Using wikipedia as a source [25 August 2011]
There already was a source saying Joseph was born 1662 yet it had not been listed as the birth date. Why was that? Probably because Robert Charles Anderson, arguably the premier genealogist said his birth was "say 1660", meaning to those familiar with Anderson's work, that after a thorough search of all sources he found nothing to pin the date down. However, it does cite the father's will dated 8 May 1682, and proved 1685. Joseph is named executor, which suggests he was of legal age when the will was written, so born at least 21 years before 1682, at the latest 1661, since it seems unlikely the father would risk having his will thrown out due to naming an under age executor. Further Anderson cites no guardians, suggesting all children were of legal age, so the youngest, Jonathan, was born by 1664 at the latest, which also constrains how late Joseph could have been born.
Does wikipedia have anything to add? Well that depends on its sources. One is a website written as a narrative, and gives no source for the birth in 1662. One is Austin's Gen. Dict. of RI, which gives the date of "1662" and no reason for it. Since the date is imprecise with no source, it must be presumed to be an estimate.
Conclusion:
- wikipedia should not be cited, Austin should.
- Austin is an estimate, and shown to be too late by the will so ignorable, though other sources will continue to parrot him.
- The initial value of abt 1660 was not substantially different, so probably didn't need to be changed, and appears to be the better estimate anyway.
Therefore I am restoring the previous value. --Jrich 13:28, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
- I think your reasoning for removing the cite of WP is sound, but I disagree with removal of any reference materials whether they are sources for a particular fact or not. This is part of the reason that the title of the section was changed from sources to references. Where references are concerned - it's hard to imagine where more would not be better - even for weak references.--jrm03063 17:25, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
- Remove isn't exactly the right word, as I replaced it with the underlying source. (And, of course, Wikipedia is still in the narrative to provide the bio.) I suspect Austin is the underlying source of the previously cited NEGHR article, and the website cited by wikipedia, too. As such he is useful to cite since he is representative of the alternative theory.
- I am not sure I understand the "whether they are sources for a particular fact or not". I have driven too many times long distances to library to locate hard-to-find books only to discover they merely mention somebody as parent of one of their children. So I tend to view long lists of sources as a symptom of lack of critical analysis. Some sources are not worth mentioning. I would argue that Great Migration Begins should be the model for providing sources. Each fact or statement is supported by the minimum number of sources needed to show it, and always primary unless none exists, in which case the most respectable secondary sources are cited. Redundant sources are a waste of time to chase down only to discover no added value. Furthermore, multiple unsupported assertions mean nothing in the face of a single piece of primary evidence. Each source should represent the highest quality proof available, provide unique analysis, or in some way offer some information none of the others do. --Jrich 19:12, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
|
