Welcome [7 January 2013]
NOTE: Prior years' content moved to
The Porter's [28 January 2014]
Thank you for adding to the Porter family. Really appreciate what you've been doing....--Frank 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Wiki foundation [15 February 2014]
Jaques, I don't know what your genealogical philosophy is, but I am curious what you think of WR possibly becoming part of Wikipedia. I think this will hurt WR's credibility and make it 'wiki genealogy', in other words, a laughing stock.--Daniel Maxwell 20:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
My initial reaction is that I don't like the idea. My limited experience with wikipedia is that it's less disciplined and certainly less civil. I'll have something more to say after I've mulled it over a bit.--jaques1724 20:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I concur. I've never been highly impressed with Wikipedia, the "Fast Food" of information sources. I fear that the quality and cooperation may go straight downhill.--Neal Gardner 21:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
--- At the present time I would NOT like to see WeRelate became a part of Wikipedia. --Susan Irish 21:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Alternate Date when it is Clearly Incorrect - Appropriate? [19 March 2014]
I noticed that you added an "alternate birth date" fact (20 May 1682) to Elizabeth Burnham, and then discounted the possibility of it being correct in the source notes. This leads me to a "standards" question that I could not (in a few minutes of searching) see being addressed in Help pages. I would have thought that the purpose of adding an alternate fact is to show possible alternatives - to keep the question open as to which fact is correct. For example, if a marriage is registered in two different towns with slightly different dates, we would not know which date is correct, and thus, both dates are possible alternatives.
In this case, the alternate date is not possible (there seems to be sufficient weight to other facts, such as birth years of her children to discount it). So does it really belong as an alternate fact, or just a note in the source?
What concerns me is that as research improves our knowledge about individuals, I would not want to see all previous mistakes (even if limited to previous published mistakes) being added as alternate facts to distract from what is known. (Discussion of mistakes belongs somewhere - whether in notes about sources or on the Talk page, or sometimes in the narrative, depending on the nature of the discussion, but I would prefer that mistakes not show up as alternate facts that might be taken as being possible alternatives. For example, I don't think we would put someone in a family based on early speculation once it has been shown that the speculation is incorrect, although we might comment in the narrative about the early speculation and include a link to the disproven parents.)
I realize that one advantage of having the incorrect date as an alternate fact is that if a person searches for Elizabeth Burnham born 1682 (using the "exact & close match" default), this record shows up in the search results (and would not otherwise). However, when adding a new person, the default search is "exact, close & partial", and she would show up even without the 1682 birth date. This eliminates the risk that a duplicate page would be created just because someone has the 1682 birth date from the incorrect source.
Since a number of frequent WeRelate contributors are watching this page, maybe someone knows whether this subject has been discussed and resolved before. If not, does anyone else share my point of view? Is there any consensus (or common practice) on this, and if so, should something be added to a Help page? Thanks in advance for any responses.--DataAnalyst 02:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
John Hunt son of Ephraim Hunt (II) [20 March 2014]
Thank you for your update of Ephraim Hunt (m. Rebecca Allen). I would like to point out a couple of items about their children. Wyman has a dau Joanna placed between second son Rev. Samuel and third son John. However, he also says "The first dau. m., and ob. early" and there are no dates for her at all. I always thought that "early" meant early childhood or infancy, but maybe it means early in the marriage (?). Savage apparently does not list Joanna or any of the daughters (Wyman also lists daus Elizabeth, Sarah, and Mercy; all married to specific men) and a final son Ephraim. Also, Savage has third son John born 23 Nov 1687 while Wyman has him born only in 1688 (no month or day). So, in addition to adding the missing children (from Wyman), do you think it is better to go with the specific birth date for son John supplied by Savage? One other note - the probate is punctuated to make it look like Elizabeth, Sarah, Mercy, and Ephraim are children of the deceased Joanna, but Wyman has birth and/or marriage dates for each of them that show this is not so. It's too bad we don't have a husband's name for Joanna. I can update this with my Wyman info if you like.--Khs2000 02:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
According to Chamberlain's Weymouth Genealogies (Part of the 4 Vol. History of Weymouth), the children of Ephraim and Joanna (Alcock) Hunt were:
Children, born at Weymouth:
The second John, according to Sprague's Braintree Families, was born c. 1685 based on a church record which says he was buried 4 Dec 1761 a. 76. He is the one who married Rebecca Allen.
My interest was in Elizabeth whose granddaughter, Wealthy Gilbert, married (as 2nd w.) Sylvanus Tinker of East Haddam and thus is connected with the Olmsted and Brainerd families of East Haddam and Haddam. I don't expect to do any more work on the Hunt family any time soon, so feel free to enhance the entries for this family as you find appropriate.--jaques1724 23:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, of course, you are right - Ephraim married Joanna Alcock and their second John married Rebecca Allen. Sorry about that mistake - I was going back and forth between parents and son. Also, with a little more looking I also saw the text from Chamberlain that daughter Joanna "married Benjamin Richards of Weymouth; died soon after" - so I answered my own question about what "ob. early" meant in her case. It's still an unusual use of the term. My question on the birth date of John is now even more confused - Wyman says he was born in 1688; Chamberlain says Nov. 23, 1687, and your church record source calculates it as 1685! I guess I will list all three possibilities. More than likely one of these is a baptism date which differs from the birth date, but it's anyone's guess. Thanks for your help on this one.--Khs2000 04:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Amendments to Hurst in Berkshire, England [9 April 2014]
I have made further alterations to the modern Wokingham Borough page and taken out Hurst as a "contained place". The new boroughs of Berkshire are still not counties in their own right, though in a lot of ways they have the authority. If we are to put Hurst as a contained place in Wokingham, then we have to put every other settlement in that list as a contained place as well.
Unfortunately you found a section that, looking back at it, I don't consider complete. It took months to find my way around "A Vision of Britian through Time"; now I depend on it. It is too bad that the developers at the University of Portsmouth decided that the world stopped at 1974. I really must take out that quote from GENUKI in St Nicholas Hurst. The organizer is a stickler for copyright (the way his copyright reads, I wonder why he went to the trouble of putting the stuff on the web at all). Since I live in Britain I might be more liable than one of you across the pond.
Someday, I shall go back and tackle Berkshire again. Right now I am working on Yorkshire and Lancashire (both counties that really did change county names in 1974) and it's very slow work.
--Goldenoldie 07:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Collab request - Baldwin [2 May 2014]
Jaques, been awhile since I have asked for your help with a family, but the very prolific Baldwin family of New England has given me difficulty. Sources for this family are surprisingly poor. Best I have been able to find, they range from the very old Baldwin genealogy to a few snippet articles in the Register and TAG. That seems to be it. Now, I have seen you clean up families with threadbare sources before. I am not asking you to do all of it, but maybe you are aware of some sources I am not. I am a member of the NEHGS now and even among their sources, there wasn't much. This is very important family, but it is a mess here on WR and not any better out there on the web. Let me know if you're interested.--Daniel Maxwell 01:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I have Charles C. Baldwin's "Baldwin Genealogy from 1500 to 1881" in hard copy. Flawed admittedly, but a good springboard w/family groups. --Neal Gardner 03:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
There are at least a handful of articles in NEHGR, TAG, etc. (to which I don't have access) with excerpts from wills, deeds.. One treats the relationship between Sylvester Baldwin/John Baldwin Sr., another Josiah Baldwin w/mother Mary vs Mercy Camp. Somewhere online WAS a mildly cited descendancy of Long Island Baldwins, and original families of Elizabethtown, NJ; both of which I will try to find sometime today. Pockets of Baldwin info are "buried" in other family studies, ie Winans, Camp, Bruen, etc.--Neal Gardner 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
FYI [3 May 2014]
Noticed that edit, not sure if there is any truth to it.--Daniel Maxwell 04:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The two John Reads [14 May 2014]
Yes, there are two different men. The John Read who was married to Sarah Lessie is the father of the 2nd John Read, who predeceased his father (this creates some confusion between them). I hadn't sorted all the children yet, which is why they were left unmerged. One interesting thing to note - the record that proves his wife Sarah is the daughter of William Lessie links to a town in England that is unclear to me where it's modern location is intended to be, which is another reason I set it aside for now.--Daniel Maxwell 02:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I think Aspinwall's notarial records was the source for that identification. That might be worth pursuing when you have time.--jaques1724 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
An opinion [30 June 2014]
Jaques, I am doing a little cleanup on Hendleys, and one of the families involved in this line is a 'Stadden' family of Marblehead, Mass. All of the Staddens originate with a Hannah Stadden, who had children baptized there from 1685 to 1702. There doesn't seem to be anything on her, but judging from the records I would say that all of her children were illegitimate, since they were baptized in her name and no father or husband mentioned. The baptisms are spread out evenly so it seems unlikely she was a widow, and she is not called as such in the records. I don't like to make that call without seeing the originals and their wording, but the church records of Marblehead aren't available online. What do you think? These records on in the 1st volume of Marblehead vitals on pages 482 and 483.--Daniel Maxwell 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Nathaniel Baldwin [11 February 2016]
As politely as possible, please don't remove the Jr.s. ie anyone who is descended from this Nathaniel Baldwin will naturally designate him as "Jr.", despite what "the records" say. I have several lines that descend down to III or IV, and I'm sure they were not called John Winans III or IV, but nevertheless that is who they are in my descendancy, for clarity and to help designate one from another.--Neal Gardner 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
All comments above, I'm familiar with. "Crutch" I'll take with a grain of salt. I have an early GRANT relative continuously called Alexander "Jr." in the records, not by his children or grandchildren. Took me several years to find that his father was a John Grant. Both including the suffix or not including it can cause problems. Perhaps the "reasoning" could be briefly noted in cases where the "Jr." is excluded ? --Neal Gardner 12:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
The topic of name suffixes was addressed by Christopher Child in a Vita Brevis post dated 11 February 2016. Note again that the use of suffixes does not have the same meaning in the 20th-21st centuries as it did in the 17th-18th. --jaques1724 19:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Addressing a two-year topic ?--SkippyG 22:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Messy Parkers [15 September 2014]
Sorry for that mass upload/merging of the Parkers I did that seems to have messed up some of your clean family groups - that old tree had some later generations I wanted to add (mainly Bethuel Parker whom I may descend from), but it was way bigger than I had expected.--Daniel Maxwell 23:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Sarah Scott(11) [1 October 2014]
Two Sarah Scotts
The apparently well researched website http://www.themorrisclan.com/GENEALOGY/SCOTT%20Thomas%20F7866.html
is showing different parents for the Sarah Scott that married John Stanley. The Sarah Scott(11) in werelate may not be the spouse of John Stanley.
It would be wonderful if you checked into this.--Katharine958 00:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Edward Shepard article in HQ [31 October 2014]
Jaques, did you ever see Part III of the Edward Shepard series in HQ? I remember awhile ago you said you'd like to see it for the discussion of the Wolterton will. Turns out my local library had the complete run of HQ this whole time I just found out, so if you still would like to see this, I have it. I already sourced the Merrill children baptisms which was my main purpose in finding that article (it also had the 2nd marriage record of Nathaniel's brother John which I did not know about).--Daniel Maxwell 15:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Ebenezer Brown m. Rebeccah Ludington [16 December 2014]
Do you have any vested interest in Ebenezer and Rebeccah Ludington? I am spelling Rebeccah's name the way it appears on Vol. 2, page 165 of the Waterbury Vital Records. I have a lengthy write-up on a family group surrounding Ebenezer Brown, particularly his son Wyllys/Willis Brown. It looks like you are basically working with the Jacobus book New Haven Families, and maybe that three-volume set on the History of Waterbury by Bronson. Ebenezer's descendants are out there, but they are hard to find.
Best regards, Ron Brown--Rebrown99 21:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Married name [14 February 2015]
John Case [1 March 2015]
Jaques, I started to clean up John Case awhile back but I never got around to it. I deleted some of the erroneous information in the 'timeline' that an earlier member had added (such as anything that referred to his alleged 'origin'), but you may want to recheck it for errors.--Daniel Maxwell 01:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Makepeace/Johnson [16 April 2015]
Jaques, several years ago you cleaned up the Makepeace family, using mainly GM. I am working on cleaning of the family of Captain James Johnson of Boston, and in the process noticed that the 'Ann Johnson' who married William Makepeace is placed in what appears to be a stub for the same James Johnson already. I was going to merged this barebones James Johnson into the one I created, but James Johnson doesn't have a daughter Ann (though two daughters named 'Hannah' who either died young or have no further record). He left no probate, so while it isn't totally impossible he had a daughter Ann with his earlier wife, all of his known children are from his second wife. A quick look and I couldn't find anything on Ann. My instinct is to simply remove her and leave her unplaced, but since you did the Makepeace cleanup I thought you might have a better idea. The discussion started here: Family talk:James Johnson and Margaret Unknown (3)--Daniel Maxwell 06:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Ursula, wife of David Yale [21 May 2015]
Jaques, going through some Stoughton cleanup, and I noticed that Ursula, the wife of David Yale, is listed on WR as an unknown. Person:Ursula Unknown (34) According to TAG 33:108-12, she was Ursula Knight, related to several other immigrants - Rev. William Knight, Mrs. Elizabeth Knight Stoughton (how I noticed it), Mary Knight Clark, and their mother widow Elizabeth Knight. Stoughton is still a mess but I may get to this family if you don't have time.--Daniel Maxwell 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Mary Canfield b 1628 ? [21 May 2015]
I don't see a reason for your theory that Mary Canfield had to be born abt 1628. It seems that you are very doubtful re: Mary as dau of Thomas, but Jacobus appears to accept the possibility, and the possibility, with cumulative clues is all that I've seen so far...more "for" than "against". I just don't want to see Mary disconnected to Thomas just yet. BTW, I've changed her birth year to a range of 1624 to 1628.--SkippyG 21:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
And thank you [24 May 2015]
There are many times when I am working through the the vagaries of English historical geography that I wonder if any WR users really care. But after almost 50 years "on the spot" preceded by spending my growing up years in Canada, I see mistakes in our listings and can't help myself wanting to sort them out. Then I discover ten other corrections that need to be made hiding under the one I found...and so it goes on.
I have a small family on which to do my own genealogy and have, due to ill health, spent much of the past couple of years confined to one small patch of Earth. It has given me plenty of time to sit at a computer and push information out to the world, as well as pull it in from various websites. We can't all travel to our favourite repositories.
Do feel free to point out any mistakes you think I might have made. Getting things right is the name of the game.
Abigail Adkins Hubbard [10 June 2015]
Hi, The memorial # used for Abigail connects to a page for Grace Morris.--SkippyG 21:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Your addition of Sandford, Devon [3 July 2015]
Haven't done much on Devon yet. Must get back to it someday. Still trying to sort out Greater London. --Goldenoldie 06:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Addition of Hundridge, Buckinghamshire [7 December 2015]
You've got me checking out my local patch this morning. Chartridge and Hundridge are less than 10 miles away from here.
Looking at the WR notes on Chartridge I notice I did nothing to change the Wikipedia introduction. This was in my early days of sorting out our notes on Britain when I was only thinking about working on my local patch. Since then I have really cut down on the number of hamlets in the UK that make their way into the WR database. They are now all mentioned in italics in the description and then added with a redirect. Hundridge and Pednor, Bellingdon and Asheridge, should all point to Chartridge. Geographically, Chartridge is the main valley and the hamlets are smaller valleys leading off it. If there is enough information about any one of them (like the existence of a chapel of ease in the 1500s that you have found), it is entered as a paragraph in the Chartridge entry.
Recently Dallan has been a great help in that when a place is redirected to another place, it is automatically entered in the Alt Names box with the phrase "from redirect" as the explanation. Once the redirection is in place I can go back to the main parish and alter "from redirect" to "hamlet in parish", "variant spelling", etc, even if there is no apparent source other than common usage. In addition, the sources found under "What links here" get tied into the list under "Category" for the parish. Buckinghamshire hasn't got its categories done the way counties I have been doing more recently. (See Cornwall for a county which is complete including categories.) Why do this? Until 1889 the only part of London was the City of London. Since then it has been reorganized twice. We must keep all the sources for Islington together, whether it was part of Middlesex or part of London.
I read yesterday that when most "civil parishes" came into being in 1866, the British government established (invented?) 14,000 at one fell swoop. Civil parish is the basis of what I have been putting in WR's English place database. With 14,000 places to work on, is it any wonder I am demoting hamlets (unless they are civil parishes) to also-rans? I shall take some time off from Lincolnshire and sort out Chartridge later in the day.
Regards Pat (--Goldenoldie 08:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC))