Person talk:Hannah Whitney (1)

Lack of sources is as good as no data [3 January 2012]

I am removing birth date of 28 Jun 1658 and death date of 1693. The cited AFN (24V4-N1) apparently no longer exists, and the current one (1BMS-4CX) says merely 1658-1693. However, even this is wrong. Not that it matters, since AFNs carry no source information and so no authority.

First, there is no birth record in Watertown Records. Bond, who seems to have had access to some additional church records not on the Internet yet, has no birth date, not even an estimate. The Whitney Research Group says born "say 1658", indicating it is a guess based on very little information.

Second, not only is 1693 not her death date, the documents that exist explicitly tell us that she was alive in this year and beyond. Bond says "unm. 1693" which does not imply she died on this date. In truth she is named in the distribution of her father's estate 12 Mar 1692/93, on 27 Apr 1695 she signed a receipt as Hannah Whitney, which she acknowledged 6 May 1695. So the unmarried part is confirmed, the rumors of her death prove to be greatly exaggerated, which often seems to happen when researchers feel it is not necessary to provide a source(s) to justify one's data. --Jrich 12:39, 3 January 2012 (EST)