Person talk:Sarah Hoyt (18)

rejecting 1670 birth date [20 November 2011]

I removed the note "There is record of Sarah's sister Rachel Hoyt born 28 Jun 1670. The record may be confused, or they are (unlikely) twins. Hoyt Genealogy does not provide a birth date for Sarah." and changed Sarah's birth date to 1668. Based on her marriage in 1688, she probably was born by 1670 at the latest, but date given belongs to Rachel, suggesting she was born earlier than that.

Of the sources cited, the Hoyt Genealogy has no birth date (suggesting they did not find it, making it likely it was not recorded); Cutter says 1668 without giving a precise date, providing further indication a recorded birth is not to be found; and Greely says 28 Jun 1670 which, indeed, conflicts with the vital records of Amesbury, which say this is the birth date of Rachel but has nothing for Sarah. It is not clear why, in this situation, Greely should be believed. He seems to be in disagreement with the primary source and with other two sources.

It is, as suggested, extremely unlikely that there would be twins and only one would get recorded. To suggest a primary record is wrong would require some kind of contradicting primary evidence, such as an age at death for Sarah that calculates to 1670 (though ages at death are so flaky, it would probably also need the age at death of Rachel calculating to something other than 1670 to be convincing), or a discussion that no such person as Rachel existed, or any of the various ways it could be discovered that the primary record was wrong. Nothing like this is presented.

Given that two sources (Hoyt in 1871 and Cutter in 1908) didn't seem to find a record giving the precise birth date, though they were apparently able to find such records for the other children, one naturally wonders how Greely was able to succeed where they failed. I'd say that it is far more likely that Greely, in 1911, long before computers and photocopiers, was looking at his notes for the Hoyt family, and copied the birth date off the wrong line, the line below Sarah that belonged to the next child in the family, Rachel. If, as the other two did, he had presented information on all the Hoyt children, he may have caught his error, but he was focused only on the one. --Jrich 11:34, 20 November 2011 (EST)

Cutter as a source is not quite unreliable, but is spotty. It is my opinion on Cutter that his facts need checking and is a primary source of "last resort". I would support Sarah's birth as proposed by Greely as an alternative birth. The published VR of Haverhill, would be a secondary source not a primary source as it has been transcribed and then typeset.--Kpb2011 11:46, 20 November 2011 (EST)

The VRs are admittedly derivative, not original, but the information has a basis in primary records, as opposed to Mr. Greely's information which is asserted without evidence or explanation. We have the capability of examining the underlying handwritten vital records to confirm what is published, but not so with Mr. Greely, since we don't know where to go to confirm his information. The analysis was not based on reputations, and I have rejected Cutter's conclusions on several WeRelate pages, when there was good evidence to do so. But when resolving conflicting assertions, I try to find confirming evidence, particularly some with a primary basis, and I found none to support the 1670 date for Sarah. Mr. Greely is the only one that gives this date, and in fact all the other sources appear to me to be more consistent with Mr. Greely being wrong (since all list Rachel born in 1670). Since the possibility of error is always present, and since Mr. Greely's focus was not the Hoyt family, I do not feel his unproven assertion carries enough weight to justify this even as an alternate birth date given that it conflicts with Rachel's birth date. Undoubtedly, there is much information about this family which I have not seen, and if you know of some that supports Greely, please post it, and I would not then object. Until then, it has the appearance of being a common record-keeping error. --Jrich 13:19, 20 November 2011 (EST)

I accept your analysis on Greely's 1670 birth and concede using it as an Alt Birth. Perhaps my concern is that, since I cite Greely, the unsubstantiated birth info he provides which is likely some error, is "dangling" out there without comment. It seems appropriate not to ignore Greely's assertion but to address what is unsubstantiated and appears to be an error. Thoughts?

Wanted to add, Hoyt as source for approx birth year that is unmentioned in the actual text seems to be inappropriate. Hoyt could be used for parentage, his birth order is insufficient in my opinion to support identifying a year and then attributing that year to Hoyt.--Kpb2011 11:52, 20 November 2011 (EST)

Hoyt was added because you mentioned it as showing no birth, which made it pertinent to the discussion of the birth date, at least until more conclusive evidence is found. It does provide some information, at least by reasonable implication: that Hoyt found no recorded birth for Sarah. I provided the information that Hoyt actually does give in the text box, to make it clear that Hoyt is not supporting the specific estimate of 1668. If it makes you feel better, you can attach the source citation to the name field instead. --Jrich 13:19, 20 November 2011 (EST)

I will leave it in your hands. If you feel a change is warranted, or if it is sufficiently clear, then it is what it is.

BTW, thanks for the additions to the sources that I posted, I see now how that field is intended to be used. I will be more diligent with that.--Kpb2011 11:56, 20 November 2011 (EST)