User talk:Jaques1724


Welcome [7 January 2013]

NOTE: Prior years' content moved to

User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2011
User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2012
User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2013

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 am in Full agreement. They don't understand genealogy over there (you will frequently see them use the tired 100+ year old family books as sources with no comment). There are some major problems with the foundation itself and how it is run that will see experienced users overruled by higher ups in the foundation (who will frequently jump from one project to another). They also are quick to ban dissenters and those that link to criticism. Feel free to email me if you have any more to add. Our many hours of work of transcribing will be deleted by them in short order. Daniel Maxwell 20:34, 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)

Hopefully I can get more of the top contributors like you two on board in a resistance movement to this. I don't know where I place in such a ranking, but I might be in the top 25 or so, though I haven't been here as long. Both Jaques and I have butted heads several times with JRich, but he's picky about genealogy sources and a wikipedia critic so I hope he might agree as well. Daniel Maxwell 21:06, 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)

I don't have any strong feelings on how to handle this sort of situation, so I'm open to advice on how to improve the presentation. I think the issue is of some importance, since even a top-tier genealogist like Mr. Harris will occasionally cite a sometimes less-than-reliable source like Stiles (both Wethersfield and Windsor), particularly if a fact is peripheral to the subject under analysis.

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:
John,4 b. 11 Dec. 1679; d. young.
Samuel, b. 8 Feb. 1681.
Joanna, m. Benjamin Richards of Weymouth.
John, buried 4 Sept. 1761; resided in Braintree.
Peter, b. 8 Mar. 1690.
William, b. 14 Mar. 1692; resided in Braintree.
Ebenezer, b. 6 Apr. 1694.
Thomas, b. 1 May. 1696.
Elizabeth, b. 1697; m. 4 Feb. 1718-19, Lemuel Pope of Dartmouth.
Sarah, b. 19 Jan.-; m. 6 Jan. 1725-26, Dea. John Holbrook of Weymouth.
Mercy, b. 8 Apr. -; m. Rev. Richard Pierce of Dartmouth.
Ephraim, b. 12 Dec. 1707; resided in Braintree.

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)

None of these are baptisms. None of these are births. They are secondary sources that found no birth or baptism record and they are just guessing/estimating. The only evidence is the age at death for John, and age at death is inherently flaky due to multiple factors (age 76, or was it in his 76th year?) The order of the will, except for the younger children, is also influenced by who got land, who got money, by gender, etc. Basically we don't know. My guess is John actually comes before Joanna based on her estimated date of marriage, don't know what caused Chamberlain to show it the other way. But that is my guess. Guess vs. guess is not how to do genealogy, so might as well keep Chamberlain's order until undercover more evidence. --Jrich 14:31, 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)