via FamilySearch.org -->Search-->Records. The other principle way of accessing images is through the Catalog - FamilySearch.org -->Search-->Catalog. The key point I would like to make is that NOT all images available via the 'Catalog' are available via 'Records'. And not all images that have been digitized (i.e. digitally converted from microfilm to digital) are available to patrons of FamilySearch.org. Depending on contractual terms, data privacy laws, etc., FamilySearch can only expose to patrons of its website those images that conform to all of the aforementioned restrictions.

    In my previous post I posed the question about why there are two separate agreements with GISA each with a different set of permissions on who can, and cannot, view the images.

    The Legal team's response is that those images specifically cited as being inaccessible to patrons via the 'Catalog' on the FamilySearch.org website cannot be displayed to patrons due to data privacy laws of South Africa. The Legal team further confirmed your assertions that GISA has contractually placed no restriction on access to these digital images - this is a true statement. However, the statutory restrictions governing data privacy in South Africa is the reason that you are not able to access these images on FamilySearch.

    For the record, data privacy laws in South Africa protect are as follows: 100 years for birth/child data, 50 years for marriage/adult data, and 20 years for death data.

    Ex. As an example, let's take one of the films that was cited on this email thread. GS 2214092 (DGS 4434404). The fact that there is a DGS number means that this film has, indeed, been converted from microfilm to digital.

    Items 1-4 of this film contain Baptisms 1885-1908 -- Memberships 1788-1834 -- Baptisms 1815-1834 -- Memberships 1788-1862, 1835-1857

    Items 6-7 contain Marriages 1700-1788 -- Memberships 1732-1788 -- Marriages 1788-1807.

    But, Item 5 contains 'Memberships, 1795-1923'. And, according to our Legal team, 'Memberships' are considered as containing 'child data', and as such, are restricted to 100 years (or the year 2023).

    At FamilySearch we are currently working on improved technology that would allow sections of a digitized microfilm to be made available to patrons of our website, while restricting access to those sections of a microfilm which cannot be made available due to data privacy restrictions. Unfortunately, this technology is not yet available. And, as such, for any given single roll of microfilm that has been digitized (i.e. converted from the original microfilm to digital images), if there is a single image that exceeds the statutory/data privacy laws for that locality, then FamilySearch must - by default - restrict access to the digitized copy of the entire roll of microfilm. It's not ideal at all. But, unfortunately we are not allowed to provide access to the digitized copy of this microfilm at this time.

    NOTE - The Legal team did tell me that most of the GISA records for the Dutch Reformed Church that derive from microfilm contain these 'Memberships' records that extend into the 1920s. This explains why, presently, there are only two rolls of microfilm from the entire collection that are accessible online.

    If there are any further questions on this subject, please let me know.

    Respectfully,
    Orvill S. Paller
    Technical Product Manager, FamilySearch
    Rights Management
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Thank you Orvill for pursuing this matter and advising the information to this Forum. I was unaware that digitised images would be withheld in this way, as none of the information released about digitisation of microfilms even mentioned this as a possibility.

    Hopefully the work FamilySearch is currently doing on improved technology that would allow sections of a digitized microfilm to be made available on FamilySearch, (while restricting access to those sections of a microfilm which cannot be made available due to data privacy restrictions) will enable those sections not subject to data privacy restrictions to soon be available.

    Regarding the restricted data, as this data was previously viewable on microfilm at a Family History Center, would not the equivalent access after digitisation be to view the images at a Family History Center, rather than not have the records viewable at all?
    • view 1 more comment
    • Orvill, even though your news is not good, thank you for your further comments.
    • `I suppose FamilySearch was not very pleased to find out that after micro films has been digitized that the images in the new digital folder of the film cannot be separated especially in view of the $60 million being spend to digitize the micro films.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Thank you Orvill for all the trouble you went to. I have just two questions.

    You are very precise when you refer to the Stellenbosch collection"In this collection, there are a total of 496,933 images which have been published"

    My first question is: Is this the only images that was digitized at Stellenbosch at that time or are there more images which has not been published. I am asking because the archivist said everything was filmed and I in my opinion these 496,933 images does not represent the whole collection.

    My second question is not from me but one of the younger ones who asked why you cannot use copy and paste when the folder with the images are uncompressed? I suppose they are talking about when the pictures are taken of the film documents that they are then stored in a compressed folder on the drive. I really have no idea how your process works, maybe someone with more knowledge can explain.
    • view 5 more comments
    • UPDATE (5/1/2018) - This morning I was advised by our cataloging team that the remaining images for the Stellenbosch Archive have now been cataloged. This means that an additional est. 190,000 images are now available (or should be available today or tomorrow) for patrons to access on the FamilySearch.org website. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Happy searching!
    • Thank you Orville for wonderful news and please thank the team as well. They really went out of their way to help☺
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated