|
|
Does this "source" actually cite the real sources? Or is it just a miscellaneous catch-all with no documentation specifics?
- Ancestry.com says this:
- Ancestry.com. American Marriages Before 1699 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: The Generations Network, Inc., 1997. Original data: Clemens, William Montgomery. American Marriage Records Before 1699. Pompton Lakes, NJ, USA: Biblio Co., 1926.
- It's extracted; results from a database search look like this:
- Name: William Taylor
- Spouse: Rebecca Stoughton
- Marriage Date: 25 Jun 1664
- Marriage Place: Dorchester, Mass.
- I was aware of Ancestry's citation (sorry, I didn't make that clear) -- but that still doesn't answer the question of documentation for the asserted facts themselves. It appears the answer is "No" -- there's no specific documentation. We don't know whether Montgomery was accurate in his extractions, or whether he changed (or even made up) dates and places. --Mike 22:06, 10 January 2010 (EST)
I went looking for more information and found another entry for the marriage. From Dorchester births, marriages and deaths to the end of 1825, page 21, 1664 Marriages:
- Mr. William Taylor married unto Mrs. Rebecca Stoughton 25 of the (6 mo:) 1664.
Looking at the opening pages of this publication (Report of the Record Commissioners), it says this about the records contained were copied from the original records. It also says that the handwriting from that time period was clear.
Thoughts? -- Jillaine 22:41, 10 January 2010 (EST)
Ooops. Sorry. I got sidetracked on the Taylor bit. You're speaking about the SOURCE not about William Taylor.
Mike, what are you getting at here? What's your concern? Jillaine 22:47, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- Well, my concern is the same concern I have with many of Ancestry's sources (not to mention One World Tree, which I frankly loathe). When you cite a compilation, you ought to be able to say something like "American Marriage Records Before 1699 (citing Dorchester Marriage Book 15, p. 22)." We do that all the time, for instance, with the Baton Rouge and New Orleans compilations of archdiocesan church records -- each abstract includes the name of the church, the original book, and the page number. Researchers aren't allowed to handle those original books any more (too fragile), but you can cite the actual original source. This gives one considerably more confidence in the accuracy of the citation. Ancestry, however, has quite a few sources that might charitably be called "miscellanea." Stuff like "International Marriage Records," which they admit were taken from other people's submissions to various websites and projects. Not a real citation in the bunch. So we end up with subscribers on Ancestry blindly taking questionable information from an unsupported source in a second- or third-hand compiled publication. But then that kind of thing is being GEDCOM-ed into WeRelate, where we're supposed to be encouraging better research methods.
- I know, I know, I'm becoming a source-quality vigilante. . . . --Mike 19:47, 11 January 2010 (EST)
- I don't think it's bad to be a source-quality vigilante. I found a page that used this source as a source (Henry Chapin; you're watching that, too), so your query had me go looking more deeply and I found a few more places that documented a more correct date for the event.
- All this said, this kind of "source" is still important. At least it lets the reader know where the contributor obtained the information. Frankly, that's better than no source at all, imho. And as I describe above, exploring how valid (or not) it is revealed more and more correct information. Jillaine 17:20, 12 January 2010 (EST)
Went digging again-- this time about this particular source. Found bits about it on google books.
Says this:
- The compiler of this volume began, a score of years ago, to assemble the thousands of marriage records in this country covering the Colonial period.
I can't find anything further about it.
-- Jillaine 22:56, 10 January 2010 (EST)
|
|
