User talk:Jaques1724

Welcome [7 January 2013]

Welcome to WeRelate, your virtual genealogical community. We're glad you have joined us. At WeRelate you can easily create ancestor web pages, connect with cousins and other genealogists, and find new information. To get started:

• Take the WeRelate tour to see what you can do
• Watch the "Getting Started" tutorial videos and learn how to make wiki pages for your ancestors
• Explore the Step by step Tutorials, if needed
• Create a User Profile page to tell other people about yourself and the families you are researching
• Read the etiquette page to learn expected behavior on a wiki
• Find other ways to get involved on the community portal
• Ask questions on our Support page

If you need any help, I will be glad to answer your questions. Just click on my signature link below and then click on the “Leave a message” link under my name in the upper left corner of my profile page. Thanks for participating and see you around! Debbie Freeman --DFree 12:36, 11 April 2011 (EDT)

Re: William Holton The Holton records have been spelled in numerous forms. William's Dedham records do have spellings of both Holton & Houghton. William's son John maintained the "Houghton" spelling. Therefore it is pretty certain that William of the Francis/Elizabeth is the same William of Hartford/Northampton. Unfortunately the Great Migration does have missing info. It is a wonderful source but not 100% complete.--SandyS 09:21, 7 January 2013 (EST)

Savage's Genealogical Dictionary [18 April 2011]

For the last 10+ years, as I've worked on early New England Families, I've been "grooming" (for lack of a better word), Judge Savage's original work. This started with the original scanning and editing by Robert Kraft, Benjamin Dunning, Warren Wetmore and Debbie which has been and is available at Savage's Dictionary. Any excerpts that I post will (1) have been un-abbreviated; (2) checked against the Kraft, et.al, version for errors missed in their initial proof-reading of the OCR versions; (3) checked to ensure that latter corrections by Judge Savage have been incorporated; and (4) providing my own corrections when I am aware of subsequent research which renders Judge Savage's statements and/or conclusions inaccurate. I'm posting this because I expect to periodically post some of these "corrected" versions of Savage and so that anyone who has issues or questions concerning this approach has a starting point for discussion.--Jaques1724 15:13, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

I believe this is a misguided approach. The "groomed" citation is now your work, not Savage's. It will not be clear to the reader what is the original and what is your assumption. Anybody that knows Savage will look at your entry and know it is not vanilla Savage and will not trust it. If you are going to expand Savage's abbreviations, I feel the proper way to do it is with brackets, as you will see in my edits to Person:John Craft (14). If there is a correction, whether provided by Savage in a separate publication, or another author, that should be indicated separately, possibly as a note attached to the citation or a separate citation, else the reader will compare your citation to his copy of Savage and lose all trust for your citation. I share your frustration over Savage's crabbed style that sacrifices clarity to save a few pages of paper, but there is a greater need here to only attribute to Savage what he actually said with strictest fidelity. --Jrich 23:17, 18 April 2011 (EDT)

Place names [20 April 2011]

Recently you edited Person:Jacob French (14) (and I believe others), and added an alias "Cambridge, Middlesex, Massachusetts" to the end of the standard place name "Cambridge, Middlesex, Massachusetts, United States" for his birth in 1640. And since the data didn't come from a GEDCOM, you must have intentionally typed it in. I and several other people are actually doing the opposite, removing such aliases and leaving the standard place name, since such aliases add no information. It is part of my mental checklist of things to do every time I edit a page.

I know you are not trying to use a historical place name, because Middlesex County did not exist until 1643, and in the year 1640 this area was Massachusetts Bay Colony, not Massachusetts. Yet your alias did not add any information that wasn't already there, so I can't figure out what your intent was.

Why I remove these kind of aliases, fyi, is primarily because the aliases complicate editing. They tend to make the place name so long that the alias is not in the visible part of the editable field, and sometimes even after an edit, a place will still carry a stale alias as a result. They can hide mistakes (like naming a page in England but hiding it with an alias in US, or similar, which I run across now and then). Finally, they mess up auto-completion since a place with an alias won't autocomplete, which provides useful verification that one got the name correctly. Esthetically, I think they give a non-standard appearance to the page, particularly family pages, where some place names are long, some are short, and it makes the page looks sloppy and uncared for, and the lack of consistency of usage makes it harder for new users to discern how places work. I believe these are mostly intended to deal with non-standard place names that come in via GEDCOMs, and otherwise should generally be avoided, and that attempts to use aliases almost always really belong as part of the source citation or part of the narrative where a full explanation of what is trying to be communicated may be given. --Jrich 19:07, 20 April 2011 (EDT)

Dangling pages [21 April 2011]

Hi. Recently you edited Family:Nicholas Danforth and Elizabeth Symmes (1), largely to change the name of Elizabeth Symmes to Elizabeth Barber. I got notified having accidentally put myself on the watchlist a few months back experimenting with trees. As nothing on Elizabeth Symmes' page indicated any information that pertained to Elizabeth before her marriage - no parents, even the birth date was estimated from birth of first child, a post-marriage event - and I believe it would have been better to change her name, rather than detaching Elizabeth Symmes and creating a new page for Elizabeth Barber. It was very clear that the page was intended to be the wife of Nicholas Danforth. The five people watching the old page were now left watching a page that attached to no other person, when one must presume they wanted to be watching the wife of Nicholas Danforth, whatever her name is or turns out to be. Not having studied the situation, I am not even sure that an Elizabeth Symmes existed, so the dangling page may have represented a fictitious person, but in any event the data on the dangling page only pertained to the wife of Nicholas Danforth. I merged this dangling page into your newly created Elizabeth Barber page so those five people are again watching the wife of Nicholas Danforth. --Jrich 08:56, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

LDS Info [22 April 2011]

I happenned to see your message to Amelia, and I added a further comment over on that page. While I'm not a member of the LDS church - and I whole heartedly agree that WeRelate is a strictly secular environment - the efforts and circumstances of the LDS on behalf of genealogy seemed to me to warrant less brusque treatment on our part. So before you start cutting LDS info - let's be sure that's what we want to do. Thanks! --Jrm03063 14:06, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

My problem is that the software does not allow me to save the pages with those recent dates up in the date fields. I've got three choices: (1) don't edit those pages at all; (2) eliminate the references to LDS info; or (3) copy and paste in the text field. I certainly mean no disrespect to the Church and I'm sorry if it sounded that way. My intention was obtain guidance on the appropriate way to work around the constraints imposed by the software.

P.S. If anybody else has input, please provide. There's still more than a bit of a mess in the families of Deacon Peter Brackett and I'd like to clean it up A.S.A.P. In the interim, I intend to move the LDS dates down in to the text field and they can be eliminated later if appropriate. If I don't do it that way, it's not going to get done.

My take would be to delete it. I have been when I encounter it. I also commented on Amelia's page so I won't repeat that. Most of these came into through GEDCOM uploads ,and are there probably because the contributor simply loaded everything they had on their home computer, without necessarily realizing or intending to share this data, regardless of how appropriate it is or isn't (isn't in my opinion). --Jrich 15:16, 21 April 2011 (EDT)

Dallan (head of the site) has agreed these should be deleted. You can go ahead.--Amelia 10:48, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

Isaac Stedman

I'm going to revert the changes you just made. Because there is a documented christening date, a birth estimate that is not materially different should not be used because it will then get picked up by search and family pages instead of the christening date. Source information needs to go with the source that it's from, not in the description fields, because otherwise they can get separated during subsequent edits. Also, information as it came from the source should remain in the source citation detail field, even if it seems like right now it's duplicating what's in the event fields, so 1) others can determine if there was any interpretation involved in the events; and 2) the connection between source and what information came from it is preserved if other sources are added. --Amelia 10:48, 22 April 2011 (EDT)

Articles [26 April 2011]

Help:Source page titles says "Please put the author and title information for the actual article you're citing in the "Record Name" field or the "Text/Transcription" field of the Source Citation on the page citing the periodical. The practical reason for this is that most articles have such a narrow focus that they do not really need to have separate source pages devoted to them."

Unless there is a pressing need to add commentary about the article on the source page, Article source pages are actually less useful than using the existing source page for the periodical Source:New England Historical and Genealogical Register and putting the article author and title into the record field (i.e., Bartlett, Ralph Sylvester. "Alexander Shapleigh Of Kittery, Maine, And Some Of His Descendants"). Because the way citations are built, the page range for the whole article gets pulled in and obscures focused page number references. So, for example, the citation Bartlett, Ralph Sylvester. Alexander Shapleigh Of Kittery, Maine, And Some Of His Descendants. New England Historical and Genealogical Register. (Apr 1941-Jan 1742), 95 : 180ff, 264ff, 324ff; 96 :27ff. on Person:Edward Hilton (7), the user is not directed to the page that discusses Edward Hilton but to a rather long series of pages on the extensive Shapleigh family. In fact, if they are trying to order the pertinent stuff through PERSI or some similar service, they don't even know which issue to get, much less which pages to ask to get copied. --Jrich 10:25, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Point taken and understood. However, it seems to me that with these extensive articles, which may be the only "family genealogy" done on an immigrant ancestor, both the ancestor's identity and the author ought to be captured on a source page. Taking this (Shapleigh) as an example, how should I handle both the source page and the citation on the Edward Hilton page so that someone who is relatively unfamiliar with WeRelate can most easily determine where to go to pursue their research on either Shapleigh or Hilton. There are a lot more of these out there; one which comes quickly to mind is the extensive article, really a series similar to the five generation studies on Mayflower families, on the Spencer brothers which appeared in The American Genealogist in the early 1950's. Thanks for your help. --Jaques1724 13:04, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

So I added the page number "(esp. 95:181)" in the source citation. The displayed citation now gives the full set of installments from the Source page, and appends my little note from the citation at the end. Probably not up to librarian standards, but the combination indicates to me the reality better, that Edward Hilton is talked about on one page of one part of a multi-part article, and it still leaves the Source page intact so those interested in Shapleighs and related families can add commentary. Makes me happier anyway. Does that seem reasonable to you?

My philosophical preference would probably be to see a page number in the citation override any page numbers on the Source page when the citation is displayed, as a rule, since it more likely to be focused on the pertinent part, but having the full set of pages numbers on the Source page would be useful when people clicked on the link to read more about the source, and would be used if no page number was specified in the citation. This issue hasn't come up enough times to really have a good idea of the ramifications, much less bother Dallan about it yet. Ironically, Edward Hilton is mentioned again in vol. 95 in an article on Walter Barefoote, p. 219 and 231. --Jrich 14:22, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

I went back to the source page and altered my approach. I think it's cleaner now but would like your input. I decided that if the volume and page are included in the source citation (as you did), including the volume numbers in the volume field of the source page is redundant when they are included in the text field (and clutter up the source citation on the person page).--Jaques1724 21:15, 25 April 2011 (EDT)

Removed fact from Grace Palmer (16) [1 May 2011]

I am curious as to why you would remove a fact (Living Mar 1737/38, in Rehoboth) from the record of Person:Grace Palmer (16). The fact was cited (with a secondary source that identifies the primary source), and provides information about how long she lived, in the absence of a death date. --DataAnalyst 03:30, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

My mistake, no excuse, rolled back. Thanks for catching it.--Jaques1724 10:13, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

IGI records [1 May 2011]

On Person:Anne Fiske (2), you wrote "online IGI records either say South Elmham St. James or do not specify". I looked through the 25 IGI records and every one is user-submitted, basically anonymous and sourceless, and therefore of no credibility. Some IGI records refer to films, and those films do turn out to be parish registers, so those particular IGI records are valuable, but the rest are essentially pollution. --Jrich 09:26, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

On the other hand, if you consult Smith's Genealogical Gazetteer of England, there is no entry for South Elmham, but there is one for each of the seven South Elmham villages named after their respective parish churches. Also, there are place pages on this site for each of those seven but not for South Elmham, Suffolk, England. How would you handle this one?--Jaques1724 12:38, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

My point was only that basing anything on user-submitted IGI records doesn't carry much credibility. I have no real opinion on this issue. I would cite my sources, try to indicate accurately what they say. I don't think Jacobus mentions the church of the baptism if I remember, hence no village, so if I wanted to make it clear, I might add [specific church not named], or something like that, to my abstract of what he does say. Henry Bond's Genealogies of Watertown, Vol. 2, p. 756, says something vague that indicates the family comes from St. James in South Elmham, and Pierce in the Fiske and Fisk Family (available on archive.org), p. 49-50, says the father resided in "St. James, So. Elmham, Eng." --Jrich 13:57, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

That doesn't really answer my question. What do I do with the place field on her page. There a place page for each of the seven villages/parishes but none for the generic South Elmham. You are correct that Jacobus does not mention the parish (at least not in Ackley-Bosworth). I suppose the easiest thing would be to cite Pierce, although I've spent enough time and energy trying to make sense of what he wrote about that family (and Foster, which is one of my lines) that I have a thorough distaste for his work. I had also checked the IGI records hoping to tie one back to the registers, but we both got the same result.--Jaques1724 14:33, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

It is a little surprising of Jacobus not to be a little more descriptive. Well you are allowed to add/change WeRelate place pages, but assuming that those seven villages represent the actual population centers correctly, you have to pick one. So clearly based on the located sources, it is St. James. It sounds like the only other choice would be to go to the County level. I doubt many people would notice if no source specifically says St. James :-), or you can cite Pierce as a stop gap. Presuming that Jacobus based his report on an actual parish record (where did the date come from after all?), someday you'll find it, and can remove Pierce at that point, correcting the place if need be. --Jrich 15:45, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Genealogical Research in England by G. Andrews Moriarty on The Fiske Family. Huge article with three installments of just original records, followed by multi-generational summary of the family. Page 87:45: Transcription by Rev. Lancelot Bird made in 1924, St. James, South Elmham, Baptisms, 1593-1657: 1610 Ane, daughter of John and Anne Fyske, 1 April. Summary section of the article on p. 88:273: Anne, bapt. at St. James, South Elmham, 1 Apr. 1610; d. at Dedham, Mass., 5 Dec 1649; m. Francis Chickering. They went to Massachusetts in 1637 and settled at Dedham, where he was ensign, selectman, and deputy. They had issue. --Jrich 16:11, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

Excellent; thanks. By the way, regarding the citation in Ackley-Bosworth, we can't be too hard on Jacobus, he was only the editor of the material gathered by Parke who was compiler and publisher.--Jaques1724 16:15, 1 May 2011 (EDT)

John How/Howe [12 July 2012]

I though it unnecessary to switch the Alt Name and Preferred Name on this page. Then I noticed that the only two contemporary records actually use "John How" and only secondary sources use "John Howe". Then I discovered a letter in NEHGR 4:64 with a facsimile of his signature which is "John How". It seems to be spelled consistently in his will as How, also, including the signature. So the change that was made is seems either gratuitous and unnecessary, or for those that believe in historical accuracy, wrong.

Secondly, I don't think the way you handled the birth date was all that helpful to future readers. You wiped out a date and an alt. date that do appear in many places, inserted an estimate, and then cited a source that gave yet a third date creating a confusing message and not providing any explanation of what was wrong with the old date. If nothing can be proved, putting one unproven choice over another unproven choice seems like no improvement. I think it would have been better to have included a note with a survey of the alternatives and the conclusion that his origins are unknown leaving only a rough estimate, so the next person that comes along won't assume you weren't aware of the alternatives.

John How has had a lot of various information printed about him by many sources. One gets a different picture, it seems, in each one. You seem to be relying mostly on one source. Unfortunately it is still in copyright and not readily available so I haven't seen it. However, "perhaps" doesn't exactly inspire me to grant it lots of credibility. What makes Devonshire any more likely than Warwickshire? An abstract would help. --Jrich 21:34, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

I'm new, so I still need to be educated. Below are the full quotations from the sources I have available; given that data, how would you construct the page for John Howe the first?

Howe Genealogies, I:1-2.

"Of the ancestry of John Howe of Sudbury and Marlborough, nothing seems to be known, except that he was an Englishman. From the painting which used to hang upon the walls of the old Red Horse or Howe Tavern in Sudbury, and from vague family traditions, it has been conjectured that the father of John was John How, Esq.; that the latter was of Warwickshire, England, and was a son of John How in Hodinhull, and was related to the family of Lord Charles How, Earl of Lancaster in the reign of Charles I.

"Of this tradition," says Mr. Barry (History of Framingham, p, 293) "the author of this history has yet failed of discovering confirmation in the records of Watertown." Mr. Savage (Savage: Gen. Dic. Vol. 2, p. 475) also seems to be skeptical about the truth of the tradition. As there is no way of verifying it, the tradition will probably continue to rest upon mere speculation and conjecture.

Every reasonable effort has been made by me and by various others of the descendants of John How, to ascertain something definite about his English ancestry, and these efforet have been aided by genealogist in England and others there. So far very little progress has been made.

In 1900, at the solicitation of Mr. George R. Howe of Newark, N. J., Mr. Richard Savage of Stratford, Secretary of the Shakespeare Birthplace Association, made an investigation of the records of the parishes of Warwickshire, which showed that there were several Hows there at an early date. Among those there in 1580-1588 who were rated for the support of the poor, wer John How, Thomas How, and Lyman Now of St. Nicholas Parish. In 1608-9 John How of the same parish was tenant of one of the houses owned by the parish, and paid more rent than any other person, except one, in the parish. The names of John, Thomas and Lyman are all very common among the descendants of John How of Sudbury and Marlborough.

Mr. Savage also found that Hodinhull in Warwickshire, had been merged in Hodnet. In Dugdale's England and Wales (edition of 1835, vol. 2, p. 967) Hodnet is mentioned as being in Warwickshire, three miles from Southam, nine from Warwick, seven from Kineton and eighty-one from London, and as having a population in 1835 of only nine. It lay between Ladbroke and Itchington and is now depopulated, and it would require much time and expense to ascertain the whereabouts of the ancient records and to make an investigation thereof."

The Ancestry of Eva Belle Kempton, III:257

"John and Abraham Howe were not the only immigrants of that surname in early New England, but they were the only two to end their lives in Marlborough, Mass. Beyond this and the fact that Abraham witnessed John's will, only their children's intermarriage, and a year's service in 1673 when they were both selectmen in the same town, connects them on this side of the Atlantic.

The Howe family in Woodbury, Devonshire, includes first cousins once removed of the appropriate ages to be our immigrants John and Abraham Howe. Unfortunately, a great dearth of information outside of the parish registers, hampers efforts to demonstrate any more than the most basic facts about these families. Like so many parish registers in this era, Woodbury's loses track of the Howes just about the time John and Abraham might have come to New England. Several distinctive given names were used in Woodbury: Anthony, Ursula, Susanna, Abraham and Isaac, names that, with the exception of Abraham and Isaac, were not used in New England. We are left with no conflicting evidence, but precious little confirmation that these were our men.

For this reason, a simple outline of the Woodbury families is included in this chapter, but no claims that John and Abraham there are the same as John(1) and Abraham(1) here (Extensive surveys of Woodbury and nearby parish registers, as well as probate searches, were conducted by Clifford Stott, F.A.S.G. His reports are in the Howe folders of the Smith-Sanborn manuscript collection at NEHGS."

p. 261

"John(1) Howe (perhaps John(A), Anthony(B)), perhaps the child baptized at Woodbury, Devon, England, 22 June 1617, …"

Bruce Ancestry, 15

"John How of Sudbury was the son of John How, Esquire, of Warwickshire, who descended from John, the son of John of Hodinhill, who was of the family of Sir Charles How of Lancaster in the reign of Charles I." [no attribution for the quote, sounds like it's quoting Howe Genealogies]

Bigelow-Howe, 17

"It has been printed that he was the son of John Howe of Warwickshire, Eng., who descended from the family of Sir Charles the First but Savage, the best authority known on New England families, denies the claim."

Savage, 2:475

"HOWE, JOHN, Sudbury, s. of John, Warwicksh. (as a very respect. writer in Worcester Magaz. II. 130, gathers the tradit. speaking of his relation to Howe, Earl of Lancaster, when such a title in the peerage had not existed for near two hundred yrs.), had been a long time at Watertown, freem. 13 May 1640, by w. Mary had John, b. 24 Aug. 1640; Samuel, 20 Oct. 1642; Sarah, 25 Sept. 1644; Mary, 18 Jan. 1646, d. young; Isaac, 8 Aug. 1648; Josiah; Mary, again, 18 Jan. 1654; Thomas; Daniel, 3 Jan. 1658, d. young; Alexander, 1661, d. soon; Daniel, perhaps tw. with the last in b. and d.; and Eliezer, 1662. He had pet. 1656, for the grant of Marlborough, and rem. thither with his fam. and d. 10 July 1678. His wid. liv. twenty yrs. later. Sarah m. a Ward; and Mary, m. 1672, John Wetherby."

Jaques1724 23:36, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

It is beyond my expertise to judge English claims. As I had read things, I think Bigelow-Howe had mistated the findings of the Howe Genealogy, in which (Richard) Savage didn't so much deny claims as it was simply unable to prove them? Clifford Stott is usually pretty good, and I would want to read his whole document, but why did he go to Devon? Just because he found both an Abraham and John there? The bottom line appears to my reading to be that there have been at least two extensive surveys of parish registers, both finding some How/Howe families and some naming patterns that match, in two different locations, but nothing has been found that can conclusively, or even probably in my opinion, identify the origins of John How. But as I indicated, I rely on others to figure out the stuff overseas.

My concerns center more on communicating with the future reader of this page. The whole thing is a long story, and the question is how to best communicate it to the reader, starting with the multiple death dates in print, the age at death for which no basis appears known but probably has influenced some of the information in print, and continuing with inconclusive searches for his origins. You know people are going to come along that have only seen one source, either this one or that one, and whatever their source says, they are going to want to see that on the page. So if it isn't acknowledged somehow, the data on the page could get erased in the process of them putting there. So, simply removing the Hodinhull information, doesn't strike me as the right thing to do.

If I missed something, and Hodinhull is actually considered disproven, that case needs to be presented, because I can vouch that it is a far easier set of facts to find on the Internet than is the Devon case. And if it is not disproven, then it should probably be left as an alternative. --Jrich 09:44, 19 May 2011 (EDT)

I'd handle this situation by including the bulk of what you quoted above in a section of his page called "Origins". But I'd probably summarize it a bit more so than you did here. Jillaine 10:53, 12 July 2012 (EDT)

Sorry about the spam [1 June 2011]

I deleted the message here that contained link spam and blocked the user that posted it. I don't know what tools WeRelate has in place to prevent spam from being posted - that would be a good question for Dallan. When spam does sneak through, admins delete it manually and block the user. --Jennifer (JBS66) 05:00, 1 June 2011 (EDT)

Double dating [10 July 2011]

Your recent changes caused me to look at Person:Mercy Warren (1) and I just wanted to rely my thoughts about the double dating. You may want to check with Dallan.

I believe the facts represent conclusions. They are supported by one or more source citations. The source citations should be shown to say just what they say, so that if you want to add double dating to a source citation, brackets are definitely appropriate to show that it is an added comment by you as "editor".

However, the facts represent conclusions, not any single source. They are the distillation of all the sources, some of which often say different things. For example, I have frequently seen the vital records give the old style year, and Cutter or some other genealogist to give the new style year. Therefore I don't believe brackets belong in the fact, any more than you would have to misspell the month in the fact because your source left the r out of February, etc.

I am not sure exactly how well the software deals with dates having brackets, but as this is not in the GEDCOM specification, I expect it would be a matter of luck if it happens to throw away what appears to be extraneous punctuation and handles it correctly.

Anyway, very thrilled to see all your sources, it is very encouraging to see others that care about documenting how it is that things are known. --Jrich 11:20, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Just to clarify - it had to be 1657/58 (even though the source said 1657) since the next older child was born 2 August 1656. If not for that information, I would have left her birth date as 20 Feb 1657.

Like you, just to clarify: I wasn't questioning the date itself, just the use of brackets in the structured date field of the fact. Brackets belong in the source citation, certainly, just not that fact, in my opinion. Agree with the 1657/58. Even without the suggestion provided by the sibling birth date, 20 Feb 1657/58 would be the de facto interpretation. I think this presumptive use of old style by the town clerk (at least for Jan. and Feb., March is very ambiguous) is even strong enough to override less accurate sources, such as age at death. --Jrich 12:27, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Inconsequential changes? [19 July 2011]

When you changed the spelling of Ann Wheeler to Anne Wheeler (and nothing else), it propagated to all her children, all her marriages, and generated a lot of change notices on some people's watchlists. If those people take their watching seriously, then they must diff each one to see what changed, then visit the page to clear the change, etc. In a community effort like WeRelate, there are likely to be multiple preferences about the best spelling of her name, as colonial names were rarely spelled consistently, there being no real idea of "correct" spelling until Webster's Dictionary came out. So it often just reflects whatever source you looked at last. Even official records often reflected the whims of the recording clerk, changing when a new town clerk was installed. Deciding what is the single correct spelling seems to me to be a questionable proposition for people living before, say, 1800. Within source citations you should reflect the spelling used within the source, but I don't think there is necessarily a "correct" value for the name fields, unless the spelling is so bad it is going to prevent search from finding the person. That is not the case with Givenname:Ann and Givenname:Anne which are equivalenced to each other. --Jrich 21:41, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

I've found that when editing people from families that are a mess (usually due to multiple gedcom uploads which nobody has tried to clean up - not a criticism, because each individual can only do so much), I've been bitten by having someone else's changes to the page while I'm still editing; e.g., Hannah Webster Emerson yesterday where I lost and had to recreate some changes because I hadn't done an interim save. In this particular case, I did six saves over a period of three and a half hours in order not to lose my work. Davis (Annis Spear) calls her "Anne" - I don't have access to the baptismal record from St. Edmund's Salisbury, but I'll give him some credit. There's no VR for her marriage to Aquila Chase, but there is, in the Newbury VR, for her second marriage, which also calls her "Anne." Since there are all of fourteen people (besides me) watching her person page, most of whom appear to be inactive, and pretty much the same group watching the family page (with Aquila Chase), the two or three or four active participants are probably interested in what changes have been made. I expect to soon tackle the rest of the John Wheeler - Agnes/Ann/Annis Yeomans family page, which is pretty messed up with sixteen children where Davis only names 12. These are not quick edits, if I want to do a thorough job, so please give me a little time to complete each page.--jaques1724 22:39, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

I will try to stay away from this so I don't interrupt your edits again. If the parish register is found and it says "Ann" are you going to rename her back? (hopefully not) Unfortunately the baptism is not in IGI, though someone posted that it is on film 1729311, so I suppose it could be looked up. If there were 14 people watching this page that suggests there were 14 people that looked at this page and thought "Ann" was adequate. I am not arguing for Ann or Anne. I appreciate all your work, and especially attention to detail, but I do feel that it is immaterial whether it is Ann or Anne, and probably hard, if not impossible, to say what's correct. Her death record says "An", so average "Anne" and "An" and get "Ann" (attempt at humor). --Jrich 00:11, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

According to a transcription on familysearch pilot in the England Births and Christenings collection, the name is "Ann Wheler". It says the source is film 1279311 (the poster must have transposed the digits). Follow this link, select Continue to Pilot, and it should take you to the record if I did everything right. --Jrich 00:26, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

I'm done. Do whatever you think is right with this page.--jaques1724 01:16, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

Margaret Hubbard [26 July 2011]

You just wiped out a half hour of work removing caps.--jaques1724 00:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Why are you using all caps for names which is discouraged on WeRelate?--Susan Irish 00:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't like caps and I don't use them in the name field and do change them when I find them. When I'm quoting from a source, I input it the way they wrote it. If that's incorrect behavior, I'll not do it again.--jaques1724 01:11, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Every time a page gets changed, watchers get notified, and if they are active watchers, they are going to inspect the changes, possibly building upon the changes. There is nothing to tell them that somebody is still doing further changes on the page. Thus, multiple saves are exactly likely to cause this conflict. The save need not be to the page directly. If one of the marriages or parents are changed, information gets exported to various pages, generating a change notice. So working through a family (which I usually do, also) is quite likely to put you in a situation where edit conflicts will happen. WeRelate is still under-utilized, and this could be much worse if user activity increases. So learning to use the edit conflict screen might be worth the time investment. That said, I haven't :-). But I have inspected it enough to know that it displays your changes, so if you bring up a new edit in a new tab, you should be able to rescue most of the edits using cut and paste (or you can work directly in the edit conflict screen, but I haven't ever had enough work at risk to yet motivate me to undertake learning how to do that.) --Jrich 09:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

ordering of sources [19 August 2011]

I notice on a lot of pages you change that you place your source at the top of the list. I am not aware of an easy way to do this (is there one other that cutting and pasting each field of the source citation into a new spot?) which would appear to say it is a conscious effort to put yours first. Is there a significance to this? Does it have to do with comprehensiveness of the source? --Jrich 19:49, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

You kind of captured it. What I've always tried to do first, is to connect the individual to the parent(s), and the most likely source for that to happen (and to connect with the siblings) is in something like TGM, or Dawes-Gates or Davis's three volumes. The by-product of that is that those sources tend to be much more comprehensive. Another way of putting it is that (IMO) the first source a person sees should lead directly to the most (and hopefully most accurate available) information about an individual and his/her family. A citation to a family genealogy (the Raymonds of MT/CT happens to be one I'm playing with now) gives you a lot more to pursue than citing a vital records entry for a person's birth. If this is causing heartburn, I'll stop, but my secret accountant's soul is happier when things are "orderly".--jaques1724 20:27, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

I'll add that if the choice (for a date of birth, for example) is a family genealogy or a published vital record, I'd prefer to have the VR listed higher since it's probably closer to a primary record than the other.--jaques1724 21:35, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Thanks. No heartburn, I am just happy to see quality sources being cited. I approach things differently, but it's mostly style. I tend to put VRs first because they tend to be what family genealogies are based on, and tends to be the most unadulterated statement of what we know. Family genealogies are useful because the authors presumably have studied the whole family, and are in a good position to confirm that the VRs are being applied to the right individual, out of the universe of all people having the same name. But, to understand why something is believed, or to refute it, the primary records, such as VRs, are really the issue that needs to be addressed, and the secondary sources will collapse once that primary foundation is removed. Also, some family genealogies (Source:Wheeler, Albert Gallatin. Genealogical and Encyclopedic History of the Wheeler Family in America stands out in this regard, though I could name several) are so full of errors, I wouldn't believe them except in those cases where they, or somebody else, explicitly identifies the primary sources that support what they say. Citing primary records can be a little disjointed, but I always assumed at some point, somebody would eventually write a narrative that gives the comprehensive picture, and so I rationalized away that problem. --Jrich 23:50, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

GEDCOM Export Ready [11 September 2011]

The GEDCOM for tree Trumble/Trumbull is ready to download. Click here.

Wikipedia templates [29 October 2011]

Hello, I noticed that you have been putting the Wp and wikipedia-notice templates on new place pages. Instead of putting these two templates on the pages, you will need to use the following code: {{source-wikipedia|wikipedia page name}}. A weekly automated process will replace this template with the information from Wikipedia. There are more details about this process here. Thanks, --Jennifer (JBS66) 18:04, 29 October 2011 (EDT)

Deletion of Benjamin Bunnell & Rebecca Mallory marriage date [29 November 2011]

It would be polite of you to at least let the previous marriage date for Benjamin Bunnell & Rebecca Mallory remain as an alternate marriage date and ask where the date came from. Not just assume that Rebecca could not possibly have married at age 15 (not 14), therefore the date must be wrong. Most every date I had, had some type of citation before I had all of my research destroyed, and had to piece things together from a card file I had given my neice. I will do a search for the date I previously provided. In the meantime, please leave the alternate date as is.--Neal Gardner 17:19, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Two other factors I considered were (1) neither Jacobus nor Torrey (through Supplement 3) ever identified a firm date for this marriage; and (2) the interval of more than three years before the first child was born, which is odd for a couple that then has ten children over a period of 22 years. The 27 Nov 1664 date can be found at familysearch.org and at the rootsweb world connect project, but those are both notoriously unreliable. I apologize for being too aggressive in the editing, but I would be more than surprised if a source for the 1664 date, other than the two websites I mentioned, turns up.--jaques1724 18:54, 29 November 2011 (EST)

I'll point out that Torrey lists 13 sources and still didn't have a date. I believe the de facto presumption must be that the 1664 date is invalid based on the circumstantial reasons mentioned (age, length of time till first child), and should be deleted unless a source is added soon. This isn't a place for keeping personal notes, it is a place for presenting known facts for other people to review and improve upon. --Jrich 22:31, 29 November 2011 (EST)

Person:Thomas Fitch (governor) (1) [7 March 2012]

If you don't believe in the WP statement about this person's lineage, that's ok. I just think you owe the Gov Fitch page itself some comments on why the stuff on WP regarding his parents is wrong or untrustworthy. Other people are going to stumble along and recreate it if they don't see a substantial presentation that indicates they shouldn't and why.

I also saw that you had some thought of doing a Savage transcript. I'm putting one up that will be a relatively unchanged version of Dr. Kraft's work. I don't plan to de-abbreviate or otherwise modify Kraft/Savage appearance. I'm also preserving line breaks as in the original. The idea is to make it easy to compare the Kraft version with the original, auditing changes Kraft and his team made, and discussing whether there are additional errors or omissions (which would appear somewhere else). I'm spreading it out one wiki page per Kraft/Savage page - which automatically provides each transcript page a discussion page, list of surnames, places, and a date range. This also makes it very easy to cite Savage pages using a template {{savagepg|1|2}} = 1:2. My content is a script processed version of Kraft, so that I'll have a full set of pages with reasonable starting content for surnames, places and dates immediately. The first twenty pages are there as a sample now, under Transcript:Savage, James. Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England.

--jrm03063 18:58, 24 February 2012 (EST)

My knowledge of the interface to wikipedia is very imperfect, but I believe WeRelate has a cached copy, and so reinserting the template will still pull from the cached copy. Better to edit the actual wp-xxx template (cut and paste?) and then next time the job is run it will update it to the latest copy. The frequency used to be every 6 months or a year, but it might be more frequent now? --Jrich 10:00, 3 March 2012 (EST)

I went back and checked the help page before I did it. This way (I believe) it will be picked up in the routine weekly update from Wikipedia, which in my limited experience seems to happen Saturday night/Sunday morning. Otherwise you have to wait until the 3 or 4 times annual. We should know by tomorrow morning whether or not I made the right choice on this.--jaques1724 10:06, 3 March 2012 (EST)

Wikipedia insertions are done by transcluding a template. All that is on the actual Person page is a reference to the template, not that actual material, so changing the page itself has no real effect. Sunday's job should reinsert the invocation of Template:Wp-Thomas Fitch (governor) and I assume the job will realize the template exists, so the new page will still transclude the old information. (You can see the reference to Sarah Boardman if you look at that Template.)

Even if the template did not exist, and WeRelate had to create it new, it would copy the data into the template from a cached copy of wikipedia that is several months old and would still say Sarah Boardman.

So unless something has changed since my past experiences (always possible), tomorrow you will see the old information naming Sarah Boardman. At that point, you can hand edit the template above to fix it, and in 6 months when a new cached copy of wikipedia is pulled in, WeRelate will update the template, replacing your hand edits, and making everything current. --Jrich 10:35, 3 March 2012 (EST)

I saw the noble, but futile, effort to flush the troublesome WP content. Jrich's description of the WP inclusion/refresh process is, to my knowledge, accurate. --jrm03063 13:31, 7 March 2012 (EST)

I revised the current template content by hand, in order to jettison the bad info between now and when the next WP archive is obtained and refreshed. --jrm03063 13:40, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Nice work; thanks [4 March 2012]

Just want to thank you for all the wonderful clean up you are doing. Jillaine 05:13, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Identity of the wife of Richard Seymour [8 March 2012]

Would appreciate your review of the seemingly conflicting information provided by Seymour and Savage. I would presume that Savage is the weaker of the two, but would prefer your analysis to my supposition. Whichever you find, please note which one is believed to be wrong via a note attached to the source citation on the page for Seymour, along with appropriate remarks of your own to the Disputed Lineages section. If it's Savage, I'll add a note indicating a probable error at the appropriate place in our transcript of Savage.

Thanks. --jrm03063 13:27, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Savage, p. 4:643, under Woodruff, contradicts what he says under Seymour and Hawkins. --Jrich 14:07, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Good eye. One strike against Savage... --jrm03063 14:11, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Wasn't original. Came from here. Based on the will of the father, which is pretty good evidence. This source also says Hannah Hawkins married Jonathan Nichols which seems to be in agreement with Jacobus and this record of marriages in Stratford. Further, Savage (2:382) also lists Hannah Hawkins b. 1662 which would make her 12 at the time Richard Seymour is supposed to have married according to the WeRelate page, if it is to be believed. This age for Hannah Hawkins is supported by Anthony Hawkins probate records in Manwaring. --Jrich 17:41, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Because of this conversation, I just went out and cleaned up the three marriages of Hannah Howkins; Jonathan Nichols, Sergeant Samuel Ward and John Judson. The applicable sources were Hale, House and Families of Old Fairfield. Got distracted while I was working on Welles/Tomes family and never got back to it. For what it's worth, I've found Farmington one of the more difficult of the old towns of the Connecticut Valley. There are some decent family genealogies, but nothing even as helpful as Stiles (which is full of misleading info for both Windsor and Wethersfield) for pulling it all together. Haddam/East Haddam is also relatively difficult.--jaques1724 18:05, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Excellent. I had been focused only on trying to help corroborate one or the other of the proposed marriages for Seymour, and hadn't even really looked at her page. Every pebble creates ever-widening rings. --Jrich 09:08, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Heard and understood. I want to wait until (hopefully) this Saturday when I plan to spend at least part of the day at the New York State Library. According to their catalog, they have the 1949 Bouton genealogy, and I'd really like to review that before I jump. If it's no more useful than the 1890 Bouton genealogy, which horribly mucks up the first two John Bouton's, then I'll go ahead, but I'd like to line up the ducks and just do it once.--jaques1724 14:22, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Savage Transcript "About" and Defect Handling Practice [8 March 2012]

I've ammended the Savage transcript "about" document based on your comments, and added a proposal for the handling of defective (but correctly transcribed) sections. I would very much appreciate your review. Thanks! --jrm03063 11:22, 8 March 2012 (EST)

Elizabeth Usbourne, wife of Abraham Cruttenden [8 April 2012]

Hi,

Since youve done most of the editing on the Elizabeth _____, wife of Abrahama Cruttenden page, I just wanted to inform you I have renamed her to Elizabeth Usbourne, per the article last year which proved that was her name via the will of her brother (IIRC it was the same author who discovered her name as Elizabeth in the first place). Her tree was also expanded by several generations, which I will add at a later time.

I will add sources to the article once I get caught up.--DMaxwell 09:45, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

Anna Richards [17 April 2012]

Jaques1724, Thanks for the update on Anna Richards, wife of Ephraim Hunt. I have updated my family history and webpage accordingly with your update and citation. Keith.--Khs2000 10:47, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

You're welcome. If you haven't already looked at it, the four-part Stott article in the Register takes the family back several generations in England and ties the Richards family to a number of other early New England families including Blake, Torrey and Wolcott (none of which are in my ancestry).--jaques1724 11:13, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Thomas Minor/Miner [1 May 2012]

Why are you changing other people's work? "Miner" is the most common spelling of the family members on WeRelate. --Susan Irish 04:08, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

Because I went back through the literature and saw that the professional genealogists with the best credentials such as Jacobus and Anderson used "Minor" instead of "Miner". I believe I even pointed that out when I made the first two changes.

I have complained before about your spelling changes on colonial people (see inconsequential changes above), when there is no right answer. Everybody's got to pick one, and in colonial times, there are often multiple valid choices with documentary backup. In the end, it is just opinions, whether it be Anderson's, Jacobus', that of a prominent Minor/Miner genealogist, or your opinion of who is the genealogist with the best credentials. In the past some of your choices of spelling have actually changed spelling that had previously matched the historical documents. Other times you have changed the spellings of parents to match their parents (apparently) making them no longer match the spelling of the children. All valid spellings selected for good reasons, but changed to make the spelling match what you want. Why? It all seems so unnecessary and arbitrary, and comes across as merely your insistence on having your preferred spelling. If search finds the page when you ask for your spelling, the spelling doesn't need to be changed. If it doesn't find it, but the spelling seems phonetic, use an alternate name. Only change the spelling if it is not recognizable as the same name, or is wrong. Basically, this is the price of working in a collaborative environment. Even as a watcher that doesn't care about the spelling one way or the other, all those spurious change notices get annoying, as the spelling changes propagates through the marriages and to all the children, asking the watcher to re-inspect sometimes dozens of pages but bringing no new information of value. --Jrich 09:56, 1 May 2012 (EDT)

NEHGR access [31 May 2012]

You said you had access to the NEHGR archives? I could use a lookup for the article The English Ancestry of Elizabeth Usborne, First Wife of Abraham Cruttenden of Guilford, Connecticut that appeared in 2011. Parts of it are available online, but not enough for me to quite more fully for Elizabeth Usbourne's article (she and her husband are pages you've edited before).

This website here :http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=linda50&id=I4605 also says:

" A new article in the Jan 2011 issue of the NEHGR says he is 'probably' the Abraham bp in Etchingham, Sussex, 30 Sep 1599, son of Thomas. Etchingham is the parish next to Hawkhurst in England."

Same article? It doesnt say. Might also be worth finding.--DMaxwell 21:58, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

Another set of loose ends I left lying around. For some reason I had edited the source page for the 2011 Mahler article, but never saved it. I think it's appropriately fixed ad is Elizabeth's person page.--jaques1724 00:12, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

What do you think of that Usbourne articles claiming the father of Abraham Cruttenden? You think its solid enough to put it his page? Sounds compelling, but she doesnt elaborate.--DMaxwell 00:15, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Based on Mahler's statement in the 2011 article, I went ahead and edited the page. The baptism is found in the Etchingham parish registers, the date of the baptism is right, Etchingham is five highway miles from Hawkhurst, and Cruttenden is not a common surname. I'm comfortable with the tentative identification as long as it is made clear that it is probable, not proven.--jaques1724 11:27, 31 May 2012 (EDT)

Did you notice this? [4 June 2012]

Your edit on William Bradley:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:William_Bradley_%2830%29&oldid=16949682

This user deletes the note of yours that tells that all the stories about Bradley are probably bogus, without explanation:

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Person:William_Bradley_%2830%29&diff=next&oldid=16949682

I notice that the same user deleted a note about a Joseph Fuller before, which he excused as a 'finger slip'.--DMaxwell 06:56, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

Take a look at the history - I don't think this was the wrong edit, because I don't think Prindle was discussing Daniel/Elizabeth as the parents, and while I don't know who to attribute their discovery to originally, Neal and I are the ones that went over the research to put them in. Most online/crap/previous genealogies gave different parents (William Bradley, Joanne Waddington). This should probably be better explained on the page, but unless you can confirm that Prindle was discussing Daniel/Elizabeth v. William/Joanne, to cite him is misleading. See Discussion here. --Amelia 14:05, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

It wasnt my edit, so I dont know what the source was talking about. I was confused why he removed it without comment and not seemingly resolving the issue. It also seems to be relying on very old reference material, while not always wrong, I wondered if there might be some newer research. --DMaxwell 14:12, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

I think it might have been done wrong. The removed source citation appears to say his parentage is unproven, which may be an important point to make, regardless of who that source thought were the parents. I find the evidence fairly convincing personally, but it boils down to matching names. So, for example, unless my quick perusal missed something, it does not give evidence that the Connecticut names had the same relationships as found in the English records. GPS (Genealogical Proof Standard) says that alternate theories need explained away, not simply removed. At a minimum, along with the removal, a comment could have been placed on the Talk page explaining why it needed to be removed. --Jrich 14:52, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

The late Paul W. Prindle, FASG, was a highly regarded genealogist who worked extensively on families associated with the Connecticut coast. What he was saying was that until the first record of William Bradley in New England, which was probably his 1645 marriage to Alice Prichard at Springfield, all we know about him is what Jacobus had already told us in Families of Ancient New Haven, 2:261, that Elizabeth ----- was his step-mother and his half-siblings were Ellen, Daniel, Joshua, Nathan and Stephen. I've seen no credible evidence (doesn't mean it doesn't exist somewhere) identifying his father or his place of origin. I wouldn't want to even begin to tackle his person page as it currently stands; it reads like typical nineteenth century semi or pure fiction invented by or provided for folks who wanted distinguished ancestors and a coat of arms. The nearest copy of the Gillespie Ancestry is at the New York State Library and I don't know when I'll get a chance to consult it again.

You would think that if there were any validity to the alleged origin and parentage, it would have been treated in the literature by Jacobus, Coddington, Homer Brainard or someone similar. Jacobus, writing on the family of William's wife Alice Prichard, in 1968 (The American Genealogist 44:193), says this, "Alice² (Prichard), b. say ca. 1624; d. at New Haven in 1692; m. at Springfield, 18 Feb. 1644/5, William Bradley, who d. at New Haven in 1691. If he had parents or baptismal dates, he would have given us more like he did on the next page for Hannah Langton, wife of Alice's brother Nathaniel.

I understand what Jrich is saying about explaining away alternate theories; the way the page is sourced now, it's a challenge to get back to the source(s) of (in my mind) bad information in order to start trying to build a counter-case.--jaques1724 16:03, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

I agree that this could have been handled better, but in Neal's defense, you dropped in and added that citation yourself without comment, thereby implying, particularly with your bold text, that the information on the page was wrong, when in fact there had been discussion and many edits dealing with just the question that this identification was not previously known in the literature. I get that there are zillions of goofy immigrant theories out there that need debunking, but a cite from 1976 (or 1968) saying that parentage is unknown strikes me as really not very useful unless it's used to discredit a particular, earlier theory - and here it was not. With the rapid filming and digitization that's gone on since then, it's vastly easier to find relevant birth records and thus the fact that something was unknown 40-60 years ago says very little about what is a reliable theory today.

I just took another stab to attempt to clarify, and if you still think it's awful, then please [all of you] do take a stab. I left Prichard precisely because that seems to be the hook that leads people to identify Sir William and Joanna as parents. --Amelia 17:20, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

I didnt say that I thought it was awful, but my thinking was that I couldnt find any recent literature that confirms it or casually gives off the parentage with no further comment. His 'parentage' was given an age of the most infamous goofy immigrant theories (ie every immigrant to New England seems to have been the son of a Sir something or other!), and what is cited is very very old. Sometimes you dont need to cite anything newer because nothings changed (say, for example, from the Barbour collection), but I cant find any newer source that just repeats it, as I said. Please dont take it personally, I am the last person to want to denigrate someone's work on a page here.--DMaxwell 21:29, 3 June 2012 (EDT)

How the edit was handled aside, I note that Jacobus did name the 5 five half-siblings as such: Ellen, Daniel, Joshua, Nathan, and Stephen, so he found evidence of their relationship in Connecticut. However, Jacobus gave estimated dates for the births of the half-siblings. This indicates that he was unaware of the parish registers (Ellen, p. 66; Joshua, p. 70; Daniel, p. 73; Nathan, p. 162; Steven, p. 169). I don't think he could be aware of them and not at least comment on how striking the match is. So, not having that information, Jacobus would naturally say the parentage is unknown. Presumably Prindle also.

We have five siblings in England, all found in Connecticut, and known to have the same relationship as seen in England based on Connecticut evidence. The baptisms turn out to be close to those estimated by Jacobus (Joshua older than Daniel, not younger). The odds of this being a mismatch are miniscule. Their father is recorded as Daniel Broadley.

The New Haven Colonial Records regarding the estate of Daniel Bradley says William is "brother by the father only". The court who had access to all the principals (except Daniel who had died) seems to make an unequivocal statement about William's relationship to the half-siblings. It seems to me this pretty much proves that William's father is Daniel.

Actually, it seems to me that the biggest question mark is the wide variety of information emanating from the New Haven Records about the estate of Daniel Bradley, not the lack of evidence. Savage mentioned a widow, Cutter said Daniel died 1653 instead of 1658, Bradley of Essex County quotes the document as "brother by the half only", while the above says "brother by the father only". If I was related, I'd be trying to get a film of the original records. --Jrich 10:38, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Anything for the Josiah Brown who m. Mary Holbook in New England Historic Genealogical Society? [6 June 2012]

Sorry to have another lookup request, but this Josiah Brown who married Mary Holbrook, daughter of William and Hopestill, in Uxbridge, MA has been a mystery to me for awhile. Other than what appear to be some erroneous sources on him in a couple of places, I can find nothing on him save for the record of his marriage to Mary. (Note to Jrich - thats why I havent added sources to his page - there seem to be none)

When I last had a subscription to the NEHGS, I couldnt find anything, but it was before they had indexed as much journals/sources (at that point, the Nutmegger wasnt in their archives for example).--DMaxwell 20:56, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

NEHGS site has ten Josiah Browns in the VR born between 1705 and 1725. The only one that looks really promising is Josiah, s. of William and Rebeckah, (born Mendon) Jan. 29, 1719. Searching for him using Holbrook as a keyword turns up one Revolutionary War pension file for a Josiah Brown (File Number 45,164) that mentions a Mary Holbrook. More likely to be a child of theirs than the Josiah you're looking for, if he connects at all. 81 hits in the Register, but you probably already knew that.--jaques1724 22:33, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Just providing some details to above. I looked up the pension application on fold3.com and it is not the Josiah Brown who m. Mary Holbrook. He deposes that he is 73 in 1818, so born about 1745. Served in Connecticut, was living in Madison, New York with second wife in 1818, unable to support himself and his 4 children by current wife without assistance of his children by his first wife (their names not specified in the deposition). The file says he d. 1826. The reason Mary Holbrook is mentioned is because the file contains a query by a lady trying to join DAR who states in her query that Mary was his wife. However that is obviously not possible since the marriage occurred in 1744, and since Josiah and Mary had a daughter Lydia born in 1745, it appears unlikely that there is any connection. --Jrich 20:09, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Thats the one they usually give, its who exactly are his parents that it gets murky. The problem with them as they appear only in records related to him (Josiah). Online trees give them (no source) as William Brown and Rebecca Prentice. This couple (if they exist) dont seem to connect to any Brown or Prentice line. Could also never find a provable death date for Josiah and his wife (this Josiah seems to be the same as the Rev War veteran).--DMaxwell 22:37, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

There is a marriage record for William Brown and Rebecca Prentice/Printic in Mendon, also recorded in Boston, for some reason, 13 Oct 1719. I don't doubt their existence, it is whether their son Josiah, whose birth is also of record (though apparently only 3 months after the marriage), is the one that married Mary Holbrook. His age and youth spent in Mendon argue in his favor. And BTW, middle names, and especially initials, before the Revolutionary War, happen to be one of those symptoms I have referred to in previous discussions, of poorly done genealogy. I suspect somebody copied this from CT Nutmegger p. 25:35 where an article on Gaylord Porter identifies Chloe as the daughter of "Josiah B. and Mary (Holbrook) Brown", the B. probably standing for his last name Brown, not a middle name, since not one record in Uxbridge gives a hint of a middle name, and they were rare before the Revolutionary War. They exist, but if you don't find a primary record that says so, the assumption should be that there isn't one. --Jrich 23:49, 5 June 2012 (EDT)

Warner assistance request [21 June 2012]

Hey Jaques, sorry to have to ask for help again but I dont have access to sources that will help me this out.

I noticed youre the only person who edited http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:John_Warner_%2886%29 John Warner of the Increase. I believe I am descended from him, but right now WeRelate seems to confuse 3 different John Warners and I was hoping you had access to something that sort them out.

My line begins with Dr. Ephraim Warner http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Ephraim_Warner_%282%29. From all the information I have read on John, father of Ephraim, his wife is unknown and he did not come from Hadley, MA, but rather from Farmington CT (and doesnt seem to have ever lived in MA). From what Ive read, hes the son of John of the Increase, NOT John Warner of Hadley. It seems there is a bad mix up of the different Johns, but not having a source handy I am loathe to change anything first (btw, should you know of a source for the CT Warners that is available I will gladly do the legwork of adding the information).

Thanks again.--DMaxwell 06:25, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Jacobus addressed this family in Ackley-Bosworth. 220-22. Jacobus says he came with Matthew Marvin and Isaac Moore in 1635 on the Increase and so is not visibly connected to any other Warners of that period. His wife is unknown and he had children including John who, in turn, had: Dr. Ephraim; Dr. John; Robert; Dr. Ebenezer; Lydia (married [1] Samuel Bronson); and Thomas who apparently died young.--jaques1724 19:43, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

This site has some interesting information on him - http://www.askgar.com/genealogy/John.Warner.Increase.html I guess there are alot of mixups with him. It appears you have the first John with the correct wife.

Does that source go into all of his children? Id be happy to clean up the entire line with sources if he goes into detail.--DMaxwell 19:47, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for point the article out. I will start adding the information to the Warner line. The only other issue I wanted to be able to sort out with the Warners is getting the correct family for the other John Warner and Lydia Boltwood, who were an actual, separate couple. Ive found a few sources that mix the John Warner Jr whos wifes name was unknowns children with the children of this other couple. Very confusing. I hate to remove parentage, even if wrong, unless I can add the correct information.--DMaxwell 20:00, 20 June 2012 (EDT)

Ok that article has been a great help and it should allow me to finish at least the first generation of his family, which I hope to do today.

Another one I noticed - I noticed that you (correctly) disconnected Thomas and Aquila Chase from the Chesham Chases using a good source, but I wonder if said source (which I cant find online with a quick search) also covers William Chase of Yarmouth, who they used to think was brother to Thomas and Aquila but now do not, and how he is probably not connected to either family at all? My grandmother is a Chase, descended from the Yarmouth line, but at the moment he (William) is still connected to the Chesham Chases. The only source I have for removing the connection is a website that has snippets from an article discussing what Chase researchers think is the actual William Chase line, but it might not be enough to use as a source to remove it.--DMaxwell 15:57, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

In the "Great Migration Begins" sketch of William Chase of Yarmouth (1:336-39), neither Aquila nor Thomas Chase is mentioned. In the sketches of Aquila and Thomas Chase in the "Genealogical Dictionary of Maine and New Hampshire" (138, 39), William Chase is not mentioned, but it is stated that Aquila and Thomas were brothers. I haven't researched this further, but I suspect there is no credible evidence connecting William of Yarmouth with Aquila and Thomas of Hampton.--jaques1724 16:21, 21 June 2012 (EDT)

Do you have any sources for this family? [29 July 2012]

Hey Jaques,

One family that is my tree that is extremely poorly sourced pretty much everywhere is the Tompkins/Thompkins family of CT. The last Tompkins in my tree is this person:

http://www.werelate.org/wiki/Person:Susannah_Tompkins_%282%29

Her parents are supposed to be Edmund Tompkins and Hannah Unknown, and from what I have read this line traces up to Ralph Tompkins of the Truelove (or in some tree, a nephew or brother). But what is out there for this family is a mess, however, if you know of or can point me to a good source going back to my Tompkins Id like to be able to do most of the line for the first few generations as I did with John Warner of the Increase you were working on yesterday (I added pretty much every bit of data that was in that article of Jacobus's).--DMaxwell 13:26, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Merrill Memorial (309) says she was daughter of Edmond and Hannah Thompkins of Waterbury, born in 1734, died 20 Dec 1818 (page) 308, Caleb Merrill's brother Ephraim married Susanna's sister Jerusha).
The Town and City of Waterbury, genealogical appendix (138Ap) Edmond probably s. of Nathaniel of Eastchester, d 1732; only s. of Nathaniel, d. 1684; s. of John of Concord, Mass., 1640, and Fairfield, 1644.
John of Concord and Fairfield is addressed in Jacobus' Families of Old Fairfield. This John does not appear to be connected with the Ralph T. who came on the Truelove [sketch of R.T. in The Great Migration (7:68-72)].
NYG&BR (51:44) The following items are all from Liber C, Westchester Co. Land Records at White Plains. …
P. 263: John Tompkins, Senr., of Eastchester and wife Mary, for love and good will, to "my natural son Edmund Tompkins of Eastchester," land in Eastchester, January 9, 1701-2.
P. 267: John Tompkins of Eastchester for love and goodwill to natural daughter Hannah, now the wife of Abraham Hiat, land in Eastchester, April 16, 1702.
The last two items from the land records indicate that Edmond was son of Nathaniel's brother John since Jacobus' abstract of Nathaniel's will does not mention a son John. His lack an abstract for John may or may not indicate an extant probate and there may be other land records for the Tompkins family at White Plains.--jaques1724 14:22, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Yes, Id read some information that stated John may not be the son of Ralph, but not many places go into detail about it. IIRC, John is still shown as his son on WR. I have a copy of Merrill Memorial here, but of course it doesnt go into detail beyond Edmund. Ill look up Old Fairfield this afternoon then. I just cant remember if it went into much detail, either.--DMaxwell 14:41, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

If I am to remove the relationship between John of Fairfield and Ralph of the Truelove, is anything you were able to find explain the why/how of why this relationship is either unproved or impossible?--DMaxwell 18:38, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

I'm having trouble finding your John Tompkins. According to the sketch of Ralph, The Great Migration (7:70) he had a son John who married one Margaret by 1636 and, at Salem, September 1673, Mary Read. I can't find a person page for a John Tompkins of Fairfield.--jaques1724 20:47, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

I called him by that name because he was in the Old Fairfield book. My mistake. Most genealogies seem to consider the John of Concord the same as the one that is supposed to be the son of Ralph. Yet other genealogies say that there is no proof for any of the other Tompkins in the area being his children except for the 3 named in the passenger manifest. Some even put Nathaniel, son of John of Concord (according to Old Fairfield), as a son of Ralph (as it is now on WR).

The Tompkins are a big tangled web, so thats why I asked for help. When I do my own lines, I like to be able to clean up the entire family around my ancestors for the benefit of others looking for accuracy, if I can; but this family is proving to be a challenge.--DMaxwell 20:55, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

According to Anderson (TGM 7:70-71), Ralph had 5 ch. John, mentioned above; Samuel, m. Lettice Foster at Plymouth; Elizabeth, emigrated with family but no further record; Sarah, born and buried at Wendover, Bucks; Mary, married John Foster. John of Concord not included. Nathaniel of Rhode Island not included [Savage says this may be the same Nath. that was at Eastchester, but without chasing it down, I rather doubt it]. Micah of Wethersfield and Milford not included.--jaques1724 07:33, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

Nutmegger lookup [29 July 2012]

Hey Jaques,

Although I have a small number of issues of the Nutmegger in my possesion, but there is one in particular I do not own I am hoping you can look up. Volume 7 appears to offer complete coverage of the Batterson family, very weakly covered in most of the CT series of books. Although at the moment I am still working on the Gunn/Lane families, I'd like to do the Battersons afterwords, who are prominant in my tree. If it is indeed in depth, please let me know.--dmaxwell 20:28, 28 July 2012 (EDT)

It is indeed in depth (two installments, 28 pages), and fairly well sourced for that periodical at that time. I created a source page for the article which you can check out. Several years ago, CSG was giving away back issues just to try to clear space in their basement for other uses. I suspect that they are gone by now, but it might be worth a phone call to see if they still have some.--jaques1724 08:17, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Was able to find the Dec 74 issue. How many generations are covered in the first part? I hoped to be able to source up to at least George Batterson Jr, Rev War veteran, as I have nothing for him save for his census entries (died before 1850) and the Batterson bible record which isnt online anywhere.--dmaxwell 14:26, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Is this your guy or are we looking for somebody else?

15 GEORGE (3) BATTERSON. Jr. s of George & Elizabeth (Oysterbanks) Batterson b: 16 Jul 1758 (Fam Bib) bapt: 13 Aug 1758 Fid, Ct. d: 11 May 1837 at Warren. Ct. RevW sold W-17257. m: 23 May 1779. MARY SEELEY. Of Weston. She b: 30 Jun 1763 (Fam Bib), d: 5 Dec 1858 ae: 95-5-5 at Warren Ct. They had:

47 (1) POLLY, b: 20 Mar 1785 (Fam Bib) bapt: 22 Sep 1786 (FOOF) m SETH MORSE. Warren, rem to Ohio.

48 (2) ANNA, b: 10 Jan 1789 (Fam Bib) bapt: 22 Sep 1792 (FOOF) n/1: 5 May 1816 at GF Cong Ch, PHILO GRIFFITH of Norwalk. m/2: 27 May 1832 at GF Cong Ch: BOAR TILTON

49 + (3) NATHAN, b; 22 Jun 1792 (Fam Bib) bapt: 22 Sep 1792 (FOOF)

50 (4) AMELIA, b: 15 Jan 1783 (cam Bib) m: 1804 at GF Cong Ch CHARLES GILBERT, 1781-1855. She d: 1852.

They rem co Revenna, Ohio (Pension rec).

(The above are recorded at Green Farms Congregation Church and are listed in Families of Old Fairfield (FOOF) by D.L. Jacobus. It was about this time that the family removed to Warren, Litchfield Co., Conn, and the other children are recorded there.)

NEHGS has all the Connecticut Nutmeggers online now. I'm a member. Anything I can grab for you? Jillaine 14:44, 29 July 2012 (EDT)--Jillaine 14:45, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Jillaine, yes thats the family. Ive left you a comment on your talk page.

Jaques (or Jill), I wondered if either of the two articles on the Battersons cover the supposed link to the clock maker Batterson in London who married Thomazine Olive, Robert Batterson. You see this on alot of trees, and while I could see a link between the two (both being clockmakers with the unusual name Batterson), I wondered if it went into detail about it at all.--dmaxwell 17:12, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

It does acknowledge the possible relationship between your James and Anthony of Norwalk. Absolutely no mention of a possible London connection.--jaques1724 17:58, 29 July 2012 (EDT)

Just an opinion.. [31 July 2012]

Sorry to keep spamming your wall, but I just was curious what your opinion is of this:

http://awerkamp.org/StoryViewer.aspx?s=ad4db91c25eb4e02884d1b94d3e0afd6

...concerning the immigrant William Odell, whos family I have done work on. Personally, I find that evidence very compelling, but I dont know what WR policy is when it comes to what WP would call 'original research', especially when related to those elusive NE lines back to England.--dmaxwell 19:06, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

I suggest a way of linking to this work at the bottom of William Odell's page. Jillaine 20:23, 31 July 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for cleaning up Street [29 August 2012]

I've been unable to contribute much lately as I discovered a major problem in my tree's sources that has been taking up all of my time when I am able to do genealogy. I didnt intend to leave Street unfinished, of course. The Gilbert side still needed some work but the article I using as a source didnt give very good detail. Hopefully I should have this all cleaned up this weekend and I can finish up some of ones I had started (major unfinished project: Coe/Coo family).--Daniel Maxwell 16:20, 29 August 2012 (EDT)

Do you have access to the latest version of RD600? [24 October 2012]

hi Jaques,

I understand the newest edition of RD600 throws doubt on the supposed royal ancestry of Gov William Leete, but I havent read it and only have access to the 2005 edition. I believe it is the only comment by a genealogist on his line beyond the old TAG article from the 50s you used to cite the page of his wife's family, the Paynes. I am curious where the line breaks so I can actually attempt to work on his.--Daniel Maxwell 08:57, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

Don't have it and would guess that the only way you'll get access is to buy it from NEHGS. I do, however, have the latest version of Roberts' Ancestors of American Presidents.--jaques1724 09:04, 2 October 2012 (EDT)

Just wanted to comment about this again. Seems the break in the Leete line happens at person 25 in TAG 31:116. There is no proof that Thomas Peyton had a daughter named Rose, or that she was a Peyton at all. The newer editions of Magna Charta Sureties 1215 shows the broken line and gives the source as the book Applied Genealogy, whom it seems looked at it. Still, Gov Leete has some interesting ancestry that is covered in the various Vistations of Cambridgeshire.--Daniel Maxwell 19:33, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Nantucket Cemeteries.... [5 October 2012]

Saw you touch on a Nantucket Cemetery - did a quick look-up and found this link. I saw only two listed for Nantucket, so one of us should probably kick in the rest, which seem to be (at least):

• FindAGrave: New North Cemetery - on internment.net
• FindAGrave: Colored Cemetery/Mill Hill Cemetery - on internment.net
• Prospect Hill Cemetery
• St Mary's Cemetery
• Unitarian Cemetery
• FindAGrave: Newtown Cemetery - on internment.net
• FindAGrave: Quaker Burial Ground/Quaker Cemetery
• FindAGrave: Polpis Cemetery

--jrm03063 11:49, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

I tend to add them as I come to them rather than doing a batch on a particular location. I actually have very little interest in Nantucket and would have none at all if Tristram¹ hadn't left a son, Tristram², from whom I descend, in Newbury. I actually got 14 Nantucket hits on Find A Grave, with one duplicate (Newtown/Old North).--jaques1724 12:04, 5 October 2012 (EDT)

What do you have on this family? [10 October 2012]

Hi Jaques, been some time since I worked on this family, but I wonder what you have on the Alfords/Alvords - Benedict and Alexander. I've seen a line repeated for them, but I dont know how strong it is. It isnt linked to on Benedict's page, but it is on Alexanders: Person:Alexander Alford (1). When I searched through the 'free' database on AmericanAncestors, it gave just the article on his wife and father in law, the Newtons, which I have mostly already added.--Daniel Maxwell 13:24, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

Haven't got much. See http://archive.org/details/genealogyofdesce00alvo --jaques1724 13:39, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

Yeah thats all I could find either. Generally, with older genealogical works such as that I like to see a more recent 'seal of approval' of it exists in later works. If you never hear professionals mention it (ie discussion of an immigrant as though the earlier work didnt exist) or they openly criticize it, chances are it can be discarded. Trouble in this case is that I cant find discussion of it. Oh well, thanks anyway.--Daniel Maxwell 13:43, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

Barbour Collection or other vital records? [24 October 2012]

Can you recommend any high quality public-domain transcripts of any key New England vital records? I'm thinking of trying to do with some of those something like what I've been doing w/Savage.

Thanks! --jrm03063 18:51, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Most of the published Mass. VR's were published prior to 1922. The problem there is that you have to start from scratch with OCR and proofing since no one has done what was done with Savage. I don't think it would be as useful, either, since so many of those entries involve persons who can't be identified with a particular family, especially the marriages and deaths.--jaques1724 19:10, 15 October 2012 (EDT)

Although it isnt public domain, I'd also like to recommend the Ricker Compilation of CT records, which I own and am happy to do look ups for. Its quite a bit more comprehensive than Barbour, although I have noticed some records that were in Barbour that didnt make it to Ricker.--Daniel Maxwell 19:36, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Great Migration Study Project work question [1 November 2012]

Hey Jaques,

I was emailed your work on the GM sketches category/study page, and since it mostly seems to be your work I wanted to as you what to do with one of the persons listed.

John Anthony, supposed Hercules passenger, is usually claimed to be the same John Anthony who appears in Portsmouth RI after ca 1640. GM, however, says that they are probably different men based on the huge gap where there are no appearances of him in records. They conclude that there is no evidence he even came over. I was not able to find much discussion on him either way, hes usually assigned a pedigree from a Dr John Anthony. So I wasnt sure if to put the John Anthony of Portsmouth in the list or add, as you have with other entries, 'no further record'.--Daniel Maxwell 14:08, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

My Category Ignorance [2 November 2012]

I just saw you add the "1630s immigrants" category for John Cogswell. I've been adding to and adding some additional categories for various immigration voyages - and had added the Angel Gabriel 1635 voyage for Cogswell. Do we really need to add "1630s immigrants" everywhere? Or is there some way to say that being in the angel gabriel 1635 category ALSO makes you part of the 1630s immigrants category? I'm afraid I'm not hip to the subtleties of wiki categories.... --jrm03063 10:47, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

The way the ship templates and categories are handled has not been consistent. Until I just added the Angel Gabriel category to the 1630s immigrants category, Mr. Cogswell would not have shown up as a 1630s immigrant. Bottom line is that he is now included indirectly in the 1630s Immigrants category so whichever of us gets there first can wipe it off his person page. If this discussion doesn't make sense, check the history on the pages involved to see what I did.--jaques1724 10:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Transcript Practice [2 November 2012]

As one of the more active users of the Savage Transcript (at least for purposes of annotation), I wanted to seek your views on a related matter.

I've been in some discussions related to data at the MA vital records project. I've got a couple sample pages for vital records from Bradford, MA - as I think we could/should present them here at WeRelate. Could you please take a look at the following example pages? Of particular interest would be the linked person pages under the surname "HAGGIT")

• Transcript:Bradford, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of the Year 1849/p61
• Transcript:Bradford, Essex, Massachusetts, United States. Vital Records to the End of the Year 1849/p215

Please excuse their incomplete nature and numerous red links. They are intended as an illustration are not complete. --jrm03063 10:54, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Looks fine. Probably more work involved than the Savage project. It would be very useful to link the church and gravestone annotations back to the pages at the front of each book (C.R.1), (G.R.1), etc.--jaques1724 11:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Finishing is not something that I would ever anticipate! :) - really for any of these efforts. I'm hoping to establish a practice that others would find useful and be willing to carry forward. I'm really interested in an idea of exhaustive sourcing - not in the sense of every source for a particular person - but in the sense of exhaustively establishing WHO is meant by any given name appearing in a source transcript - because plainly - only one association can be correct. This is also an idea that Mr Slaughter of the MA Vital Records project is interested in - but I don't think he has a good way to pursue it at present. I've discussed use of WR for this with him, but he's nervous about a wiki being a little too open. --jrm03063 11:24, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Sutliffe [6 November 2012]

I seen you did a little work on the Sutliffes because they connected to the Brockett family. Other than the really old (and probably wrong) book on that family, there isnt alot on the immigrant Nathaniel Sutliffe. I believe I added some of what was known, but if you have anything else to add if you have the time that would be great. (next year - I swear I will get a subscription to AmericanAncestors.org - couldnt justify it after Id gotten a 1 year Ancestry.com International subscription).--Daniel Maxwell 18:28, 5 November 2012 (EST)

If you're working in New England, not having it is only handicapping yourself. In addition to the full run of the Registers, they're up to 40 CT towns from the Barbour Series (which spawned the Genealogical Publishing Corp. softcovers which, in turn spawned Ricker, with a few more mistakes being perpetuated each time) and up through 1998 with TAG. Hope you can find the $80 soon, you won't be sorry.--jaques1724 18:36, 5 November 2012 (EST)

Right, I agree, and I regret not doing AmericanAncestors instead of Ancestry. I wasnt really looking for a person to do lookups for me but I wanted to collaborate on some of these families. Some of our work dovetails sometimes of course, but for quite a few of the large families (not so much Sutliffe) they can be a challenge for one person to do.

In particular, I like how you have been able to construct neat looking birth date/estimates from pretty thin sources. I hesitate to create certain families for this reason (try working with only Visitation files - that almost always are literally just names with no dates).--Daniel Maxwell 19:21, 5 November 2012 (EST)

Visitation files are something I let other folks analyze. Once people were on this side of the water, I find that 99% of the time, the thumb rules Robert Charles Anderson uses work pretty well (and I'm working mostly in New England between 1620 and the late 1700s); males married on average at 25, females at 20. If you have a date of birth for the eldest child, absent other information, an assumption that the marriage took place the year before is adequate. And when you have families where you have birth dates for some children and not for others, marriage dates, positions named in wills and other tidbits can let you construct a family. If you read Anderson, every once in a while he will go into great detail about just how he constructed a given family in the Great Migration sketches. Sometimes a rough estimate is all you can do. To me, the underlying object is to provide reasonable date approximations so that others, when they do searches, have some sort of year range to evaluate.--jaques1724 22:57, 5 November 2012 (EST)

Pages [29 November 2012]

I see youre working on the Page family. I have a source for this line, but Ive been sitting on it for a year because I dont know if its well regarded. I had originally started to add it but reverted it. In ' The History and Descendants of George Page', which is linked on the page for the immigrant George Page (who is covered very briefly in Ancient New Haven), he presents a line of descent going back to lines covered in Visitations. I believe this book was reviewed in one of the Genealogical journals, but personally after buying the book and reading I felt it was a bit on the weak side.

Anyway, if you think youre going to be working on Page, I could show you his proof. I have not heard it referred to by anyone so I just wasnt sure if I should use it or not. Quite often the family associations will propose lines of descent that are really no more than a plausible if unprovable theory.--Daniel Maxwell 23:54, 27 November 2012 (EST)

I don't intend to do anymore than incorporate the FANH data. I'm actually working on Blakeslee and wandered into the Pages. If you've got some doubts about the Page genealogy I'd suggest adding what's verifiable to the person or family pages. The info you have doubts about could be handled by summarizing it, along with your reservations, and placing it on the appropriate talk page(s).--jaques1724 00:05, 28 November 2012 (EST)

Thanks Jaques. I just re-read it. He spends alot of time talking about the supposed ancestors in England but doesnt really establish how he was able to prove it was the same man. The sole piece of evidence that I see he offers is one reference to George Page being called 'Mister' in records. (the Page lines he shows the reader is one coming from Gentry.) Personally, I think the George Page of NE is more likely to have been younger, but I dont have all of the evidence in front of me. The work is mainly interesting for the sheer number of Pages sub-lines that he goes into, though not all of it is sourced, so I wont be using it as a source. I am considering making a note on George Page's page that a line of descent was suggested in that book (as you did for a few other lines with weak English pedigrees), but not actually the ancestry to WR. That seems to be the best way to include it, but I dont want to show it as proven. Daniel Maxwell

Need some advise with a source Im using [14 December 2012]

Jaques, I am in the midst of a major reworking/expansion of the Sherman family line using the still well regarded work Sherman genealogy. Its very well researched, but there is a problem. The author is a date raiser (ie with dual date years), but he seemingly switches between using the raised date and the non raised date at various points, making it a bit of a headache to figure them out since in some cases I cant see the original source. In these situations, what would you do? I have been giving the lower date correctly in cases where dual dates would apply, but now I am wondering if I should just put what he has since he isnt always clear. Only at a few points does he actually use a dual date.--Daniel Maxwell 17:05, 14 December 2012 (EST)

My thumb rule is to use the single date; e.g., 15 March 1689, unless some other data point, usually the birth of the prior or succeeding sibling, makes it obvious that the date should be tweaked. In those cases, I'll use the double date in the date field, but copy the source verbatim in the text field under the source. In these instances, the knowledgeable reader (hopefully) will understand the situation. Hope this helps.--jaques1724 18:42, 14 December 2012 (EST)

1988 edition of Kimball Family? [16 December 2012]

Jacques,

On Person_talk:Richard_Kimball_(1), you reference a 1988 edition of the Kimball Family of America. Do you have this edition? If so, could you quote the passage(s) pertaining to their origins that are different from the 1890 version, please? Thanks. Thanks!

Jillaine 08:55, 16 December 2012 (EST)

Minor please! [8 January 2013]

When you just add sort keys, please hit "minor edit." I have 26 messages from those changes in my inbox, and growing by the second... --Amelia 19:59, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Sorry. Two left to do--jaques1724 20:00, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Check out your "Settings" - you can set minor as the default. I've been running that way for some months now. - Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrm03063

Didn't pick up on that, but it's probably better that I just keep it mind. Some of my edits are whoppers, and I would expect some spirited feedback if some of those slipped through as minor. --jaques1724 21:02, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Actually, marking all edits minor by default is not always preferred. If a user chooses to not receive emails for minor edits, they would not be notified of your changes. Either way, whether you mark all as minor by default (then unmark for major changes) or do not mark all as minor by default (then mark minor changes) it requires a choice by the user performing the edits. --Jennifer (JBS66) 10:12, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Your merging of the Warner family [19 January 2013]

Jaques, Im curious what is going on with your merging of John Warner and family. Hes been placed in a family with a couple who married after his appx birthdate when his origins are unknown, and in the process a number of citation that I added were deleted. Has new information come to light on him, or could this be a different John Warner?--Daniel Maxwell 19:03, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Parental assignment was not intended-good catch. As far as the citation from Ackley-Bosworth, during the merge I chose to delete it since it was stated verbatim on his person page and cited on hers. I don't feel strongly about it either way--jaques1724 19:39, 8 January 2013 (EST)

I see that now. I dont feel strongly either, its just that I thought you might have done some of it accidently in the merge process. I didnt intend to imply malice on your part. I also mistook you adding an additional FindAGrave memorial (a duplicate) for Dr Ebenezer Warner as having deleted the old one. No worries. Carry on. There is another John Warner who is frequently confused with John Warner Jr, son of John Warner of the Increase that I have intended to clean up for awhile and you've reminded me of him, since I hadnt done much with Warners in awhile. User:DMaxwell

As a result of this conversation, I am as we speak working on the family of Andrew Warner of Cambridge, Hartford, Farmington and Hadley starting with his Great Migration sketch. His eldest son John is sometimes confused with the second John Warner of the medical family.--jaques1724 20:25, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Actually, thats why I was confused. The 'parents' of John Warner that were added were completely sourced; I knew something wasnt right. The other John Warner has a couple of entries on WR you might want to search out. I didnt touch it at the time because the only source I had was a paper from about 1915 that didnt cover all of the children. I've been working on the GM sketch page, a huge task, but I'll probably take a break soon and see what kind of projects youre doing in case you need some help. User:DMaxwell

Austen links to Harris [9 January 2013]

Jaques, I noticed you were watching this page:

Person:Joan Harris (2)

She is supposed to be the daughter of Henry Harris and Joane Austen. I am doing the Austen family now (the same as the immigrant Jonas Austin), working with an excellent older article in the Register. It doesnt give the Harris children but I would be curious if this Harris family did have links to the new world. Joan's 'parents' seem to match the same Henry Harris and Joane Austen that married at Staplehurst 25 Oct 1579, but before I merge them I want to be sure. Did you have a source for this Harris family, or were you watching it a place holder for some future work? Dont want to distract you much, so if you are aware of a source linking to this same Harris family point it out and I will clean it up. This is not a family in my tree so I am not that familiar with the particulars.--Daniel Maxwell 01:30, 9 January 2013 (EST)

Samuel smith [19 January 2013]

Thanks for the great cleanup on Samuel smith page

Jillaine 08:11, 19 January 2013 (EST)

(Person:Benjamin Spaulding (1) renamed to Person:Benjamin Spalding (3): Maintain uniformity of surname in early generations.) [25 January 2013]

And how did this accomplish your stated goal this since his father is spelled Spaulding, and 5 of his 9 siblings are Spaulding? Help:Naming conventions say "When the surname of a family has multiple spellings, the most commonly accepted spelling should be used", which would seem to suggest Spaulding might be the preferred spelling since it is stamped all over vast quantities of sports equipment in circulation. Certainly one might suspect that an author of the Spalding Memorial who is named Spalding might very well have a hidden agenda to promote his chosen spelling. But his book contains plenty of early will transcriptions where the name is written Spaulding. According to the author, the u is seen in the name of several children of the immigrant, suggesting even in early generations, there is mixed usage. --Jrich 10:18, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Context-I'm trying to work my way through the first three generations or so, using the Chelmsford VR as a starting point. So we have Spaldin, Spalden, Spalding, Spaldyng, Spaulden, Spauldin, Spauldine, Spaulding, Spauldinge, Spauldyng, and Spolding as choices. The immigrant ancestor was admitted freeman of Massachusetts Bay 13 May 1640 as "Edward Spolden." The only birth record for any of his children of which I'm aware was for Benjamin at Braintree in 1643, where he is called "SPALDEN Benjamin s. Edward." The published Chelmsford vital records include the baptisms of the six surviving children on 1 : 12 m : 1656 as Andrew, Benjamin, Dinah, Edward, John and Joseph "Spalding," those records being "extracts from Rev. John Fiske's note-book, now (1911) in possession of the Massachusetts Historical Society." As I'm sure you're aware, the spelling of names in colonial era documents was often, if not usually, whatever the writer thought it should be, and it's not uncommon to have a given person's name spelled more than one way in particular document.--jaques1724 21:45, 24 January 2013 (EST)

That's why I don't understand (and disagree with) your fascination for changing already-existent spellings that are not demonstrably or confusingly wrong [which has generated multiple discussions here (Inconsequential Changes, Thomas Minor/Miner)]. The perception that comes across is that whatever source you happen to like is the only one that matters. It seems to me that the only argument that could possibly be advanced to argue that one spelling is more right than another is an actual signature, since town clerks, and the lawyers that drew up wills, etc., can be shown in many cases to be wrong. And even in the case where signatures exists, one could argue that the utility of agreeing with modern spelling, while noting the authentic spelling elsewhere, is actually more useful. I am not sure that before the Revolution, maybe even as late as Webster's dictionary (around 1820), that anybody even thought that one spelling could be considered more correct than another (in America, at least). --Jrich 22:36, 24 January 2013 (EST)

Obviously I don't know how to spell the sporting goods company. And obviously I get annoyed at receiving a dozen or two watchlist notifications of what seems like an arbitrary and unnecessary spelling change, as it propagates through all the marriages and children and parents. If the goal was to make the family consistent, more children were already Spaulding than Spalding, so why go to Spalding? Benjamin's children are not entered yet, but how far does consistency of spelling go, and which generation (parents or siblings or children) overrides the others. It seems to me that both spellings effectively identify the man, that any researcher of more than 5 minutes standing is going to be used to working with both, that somebody else obviously liked the existent spelling since they entered it (maybe they were looking at the marriage records which spelled it Spaulding), and WeRelate's spelling mechanism allows searches to find either. So, because it seems so unnecessary, it seems like there should be a particularly compelling reason documented for insisting on one spelling over the other. --Jrich 10:06, 25 January 2013 (EST)

What is your opinion on using sources such as this? [7 March 2013]

Jacques, I wanted to get your opinion on using one of those small privately published 'books' as a source.

In trying to track down the source for the will of John Allen, grandfather of Sgt. Roger Alling the immigrant (quoted on his page but source not given), it seems to originate with this work here:

Source:Brest Van Kempen, Ann. Our Doolittle Line Revisited

..and upon opening it, you'll see that is much better researched than most privately published works, but I dont know what WR policy is on using them as sources. I dug around the entire internet and could not find the wills/probate listed anywhere else, and though I would like to finish the Alling/Allen line, I hesitate to use these. What do you think?--Daniel Maxwell 07:46, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Forgive me for butting in. WR's policy is to encourage sources but there clearly is no requirement. There is no universal convention for what a good source is, though, in general, the mass websites are frowned upon because they are generally unsourced, or circularly sourced with no foundation under the layers of sources. I believe it is possible for mere mortals to do good work, that many people work hard traveling to city halls, etc., or reading films and can discover things not generally known, and through shear focus and determination, even exceed the results of professional genealogists in particular cases. So any source is capable of providing unique, breakthrough information that is reliable if they describe the basis for believing it. Any source, being a product of human effort, is susceptible to error, so no matter how reputable, no source is always safe. It all depends on the peculiar evidence given, the analysis, and even then, everything may be turned upside down by the addition of new sources and information. If information in the source is based on will contents, for example, it is generally going to be reliable (wills are contemporary, first-hand documents, were reviewed by courts, and participants were financially motivated to make sure things were done right). Plus once found, wills can usually be verified (it may not be easy but knowing a will exists is half the battle). Those considerations generally matter more than who wrote the source, or what form it was published in. --Jrich 10:09, 7 March 2013 (EST)

Crewkerne, Somerset [30 March 2013]

I see you have added Britain, A Vision through Time as a reference. It is an online source I have stopped using.

I have been working on updating WR Place pages--attmepting to provide details of boundaries, changes in boundaries, previous names of the locality, population growth of the particular place (not the county), local industry, a brief history--the bits and pieces family historians need to know about a place to get further in their research on someone who came from there. As you may know, parts of the UK have gone through two stages of municipal reorganization since the early 1970s. We have got to get passed that first reorganization to describe the places where our ancestors lived. But because so many organizations are providing geography not history, it is often very hard to realize from their descriptions that places were not always what they are today.

The "Vision" organizers do not supply the answers I am looking for 90% of the time. Instead they provide (in a form of words that really tempts one to go and look) urls to other sources which don't provide the information either and which many times are dead links. Unfortunately, the "Vision" is that of a university geography department which has probably lost its funding and the graduate students who were doing most of the work. All those templates are there merely to disguise that the website has been left "under construction".

To top it off--I can't see the print (pale grey 7.5 point is useless to someone with growing cataracts)--and, yes, I know about Ctrl-and-"+". Once in a while I don't mind. To have to use it repeatedly is a real bore.

The National Library of Scotland has provided a similar website for Scotland with the emphasis on maps. It's worth comparing the two websites. --goldenoldie 02:52, 9 March 2013 (EST)

Apologies for not responding sooner. I realize that Britain, A Vision through Time is far from perfect. However, for those of us in the states who are not that familiar with the geography and history of the UK, it can be useful in allowing us to link through to other pertinent pages. As far as the political reorganizations that have occurred over there, I know just enough to know that I don't want to tackle the task of trying to organize that content in the context of werelate place pages. Thanks for your input.--jaques1724 15:36, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Your comments are appreciated. I am now working on southern, perhaps I should say, Lowland Scotland--organizing and expanding the Place pages, learning the new and the old administrative structure as I go, and linking them together. Each parish page of the old counties will be illustrated by a county map showing the parishes and the new council areas. --goldenoldie 04:15, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

fyi [29 March 2013]

You may not have realized why HALE was capitalized in the citation of the Ipswich VRs, when you changed it to lower case. If you look at the page of the published VRs, it does not say "Hale, Joseph, of Boxford, and wid. Joanna Dodge, int. Sept. 19, 1708." as you have changed it to say. "HALE" is only at the top of the page and is implied in to belong to each record (it is in capital letters, but that's not why). The records are alphabetized so we are not reading the original text of the record. To reflect that the records have been sorted by the author and filed by the author under the name HALE, it was written in capital letters. This is different than some of the (IMHO, better) arrangements like Concord Births where they transcribe the actual record in chronological order. Thus I feel the capital letters convey information, and am going to change them back. Perhaps there could be a better way to indicate this, but I have been following this convention a long time after seeing others using it. --Jrich 13:05, 29 March 2013 (EDT)

Perhaps, if you took the time to rewrite the above incorporating sensible grammar, you might be able to convey a reasonable point of view to the ordinary reader.

Thanks for using Savage! [6 April 2013]

I wanted to thank you for continuing to make use of the Savage transcription. It is my humble opinion, that our version is the best version of Savage/Kraft - on account of maintaining the original page organization and having a built in ability to absorb OCR and other fixes as they become known. I had hoped that more people would make direct use of the transcript, but perhaps folks are more apt to use it in the conventional manner of a source, simply consulting it and leaving it at that.

Interested if you've developed any opinions of the effort. Thanks! --jrm03063 17:19, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

Savage has its downside. Most folks don't realize that information in those four volumes are not all his research, but was gathered from numerous correspondents throughout New England and the results are somewhat uneven. Having said that, I attended a one day presentation by Robert Charles Anderson at NEHGS in Boston right after publication of the fifth volume of TGM. One of my takeaways was that while he recognized some of the weaknesses in Savage, when he was preparing a GM sketch, Savage was where he started. Because Savage is so widely known and used, I think it's prudent to include his sketches, even when incomplete or inaccurate, rather than ignoring them.--jaques1724 18:41, 6 April 2013 (EDT)

Whatever it's flaws, it has to be dealt with. But there's a back-handed compliment in there too - that the work managed to get so much right - that it can't be discounted. It has to be dealt with.

But I guess my interest here is a little more narrow. Savage is what it is - but is this presentation as helpful as it might be? I sometimes wish that I had links on each page that would correspond to both the "original" version as last published in Savage's life, along with the errors/modifications that were published in his lifetime as another link. There are some things that I think are sort of cute - being able to easily track all the pages where a particular individual is named and all the places where known errors have been marked. Pages that mention particular great migration ships and voyages as well. The value of some of these seems clear enough - but others remain to be seen. --jrm03063 21:51, 6 April 2013 (EDT)