|
|
Chapman's marriage date [30 June 2015]
Hey Jacques1724 -
The Barbour citation was a good addition. Just a few thoughts about page development that I thought I'd run by you to see what you think ... At this stage, I think it's ok to leave the Chapman marriage date out of the main Fact fields for this page, since it is not backed up by any non-Chapman sources, it disagrees with the other 2 sources on the page (particularly Barbour, which carries more weight), and it gets rendered automatically on the associated Person Pages for husband and wife (propagating clutter and error).
Since Chapman didn't provide a source (as we both noted), his date becomes just a text error, and the focus of our communication to future readers should shift from pointing out the date to pointing out the text error, so that it doesn't go any further. I've seen this done in different ways (all fine), but something like this covers it:
"Joseph Coit … married Martha Harris of Wethersfield, daughter of William and Edith Harris, July 15, 1667" [17 Jul 1667, per Barbour VR].
I'd like to edit the page again to make these changes. Are you ok with that? --Cos1776 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think I can agree. I cited Dr. Harris' article to connect this couple with the latest available research. He, in turn, cites, in that article, the Barbour entry. That being said, the first two sources currently cited are actually one data point.
- The Barbour Collection is not infallible. Briefly, the Connecticut VR farthest removed from the source is the Ricker Collection on CD ROM - all 14000+ pages of it. It is not clear whether it complied primarily from the Genealogical Publishing Company volumes or directly from the typescript pages at the Connecticut State Library (which should be identical to those on the NEHGS website. I have noted occasional differences among these three sources due, apparently to mistranscription. Since the GPC versions were extracted from Barbour's typescripts, the typescripts are "purer" than GPC. Further, I have found occasional cases where the typescripts are almost certainly incorrect. I can't cite specific examples, but they have occurred in the VR's for towns surrounding New Haven where Donald Lines Jacobus, in the early days of TAG, did direct transcriptions of the early volumes of VRs totally independent of the Barbour series. In these cases, the Jacobus reading is almost certainly correct. In the case of the Coit/Harris marriage, however, I cannot be certain that Barbour was right and Chapman was wrong, although I'd guess it's about 90/10 in favor of Barbour. But consider that Barbour was not taken directly from the original records. The introduction to the New London VRs (Barbour) states:
- "Official copies of the first three books of Births, marriages and Deaths of the Town of New London were made by the authority of the Court of Common Council and approved June 1, 1896. These copies of the first two books have furnished the basis for the text of the following list, but the entries from the third and fourth books have been taken from the originals. The New London Vital Records prior to 1852 are contained in these four volumes.
- This Volume contains a list alphabetically arranged of all the Vital Records of the Town of New London from the earliest records to about 1852. This list was taken from a set of cards based on a copy of the New London Vital Records made in 1911 by James N. Arnold, of Providence, R.I. The Arnold Copy, now in the possession of the Connecticut State Library, has not been compared with the original except for the third and fourth books and doubtless errors exist. It is hoped that as errors or omissions are found, notes will be entered in this volume and on the cards which form the basis of the General Index of Connecticut Vital Records also in the possession of the Connecticut State Library."
- All that being said, I'd prefer to leave it as is, recognizing that Chapman might possibly have been correct, even if it is unlikely. One can't know for sure, one way or the other, without consulting the original record.
- Your thoughts?
--jaques1724 13:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Your explanation is very thorough, and I appreciate the insight into your reasoning. It sounds like we are both in agreement that Barbour (warts and all) is generally given more weight than other "secondary" sources. I'm sure you are aware that there are other users here who will edit away non-Barbour dates in favor of Barbour dates without blinking, so I am glad that we both agree that the Chapman date has a place on the page, even if we respectfully disagree where that place should be. That being said, we are just talking about one alternative date here, not 4-5, so, although I disagree with the placement in the Main Facts Field, I'm also ok with leaving that alone, pending better sources. The cited Chapman text is also fine, as is, sans correction.
Regarding the Harris citation - as written, it was not apparent that he, in turn, was citing Barbour. I think that type of information is important when you are weighing sources (in the same way that we note that Chapman provided no sources.) Would you consider adding a little note there to that effect?
Regards, --Cos1776 16:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
|
|
