|
|
I found a birth record on ancestry.com that seems to fit this Richard Church, but with such a common name it's hard to be sure. I went ahead and posted it as an alt. birth in case someone else has info that either confirms or denies it's viability.
- GMB confirms that his origin is unknown. Daniel Maxwell 19:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Publishing "ORIGIN: Unknown" was an instantaneous assessment of GMB's knowledge, and is not a statement of fact about Richard Church. Further, I can't tell that they considered this record, as they don't appear to mention it. To attribute a position to them is to assume. This is a piece of data like any other, and what is needed is evidence that it belongs to a different Richard Church, or stronger evidence that it is this Richard Church... if such evidence exists. If it's obviously wrong, that shouldn't be hard to compile. --Jrich 20:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- JRIch, we've been through this before. It takes alot more than just finding a baptism in England (and in London no less) to prove origins. If you like that London baptism, why not this one as well: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NPDC-79M, or this one: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/NPR4-6WL, or how about this one too https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/J9Z4-1XG. There are dozens more I find just a quick search of FS of baptisms that are close to the approximate age of Richard Church. Maybe all of those should go on this page. You like to disparage GM before over this, as though it isn't a reputable source, but once again I say the burden of proof is on people who make these claims and not Anderson who is the cautious one. Tammy of course did no wrong here, but there are simply too many easily findable Richard Churches in England to say which one might be him. (hint - it could be one of these, or it could be none of the above - Church isn't an uncommon name) Daniel Maxwell 00:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't disparage the source, having said many times, it is the model WeRelate should follow: justifying each fact with the best source we know of. But I disparage its misuse: it's still ultimately only a secondary source: it's the underlying evidence that actually proves things. It's purpose is different than WeRelate, publishing only what is academically provable, whereas WeRelate needs a little more leeway to allow recording working hypotheses as a source of information for other researchers. We are capable of updating and erasing wrong data when new information is brought forward. I know as well as you that this baptism is not likely correct - as if it could be sitting on ancestry all along and nobody could find it? But I view part of the purpose of WeRelate to use objective evidence to show things, not to effectively censor the posting because our favorite genealogist doesn't endorse it. That's part of the difference between collaboration versus writing a newsletter. --Jrich 03:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
|
|
