Death place was Wells, not Pawlet [24 February 2015]
The "vital record" that shows Elkanah's death is not a vital record at all. It was created in 1919 (look at the card) when the state ordered all town clerks to compile records from any available sources. They were to use town records, but also church and cemetery records. Notice on his card it shows the name of the cemetery, which means the record came from a tombstone, not from town records. He is buried in Pawlet, but was living in Wells, where his death was recorded in town records. There is every reason to believe he died in Wells, and no evidence that he died in Pawlet.--Treigel 21:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- I know exactly what they are, having dealt with ones created from town records and others from cemeteries that don't agree even though they are for the same person. But they do more or less pass for the official Vermont records. Until you posted your information, there was no reason to think the location was wrong, his widow being listed in Pawlet in the 1800 census 5 years after his death. It would be great if you could make the citation link to a regular source and perhaps add any context or that actual wording if you could. I am not particularly concerned with this individual, just trying to put enough information so people wouldn't get confused with a different Elkanah Cobb. Do you know what happened to his son Elkanah? --Jrich 23:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand what a "regular source" is. I have a copy of the page from FHL microfilm that I'd be happy to send you. The whole double page is a death register with a couple of dozen names listed. I posted a transcription of the part that refers to him.
His son Elkanah went to Maryland. See http://reigelridge.com/roots/p2239.htm
Terry--Treigel 23:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sources have pages that describe what they are, so that 1) they are always named by a consistent name; 2) people can unambiguously identify the source being referred to instead of being confused by somebody's personal abbreviation; 3) the citation has a standard format used by WeRelate sources to speed understanding; 4) there is a place for discussion about the source itself, as a source, if needed. Such source titles show up as blue links, not red, which usually indicate a free form title not following WeRelate naming conventions for sources.
- I would guess your source title should be "Wells, Rutland, Vermont, United States. Land Records, 1779-1857" so it links to this source page. If the record is in book B, that appears to be one of three volumes found on film 29223. If so, the film number would be a very useful piece of information to include in your citation for the reader's convenience, though one can follow the link on the source page to the FHL catalog and figure it out, once the right source page is linked. Thank you for the information on the son. It would be great if you could post information you have so people don't confuse these people with other similar people. Certainly you are going to have collected more information than I would have in my 15 minutes of searching. --Jrich 00:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. That source refers to the microfilm. The problem is so far as I'm concerned the source is actually the record book in the town clerk's office, not the microfilm.
I did put a link to my site on Elkanah's page. There's no way I'm going to replicate all the data on my site on WeRelate -it's just too difficult, and the results are poor. If anyone wants the information they can find it on my site by the link I've provided.
Terry--Treigel 00:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes of course, but if you looked at the microfilm you can only say what the microfilm showed. Often they film copies because the originals are too old and some of the towns don't want the extra wear caused by filming, etc. So if you can't do the ideal and look at the original, you do the best you can, and when you find a possibility that it's an issue, you decide how much of an effort you can afford to make, to verify things all the way back to the original. Which of course, may be wrong anyway in some cases. So it goes. --Jrich 00:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
|
