Person talk:Phillipa Sherman (1)

1 Oct 1652 versus est 1652 [1 April 2013]

Anderson does not say about 1652 or by 1652 or based on marriage date, etc., but merely gives 1652, apparently to express his inability to confirm the date of 1 Oct 1652. Personally, I think this is a marginal approach. I think you either use the date while noting that there is no basis, or you throw it out completely and give an estimate based on known facts, like births of other siblings or marriage date. Since this date seems to be so reasonable that Anderson kept the year, I believe the first is preferable. That way, it documents the doubt, but recognizes that others are going to find the NEHGR article and want to use the full date, and add it if it is not there.

I assume the precise date comes from Austin, but I don't have access to those pages. I noted my inability to find what Anderson was referencing in PoLE. I assume I missed something, but have scanned and searched multiple times without recognizing anything pertinent. Item 150 is dated 1674 so I would guess whatever item was being referenced impinged on the estimated marriage date and does not apply to the birth. --Jrich 10:58, 1 April 2013 (EDT)