Person talk:Ruth Allen (34)

alt birth date 28 versus 26 Aug [2 March 2012]

Just because The Eddy Family in America gives a different date does not make it an alternate, unless it gives some information to indicate where that date comes from so that we know it is not just a typo. It does not. If you can provide actual evidence that the published records are wrong, that is a different question. --Jrich 00:55, 15 February 2012 (EST)

What is gained from this? If two sources give two different dates, what is the harm giving them both with clear notes of where they came from? What is the harm in giving 10 different dates if all are tied to sources? Colby Farrington 09:05, 15 February 2012 (EST)

What is gained is the avoidance of creating a myth because some book probably made a typo. You can't equate primary and secondary sources. The Eddy Family, especially as it identifies no sources for its data, has no where near the authority as the Watertown Records. The due diligence necessary to override the Watertown Records would require either going to the hand-written records, or finding some documentation identifying the date as an issue and giving the evidence for thinking it is wrong. The Eddy Family did not mention any such issue, presumably was looking at the same source that other people read as 28 Aug. Allen H. Bent, who wrote several articles on various branches of the Allen family, gives the 28 Aug date at NEHGR 54:397, further suggesting the Eddy Family merely made a typo. --Jrich 10:15, 15 February 2012 (EST)

First, why are you saying 28 August, when the date currently in place is 28 May? That makes three different dates - 28 May, 28 August and 26 August. Second, isn't that what alt dates are for - where an alternate date is given in some source but carries less weight than the main date listed? I'm not advocating replacing the "Birth", just adding an "Alt Birth". Users can click on the two sources and make a judgement for themselves - and should come to your same conclusion. But to hide the alternate date entirely will needlessly confuse users, esp. if their main source was the Eddy compilation. Colby Farrington 13:25, 15 February 2012 (EST)

Well you pointed out a problem, in that Bent does say 28 Aug, the Watertown Records do say 28 May and the Eddy Family does say 26 Aug, so none agree. I hadn't noticed because I was focused on the day of the month. But neither Bent nor the Eddy Family indicate what they are based on: family Bible? diary? baptism date? Or the same town records as the published records? Whereas the Watertown Records are a reflection of the official town records. Potentially copied wrong, but that is verifiable. But you can't verify a date when you don't know where it comes from, hence you can't assess how likely it is to be right or wrong.

No, I don't think that is what alternate dates are for, as somebody simply asserting something does not make it so. Some people actually have multiple primary sources giving different dates and it is impossible to pick one as more likely and alternate dates are required then. That is not the situation here. If we just wanted to put all possible dates so anybody searching would find it no matter what their source, we would add all the mistakes in Savage, Bond, etc., as alternates and we do not. Further, here it is one heavyweight against two lightweights. The different value given by the Eddy Family was noted in the source citation, but it cannot be considered valid until its original source is identified (ditto Bent's article).

Without identifying where the Eddy Family and Bent got their data, we can only guess. The simplest answer may be that the shape of Aug and May is somewhat similar, 26 and 28 certainly look alike, and this is a issue of reading the original handwriting I think (haven't looked to see if a film is available) it could be checked without excessive trouble. But that this is the source of the problem is speculation, and the published records have to remain the de facto answer, until this is done (based on their familiarity with handwriting style due to long practice, team of people reading and proofreading, multiple copies of the records to refer to, etc., if the project was run like most of those type of projects), the others as footnotes.

What you "think" does not make it a rule. Find me a site rule that supports your assertion. Otherwise, what I think is that having more information is better, and representing reliability as "Birth" vs. "Alt birth" makes perfect sense. Colby Farrington 10:27, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Well, this situation has gotten more confused by realizing that Bent is different still from the other two, and the same reasoning you give suggests his alternate date has an equal right. Are all these alternate dates, all in the same year, helpful? I doubt it, especially since Eddy's alternate is clearly given in her citation. Further, from the website of BCG [1], the body which certifies genealogists, one element of the Genealogical Proof Standard is "Complete and accurate citation of sources". One of the justifications for this is "Allows others to replicate the steps taken to reach the conclusion. (Inability to replicate the research casts doubt on the conclusion.)" Neither Eddy nor Bent tell where the birth date came from and hence their research cannot be replicated, hence are doubtful. There is no true alt birth here, there is one birth and two probable errors. The published town records are clearly the presumptive authority over either Eddy or Bent (primary versus secondary). Somebody that thinks one of the secondary sources might be right should probably take the time to get an image of the original handwritten town record (which carries weight as a relatively more original version of the primary records than is the published version) and see if that image supports their case. If so they then have provided verifiable evidence that neither Eddy nor Bent did. I am not that motivated, but I can tell you that Massachusetts Births and Christenings has a record that says "28 May 1703" based on film 745869, which is a "Microfilm of manuscript at Watertown Town Hall", so this appears to be based on somebody's reading of exactly the image I was referring to. I can also tell you that the record of baptisms, another primary source, has a gap that starts after 6 Jun 1703 and goes for about 20 years, so it offers no independent evidence either way. (Ebenezer's first daughter was baptized about a month after her birth so these baptism records do not cover the likely time period for a baptism following either birth date). That's just in case you were trying to resolve this, instead of merely championing your favorite? only? source. --Jrich 12:00, 2 March 2012 (EST)

If I was trying to champion a source, I would lobby to make it the Birth instead of Alt birth. All I am championing is the inclusion of information in a format that makes more sense - in the discrete Alt birth field rather than relegated to the hodge-podge text of the source text fields below. You are asserting that only primary sources have a right to be in the Alt birth area and I have seen no consensus to support that assertion. Colby Farrington 13:00, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Fine, I leave this page to you. I don't have time to look up more sources for this. It won't surprise you to hear that I do think there is a consensus to remove data for which there is no proof or that is disproven. Intuitively most people recognize that a primary record made at the time of the event that disagrees with a secondary source written 250 years later offering no evidence, that this situation pretty is considered to disprove the secondary source. And you could peruse the contributions lists of several users besides me (not to pull them into this discussion, but take a look at colonial contributions of Jaques1724 or Amelia and see if you don't find phrases like "no proof" or "no credible evidence" in the summary description) to see if there isn't a pretty fair agreement that data without adequate proof gets removed. --Jrich 14:25, 2 March 2012 (EST)

At least for the sake of newbies like myself, something needs to be documented better than "look at these two people's contributions" (which BTW, I sampled a small set of the most recent thousand contributions of both and found no relevant examples). A page of conventions and guidelines will be a lot more useful than the trial by fire that I am experiencing. Colby Farrington 22:52, 2 March 2012 (EST)