User talk:Jaques1724

Welcome [7 January 2013]

NOTE: Prior years' content moved to

User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2011

User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2012

User talk:Jaques1724/User talk:Jaques1724-2013

The Porter's [28 January 2014]

Thank you for adding to the Porter family. Really appreciate what you've been doing....--Frank 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki foundation [15 February 2014]

Jaques, I don't know what your genealogical philosophy is, but I am curious what you think of WR possibly becoming part of Wikipedia. I think this will hurt WR's credibility and make it 'wiki genealogy', in other words, a laughing stock.--Daniel Maxwell 20:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that I don't like the idea. My limited experience with wikipedia is that it's less disciplined and certainly less civil. I'll have something more to say after I've mulled it over a bit.--jaques1724 20:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I am in Full agreement. They don't understand genealogy over there (you will frequently see them use the tired 100+ year old family books as sources with no comment). There are some major problems with the foundation itself and how it is run that will see experienced users overruled by higher ups in the foundation (who will frequently jump from one project to another). They also are quick to ban dissenters and those that link to criticism. Feel free to email me if you have any more to add. Our many hours of work of transcribing will be deleted by them in short order. Daniel Maxwell 20:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I concur. I've never been highly impressed with Wikipedia, the "Fast Food" of information sources. I fear that the quality and cooperation may go straight downhill.--Neal Gardner 21:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully I can get more of the top contributors like you two on board in a resistance movement to this. I don't know where I place in such a ranking, but I might be in the top 25 or so, though I haven't been here as long. Both Jaques and I have butted heads several times with JRich, but he's picky about genealogy sources and a wikipedia critic so I hope he might agree as well. Daniel Maxwell 21:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

--- At the present time I would NOT like to see WeRelate became a part of Wikipedia. --Susan Irish 21:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Date when it is Clearly Incorrect - Appropriate? [19 March 2014]

I noticed that you added an "alternate birth date" fact (20 May 1682) to Elizabeth Burnham, and then discounted the possibility of it being correct in the source notes. This leads me to a "standards" question that I could not (in a few minutes of searching) see being addressed in Help pages. I would have thought that the purpose of adding an alternate fact is to show possible alternatives - to keep the question open as to which fact is correct. For example, if a marriage is registered in two different towns with slightly different dates, we would not know which date is correct, and thus, both dates are possible alternatives.

In this case, the alternate date is not possible (there seems to be sufficient weight to other facts, such as birth years of her children to discount it). So does it really belong as an alternate fact, or just a note in the source?

What concerns me is that as research improves our knowledge about individuals, I would not want to see all previous mistakes (even if limited to previous published mistakes) being added as alternate facts to distract from what is known. (Discussion of mistakes belongs somewhere - whether in notes about sources or on the Talk page, or sometimes in the narrative, depending on the nature of the discussion, but I would prefer that mistakes not show up as alternate facts that might be taken as being possible alternatives. For example, I don't think we would put someone in a family based on early speculation once it has been shown that the speculation is incorrect, although we might comment in the narrative about the early speculation and include a link to the disproven parents.)

I realize that one advantage of having the incorrect date as an alternate fact is that if a person searches for Elizabeth Burnham born 1682 (using the "exact & close match" default), this record shows up in the search results (and would not otherwise). However, when adding a new person, the default search is "exact, close & partial", and she would show up even without the 1682 birth date. This eliminates the risk that a duplicate page would be created just because someone has the 1682 birth date from the incorrect source.

Since a number of frequent WeRelate contributors are watching this page, maybe someone knows whether this subject has been discussed and resolved before. If not, does anyone else share my point of view? Is there any consensus (or common practice) on this, and if so, should something be added to a Help page? Thanks in advance for any responses.--DataAnalyst 02:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings on how to handle this sort of situation, so I'm open to advice on how to improve the presentation. I think the issue is of some importance, since even a top-tier genealogist like Mr. Harris will occasionally cite a sometimes less-than-reliable source like Stiles (both Wethersfield and Windsor), particularly if a fact is peripheral to the subject under analysis.

John Hunt son of Ephraim Hunt (II) [20 March 2014]

Thank you for your update of Ephraim Hunt (m. Rebecca Allen). I would like to point out a couple of items about their children. Wyman has a dau Joanna placed between second son Rev. Samuel and third son John. However, he also says "The first dau. m., and ob. early" and there are no dates for her at all. I always thought that "early" meant early childhood or infancy, but maybe it means early in the marriage (?). Savage apparently does not list Joanna or any of the daughters (Wyman also lists daus Elizabeth, Sarah, and Mercy; all married to specific men) and a final son Ephraim. Also, Savage has third son John born 23 Nov 1687 while Wyman has him born only in 1688 (no month or day). So, in addition to adding the missing children (from Wyman), do you think it is better to go with the specific birth date for son John supplied by Savage? One other note - the probate is punctuated to make it look like Elizabeth, Sarah, Mercy, and Ephraim are children of the deceased Joanna, but Wyman has birth and/or marriage dates for each of them that show this is not so. It's too bad we don't have a husband's name for Joanna. I can update this with my Wyman info if you like.--Khs2000 02:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Chamberlain's Weymouth Genealogies (Part of the 4 Vol. History of Weymouth), the children of Ephraim and Joanna (Alcock) Hunt were:

Children, born at Weymouth:
John,⁴ b. 11 Dec. 1679; d. young.
Samuel, b. 8 Feb. 1681.
Joanna, m. Benjamin Richards of Weymouth.
John, buried 4 Sept. 1761; resided in Braintree.
Peter, b. 8 Mar. 1690.
William, b. 14 Mar. 1692; resided in Braintree.
Ebenezer, b. 6 Apr. 1694.
Thomas, b. 1 May. 1696.
Elizabeth, b. 1697; m. 4 Feb. 1718-19, Lemuel Pope of Dartmouth.
Sarah, b. 19 Jan.-; m. 6 Jan. 1725-26, Dea. John Holbrook of Weymouth.
Mercy, b. 8 Apr. -; m. Rev. Richard Pierce of Dartmouth.
Ephraim, b. 12 Dec. 1707; resided in Braintree.

The second John, according to Sprague's Braintree Families, was born c. 1685 based on a church record which says he was buried 4 Dec 1761 a. 76. He is the one who married Rebecca Allen.

My interest was in Elizabeth whose granddaughter, Wealthy Gilbert, married (as 2nd w.) Sylvanus Tinker of East Haddam and thus is connected with the Olmsted and Brainerd families of East Haddam and Haddam. I don't expect to do any more work on the Hunt family any time soon, so feel free to enhance the entries for this family as you find appropriate.--jaques1724 23:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, you are right - Ephraim married Joanna Alcock and their second John married Rebecca Allen. Sorry about that mistake - I was going back and forth between parents and son. Also, with a little more looking I also saw the text from Chamberlain that daughter Joanna "married Benjamin Richards of Weymouth; died soon after" - so I answered my own question about what "ob. early" meant in her case. It's still an unusual use of the term. My question on the birth date of John is now even more confused - Wyman says he was born in 1688; Chamberlain says Nov. 23, 1687, and your church record source calculates it as 1685! I guess I will list all three possibilities. More than likely one of these is a baptism date which differs from the birth date, but it's anyone's guess. Thanks for your help on this one.--Khs2000 04:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

None of these are baptisms. None of these are births. They are secondary sources that found no birth or baptism record and they are just guessing/estimating. The only evidence is the age at death for John, and age at death is inherently flaky due to multiple factors (age 76, or was it in his 76th year?) The order of the will, except for the younger children, is also influenced by who got land, who got money, by gender, etc. Basically we don't know. My guess is John actually comes before Joanna based on her estimated date of marriage, don't know what caused Chamberlain to show it the other way. But that is my guess. Guess vs. guess is not how to do genealogy, so might as well keep Chamberlain's order until undercover more evidence. --Jrich 14:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Amendments to Hurst in Berkshire, England [9 April 2014]

I have made further alterations to the modern Wokingham Borough page and taken out Hurst as a "contained place". The new boroughs of Berkshire are still not counties in their own right, though in a lot of ways they have the authority. If we are to put Hurst as a contained place in Wokingham, then we have to put every other settlement in that list as a contained place as well.

Unfortunately you found a section that, looking back at it, I don't consider complete. It took months to find my way around "A Vision of Britian through Time"; now I depend on it. It is too bad that the developers at the University of Portsmouth decided that the world stopped at 1974. I really must take out that quote from GENUKI in St Nicholas Hurst. The organizer is a stickler for copyright (the way his copyright reads, I wonder why he went to the trouble of putting the stuff on the web at all). Since I live in Britain I might be more liable than one of you across the pond.

Someday, I shall go back and tackle Berkshire again. Right now I am working on Yorkshire and Lancashire (both counties that really did change county names in 1974) and it's very slow work.

--Goldenoldie 07:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Collab request - Baldwin [2 May 2014]

Jaques, been awhile since I have asked for your help with a family, but the very prolific Baldwin family of New England has given me difficulty. Sources for this family are surprisingly poor. Best I have been able to find, they range from the very old Baldwin genealogy to a few snippet articles in the Register and TAG. That seems to be it. Now, I have seen you clean up families with threadbare sources before. I am not asking you to do all of it, but maybe you are aware of some sources I am not. I am a member of the NEHGS now and even among their sources, there wasn't much. This is very important family, but it is a mess here on WR and not any better out there on the web. Let me know if you're interested.--Daniel Maxwell 01:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have Charles C. Baldwin's "Baldwin Genealogy from 1500 to 1881" in hard copy. Flawed admittedly, but a good springboard w/family groups. --Neal Gardner 03:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

in preview mode on books.google.com so big sections currently available for a limited time: [1]. Also at Internet Archive [2] and at heritagequest.com. --Jrich 05:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That book is OK for some things, but it is lacking detail and many things were unknown in 1881. That's the problem with this line - there is a piece here, a piece there, and much of it is incredibly vague. No later authors (that I have found) have cleaned and sorted this line, which is strange, considering it's importance. Daniel Maxwell 05:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Jacobus treats the New Haven Baldwins in Families of Ancient New Haven 1:99-107 and a few Fairfield County Baldwins in Families of Old Fairfield 1:22-24 and 2:36-37. Susan Woodruff Abbott treats the Milford Baldwins in Families of Early Milford 14-60. Alvan Talcott treats the Guilford Baldwins in Families of Early Guilford 5-25 (not always as reliable as Jacobus and Abbott). Both of the Jacobus works are available on the NEHGS site. For Abbott and Talcott, you'd probably have to go to ancestry.com.---jaques1724 14:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of those; it is the family in England that is more problematic. Daniel Maxwell 18:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

There are at least a handful of articles in NEHGR, TAG, etc. (to which I don't have access) with excerpts from wills, deeds.. One treats the relationship between Sylvester Baldwin/John Baldwin Sr., another Josiah Baldwin w/mother Mary vs Mercy Camp. Somewhere online WAS a mildly cited descendancy of Long Island Baldwins, and original families of Elizabethtown, NJ; both of which I will try to find sometime today. Pockets of Baldwin info are "buried" in other family studies, ie Winans, Camp, Bruen, etc.--Neal Gardner 15:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI [3 May 2014]

http://www.werelate.org/w/index.php?title=Family:Thomas_Barnes_and_Dorothy_Bigod_%282%29&diff=20693277&oldid=17740361

Noticed that edit, not sure if there is any truth to it.--Daniel Maxwell 04:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The two John Reads [14 May 2014]

Yes, there are two different men. The John Read who was married to Sarah Lessie is the father of the 2nd John Read, who predeceased his father (this creates some confusion between them). I hadn't sorted all the children yet, which is why they were left unmerged. One interesting thing to note - the record that proves his wife Sarah is the daughter of William Lessie links to a town in England that is unclear to me where it's modern location is intended to be, which is another reason I set it aside for now.--Daniel Maxwell 02:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I just figured it out and undid the merge. The younger John was one of the two children of the elder born at Braintree before he moved to Weymouth.--jaques1724 02:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The children do need to be sorted out though; Mrs. Irish, going by the vital records alone, still has the son with the father's burial date. I will look at this again later (if you don't) after I am done with the Carringtons. Daniel Maxwell 03:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI - I think it is the book History of Rehoboth that sorts out the Read children; IIRC it lists John Read Jr.'s death. Daniel Maxwell 03:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

History of Weymouth sorts (I think) them all out. Sprague's Braintree discusses the elder John's career prior to his removal from Braintree to Weymouth. No TGM sketch, so the random statement that he came in 1630 is bogus, although, according to Sprague, he was here prior to 14 April 1639.--jaques1724 03:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Which does in fact mean that he could in the future, have a GM sketch, if they ever finish off the Great Migration immigrants (to 1640). Daniel Maxwell 03:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Another question about this line - where does 'Blyborough, Suffolk' that John Read's wife's father is supposed to have come from correspond to today? Other than a single mention in Google Books, a search finds that the only Blyborough in England is over 100 miles from Suffolk in Lincolnshire, and all other searches for it are mentions of Sarah Lessie, wife to John Read. I would have finished the Lessie part before if I could figure out where it is supposed to be! Daniel Maxwell 08:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps 'Blythburgh' Suffolk is what was intended? It seems the only possibility. Daniel Maxwell 08:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I think Aspinwall's notarial records was the source for that identification. That might be worth pursuing when you have time.--jaques1724 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

An opinion [30 June 2014]

Jaques, I am doing a little cleanup on Hendleys, and one of the families involved in this line is a 'Stadden' family of Marblehead, Mass. All of the Staddens originate with a Hannah Stadden, who had children baptized there from 1685 to 1702. There doesn't seem to be anything on her, but judging from the records I would say that all of her children were illegitimate, since they were baptized in her name and no father or husband mentioned. The baptisms are spread out evenly so it seems unlikely she was a widow, and she is not called as such in the records. I don't like to make that call without seeing the originals and their wording, but the church records of Marblehead aren't available online. What do you think? These records on in the 1st volume of Marblehead vitals on pages 482 and 483.--Daniel Maxwell 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably the father was not a church member, so as far as the church was concerned, the mother was the reason why they were allowed to be baptized there, and the person who probably arranged to have them baptized. The notion of church membership over such a long period with multiple illegitimate children is probably not likely: she would have been kicked out if they were all illegitimate. The first baptism in 1685 is two children, probably just joined the church and baptized her existing children, so marriage probably early in 1680. --Jrich 05:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I had considered that with bastard births over that length of time, however in my own tree I have an example of such a thing happening - Ann Blythe of Tibenham had 7 bastard children baptized there over a 20 year period (and I am descended from her son Daniel). They are explicitly said as such in the baptism records ("base born"), though the nature and membership of Congregationalist churches were obviously quite a bit different than the Anglican Church in England. I just find it strange that the husband is never mentioned over the course of multiple baptisms in a 10 year period, nor the name given. All of the Staddens in Marblehead and Salem seem to come from her, and I cannot find (off hand) a known Stadden male settler before that. It's too bad that the Marblehead church records seem to only be available as a microfilm, they might give further information. Daniel Maxwell 05:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

See here. Torrey cites this, but he calls the husband Andrew/Elias: Andrew/Elias STADDIN/STADDEN? [Andrew?]/Elias? & Hannah _____; by 1685; Marblehead {EIHC 47:94}--Jrich 14:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Essex Institute Historical Collections Vol 47 is available at www.archive.org (free website). The Elias Stadden House is discussed on the cited page.--jaques1724 14:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Nathaniel Baldwin [11 February 2016]

As politely as possible, please don't remove the Jr.s. ie anyone who is descended from this Nathaniel Baldwin will naturally designate him as "Jr.", despite what "the records" say. I have several lines that descend down to III or IV, and I'm sure they were not called John Winans III or IV, but nevertheless that is who they are in my descendancy, for clarity and to help designate one from another.--Neal Gardner 02:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As politely as possible, I view the Jr., Sr., etc., as a crutch. A person was rarely a "Jr." his whole life. In fact, there are many pages on this website where I have done in-depth analysis, when 3 or 4 people of the same name were born and died in the same town, so that on one date, I could figure out which one was Jr. or Sr. (e.g., Family:Isaac Lovejoy and Ruth Davis (1)). Often, the Jr. would only apply to town, or to church, and the other entity would be different, since not all the people of that name went to the same church. Better to rely on the birth, death, or wife to distinguish people with the same name. --Jrich 02:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Jr." as a permanent part of a person's name is actually a quite modern trend. (my late grandfather Dr. William Henry Maxwell Jr., as an example, was always called Jr. and it was considered part of his name) Jr. in the 17th and 18th century did not even necessarily indicate a father-son relationship, but sometimes just another man in town who went by the same name, but was a newer resident, might be called 'Junior'. Personally, I usually leave those alone but as Jrich says I am not fond of them especially before the 19th century. Daniel Maxwell 02:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that others have jumped into the discussion while I was composing my response. Also, as politely as possible, it is inaccurate to call him Nathaniel junior when he was probably never known as such during his lifetime. In colonial days, the terms senior and junior (and tertius and quartus) were used to differentiate between men (and occasionally women) of the same name whether or not they were parent/child, based on age. The fact that the parents and children of an individual are or should be indicated on a person page would seem to adequately describe the relationship. I would note that Charles Candee Baldwin in the Baldwin genealogy (pages 409-10) indicates several instances where this Nathaniel was called Nathaniel senior, but none in which he was called Nathaniel junior. I would be pleased to hear the opinions of others on this matter. --jaques1724 02:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

All comments above, I'm familiar with. "Crutch" I'll take with a grain of salt. I have an early GRANT relative continuously called Alexander "Jr." in the records, not by his children or grandchildren. Took me several years to find that his father was a John Grant. Both including the suffix or not including it can cause problems. Perhaps the "reasoning" could be briefly noted in cases where the "Jr." is excluded ? --Neal Gardner 12:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The topic of name suffixes was addressed by Christopher Child in a Vita Brevis post dated 11 February 2016. Note again that the use of suffixes does not have the same meaning in the 20th-21st centuries as it did in the 17th-18th. --jaques1724 19:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Addressing a two-year topic ?--SkippyG 22:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Messy Parkers [15 September 2014]

Sorry for that mass upload/merging of the Parkers I did that seems to have messed up some of your clean family groups - that old tree had some later generations I wanted to add (mainly Bethuel Parker whom I may descend from), but it was way bigger than I had expected.--Daniel Maxwell 23:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. The records needed cleaning up anyway, and they are in an area of interest (although not related) to me.--jaques1724 23:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

They are a sort of placeholder for me. My ancestor Hannah Parker who married Jared Hickcox in 1814 is supposed to be a daughter of Bethuel, and although from my looking at the record, it doesn't look likely, I wanted to have Bethuel up in case I am ever able to prove it. It doesn't actually look like any of the children of the 2nd Bethuel Parker are actually known; he disappears after the 1800 census. Also heard it said that Hannah Parker was a daughter of the widow (?) Molly Parker who married James Geir (sp?) in Cleveland Ohio in the 1810s. Big mystery in my tree and one that will take alot of intense digging.Daniel Maxwell 23:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Scott(11) [1 October 2014]

Two Sarah Scotts

The apparently well researched website http://www.themorrisclan.com/GENEALOGY/SCOTT%20Thomas%20F7866.html

is showing different parents for the Sarah Scott that married John Stanley. The Sarah Scott(11) in werelate may not be the spouse of John Stanley.

It would be wonderful if you checked into this.--Katharine958 00:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Edward Shepard article in HQ [31 October 2014]

Jaques, did you ever see Part III of the Edward Shepard series in HQ? I remember awhile ago you said you'd like to see it for the discussion of the Wolterton will. Turns out my local library had the complete run of HQ this whole time I just found out, so if you still would like to see this, I have it. I already sourced the Merrill children baptisms which was my main purpose in finding that article (it also had the 2nd marriage record of Nathaniel's brother John which I did not know about).--Daniel Maxwell 15:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebenezer Brown m. Rebeccah Ludington [16 December 2014]

Hello,

Do you have any vested interest in Ebenezer and Rebeccah Ludington? I am spelling Rebeccah's name the way it appears on Vol. 2, page 165 of the Waterbury Vital Records. I have a lengthy write-up on a family group surrounding Ebenezer Brown, particularly his son Wyllys/Willis Brown. It looks like you are basically working with the Jacobus book New Haven Families, and maybe that three-volume set on the History of Waterbury by Bronson. Ebenezer's descendants are out there, but they are hard to find.

Best regards, Ron Brown--Rebrown99 21:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm working by the principal advocated by Jacobus in Vol. 3 of FANH. See the person page for Person:Justina Parker (1) for his discussion of the spelling of names. There certainly are several ways for documenting one or more alternate spellings on a page, but (my opinion) it's cleaner for search purposes if the most common spelling is used for the primary name fields.--jaques1724 23:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Married name [14 February 2015]

Hello ! Please, can you take a few minutes to read this - Thank you ! Amicalement - Marc ROUSSEL - --Markus3 14:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

John Case [1 March 2015]

Jaques, I started to clean up John Case awhile back but I never got around to it. I deleted some of the erroneous information in the 'timeline' that an earlier member had added (such as anything that referred to his alleged 'origin'), but you may want to recheck it for errors.--Daniel Maxwell 01:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Makepeace/Johnson [16 April 2015]

Jaques, several years ago you cleaned up the Makepeace family, using mainly GM. I am working on cleaning of the family of Captain James Johnson of Boston, and in the process noticed that the 'Ann Johnson' who married William Makepeace is placed in what appears to be a stub for the same James Johnson already. I was going to merged this barebones James Johnson into the one I created, but James Johnson doesn't have a daughter Ann (though two daughters named 'Hannah' who either died young or have no further record). He left no probate, so while it isn't totally impossible he had a daughter Ann with his earlier wife, all of his known children are from his second wife. A quick look and I couldn't find anything on Ann. My instinct is to simply remove her and leave her unplaced, but since you did the Makepeace cleanup I thought you might have a better idea. The discussion started here: Family talk:James Johnson and Margaret Unknown (3)--Daniel Maxwell 06:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

According Anderson's Great Migration sketch of James Johnson, there were no known children with his first wife Margaret. If this Ann was his daughter, there are no records connecting them. Unless other evidence were to surface, it would appear that the origins of Ann Johnson, wife of William Makepeace, are completely unknown.--jaques1724 15:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ursula, wife of David Yale [21 May 2015]

Jaques, going through some Stoughton cleanup, and I noticed that Ursula, the wife of David Yale, is listed on WR as an unknown. Person:Ursula Unknown (34) According to TAG 33:108-12, she was Ursula Knight, related to several other immigrants - Rev. William Knight, Mrs. Elizabeth Knight Stoughton (how I noticed it), Mary Knight Clark, and their mother widow Elizabeth Knight. Stoughton is still a mess but I may get to this family if you don't have time.--Daniel Maxwell 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Mary Canfield b 1628 ? [21 May 2015]

I don't see a reason for your theory that Mary Canfield had to be born abt 1628. It seems that you are very doubtful re: Mary as dau of Thomas, but Jacobus appears to accept the possibility, and the possibility, with cumulative clues is all that I've seen so far...more "for" than "against". I just don't want to see Mary disconnected to Thomas just yet. BTW, I've changed her birth year to a range of 1624 to 1628.--SkippyG 21:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The only reason for the 1628 date (obviously a guess, educated or otherwise, is that if she were the sister of Thomas of Milford, there was not a lot of room for her in the middle of the first three siblings. The 1626 date was based on estimating the Mercy's date of birth to have been about 1646, her having married in 1667 (if not for son Samuel I'd estimate her birth as 1627 instead.

I'm not "very doubtful", but the evidence proving her identity just isn't there. I'm perfectly happy leaving it the way it is pending additional evidence.Bill Carr 23:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

And thank you [24 May 2015]

Hi Bill

There are many times when I am working through the the vagaries of English historical geography that I wonder if any WR users really care. But after almost 50 years "on the spot" preceded by spending my growing up years in Canada, I see mistakes in our listings and can't help myself wanting to sort them out. Then I discover ten other corrections that need to be made hiding under the one I found...and so it goes on.

I have a small family on which to do my own genealogy and have, due to ill health, spent much of the past couple of years confined to one small patch of Earth. It has given me plenty of time to sit at a computer and push information out to the world, as well as pull it in from various websites. We can't all travel to our favourite repositories.

Do feel free to point out any mistakes you think I might have made. Getting things right is the name of the game.
/cheers Pat aka --Goldenoldie 10:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Abigail Adkins Hubbard [10 June 2015]

Hi, The memorial # used for Abigail connects to a page for Grace Morris.--SkippyG 21:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your addition of Sandford, Devon [3 July 2015]

Haven't done much on Devon yet. Must get back to it someday. Still trying to sort out Greater London. --Goldenoldie 06:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Addition of Hundridge, Buckinghamshire [7 December 2015]

Hi

You've got me checking out my local patch this morning. Chartridge and Hundridge are less than 10 miles away from here.

Looking at the WR notes on Chartridge I notice I did nothing to change the Wikipedia introduction. This was in my early days of sorting out our notes on Britain when I was only thinking about working on my local patch. Since then I have really cut down on the number of hamlets in the UK that make their way into the WR database. They are now all mentioned in italics in the description and then added with a redirect. Hundridge and Pednor, Bellingdon and Asheridge, should all point to Chartridge. Geographically, Chartridge is the main valley and the hamlets are smaller valleys leading off it. If there is enough information about any one of them (like the existence of a chapel of ease in the 1500s that you have found), it is entered as a paragraph in the Chartridge entry.

Recently Dallan has been a great help in that when a place is redirected to another place, it is automatically entered in the Alt Names box with the phrase "from redirect" as the explanation. Once the redirection is in place I can go back to the main parish and alter "from redirect" to "hamlet in parish", "variant spelling", etc, even if there is no apparent source other than common usage. In addition, the sources found under "What links here" get tied into the list under "Category" for the parish. Buckinghamshire hasn't got its categories done the way counties I have been doing more recently. (See Cornwall for a county which is complete including categories.) Why do this? Until 1889 the only part of London was the City of London. Since then it has been reorganized twice. We must keep all the sources for Islington together, whether it was part of Middlesex or part of London.

I read yesterday that when most "civil parishes" came into being in 1866, the British government established (invented?) 14,000 at one fell swoop. Civil parish is the basis of what I have been putting in WR's English place database. With 14,000 places to work on, is it any wonder I am demoting hamlets (unless they are civil parishes) to also-rans? I shall take some time off from Lincolnshire and sort out Chartridge later in the day.

Regards Pat (--Goldenoldie 08:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC))

Meigs family [3 August 2016]

Jaques, what does the Great Migration Directory show for Vincent Meigs? The best I could find is a late 70s TAG article JRich provided me with that has a will which may be related to that family in Devon and then calls basically everything written about his family before as inaccurate. I descend from this family and would like to clean it up.--Daniel Maxwell 04:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Anderson does not have an entry for Vincent Meigs, indicating that he found no evidence that Meigs was in New England by the end of 1640.

The internet archive has two titles which pertain to Meigs

https://archive.org/details/recordofdescenda00meig

https://archive.org/details/descendantsofwil1893wilc

In addition to the second of the sources listed above, HeritageQuest online has two titles (search on "Vincent Meigs") - Ancestry.com has the same titles as HeritageQuest.

--jaques1724 16:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, nothing newer in the journals? Only thing I saw was the 70s article in TAG that covered a possibly related will in Devon that I already mentioned. Daniel Maxwell 17:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Back Feeding from the Savage Transcript [22 August 2016]

I've asked a few folks to take a look at some things I've been able to do with the Savage Transcript. Would appreciate your views on this and this. I realize Savage has its weaknesses - but new copies are still being sold and it's not going away in our lifetimes. I would also ask that you contemplate the approach in the general sense - not limiting it to Savage.

Best Regards...

--jrm03063 22:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out... [13 September 2016]

In addition to remarks back on my Talk page, I wanted to make sure you were aware that it's easy to find all the Person pages where I've placed a Savage extract.

The extracts are flagged with Begin/End templates....and you just see what points at them.....thus. --jrm03063 19:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Could Nicholas Wade have been married to Elizabeth Ensign of Scituate, MA [30 October 2016]

Per this history

Genealogy and history of representative citizens of the commonwealth of Massachusetts

AuthorHurd, Charles Edwin Pages838 LanguageEnglish;eng;en LocationAllen County Public Library; http://www.acpl.lib.in.us/--Ben 23:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

On p. 66, in a biography of Rufus Robbins Wade, his lineage is said to start from Nicholas Wade, who took the oath of fidelity in 1638, married "probably about 1657 or 1658, Elizabeth Ensign, daughter of Thomas Ensign, of Scituate, and his wife, Elizabeth Wilder, of Hingham, who were married in 1638-9." All this is stated with no reference to any sources, in particular no contemporary documents (it appears to come from p. 266 of Deane's very spotty History of Scituate). The year of marriage being imprecise, obviously this is not based on a marriage record. The wife Elizabeth Ensign, born after her parents marriage "1638-9" wouldn't be born before 1639, so a marriage "about 1657 or 1658" is about as early as one would expect her to marry, roughly. But Nicholas made oath in 1638 so was of legal age, 21, at that time, and would have been at least 41, if not older, at the alleged time of the marriage. (And you have entered a daughter b. 1640. Clearly incompatible with a marriage "about 1657 or 1658"?) The will of Thomas Ensign, dated 16 Jul 1663, only 5 years after the alleged marriage (to be found at Mayflower Descendant, Vol. 16, p. 23-24) mentions no daughter Elizabeth nor any children of Elizabeth, suggesting she died young. --Jrich 03:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Clapp! Clapp! [17 November 2016]

I reviewed the following, approximately 3 dozen changes, that ALL changed the spelling of CLAP to CLAPP, and, of course, you know how many sources I saw posted that justified that change? Yeah, zero. Let's take Person:Elizabeth Clapp (28) for example. Birth record says Clap, marriage record says Clap, jaques1724 thinks Clapp is better so it gets changed with no sources provided. Not exactly my definition of collaboration...

(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Nathaniel Clap and Sarah Howe (1)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Samuel Clapp (17))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Samuel Clapp and Hannah Pierce (1)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Samuel Clapp (17))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Samuel Clapp and Elizabeth Foster (1)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Samuel Clapp (17))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Samuel Clapp (17)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs)
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Aaron Clap (1)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Elizabeth Foster (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Elizabeth Clap (4)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Elizabeth Foster (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:James Clap (1)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Elizabeth Foster (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Isaac Clap (1)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Elizabeth Foster (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Moses Clap (1)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Elizabeth Foster (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Elizabeth Foster (15)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Elizabeth Foster (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Samuel Clap (4)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Elizabeth Foster (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Jemima Clap (1)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Elizabeth Foster (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Timothy Clap (1)‎; 18:00 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Elizabeth Foster (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Hannah Pierce (6)‎; 17:59 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Hannah Pierce (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Samuel Clapp (16)‎; 17:57 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs)
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Samuel Clapp and Hannah Leeds (1)‎; 17:57 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Samuel Clapp (16))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Samuel Clapp and Mary Paul (1)‎; 17:57 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Samuel Clapp (16))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Hannah Clapp (9)‎; 17:54 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Hannah Leeds (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Edward Sumner and Elizabeth Clapp (1)‎; 17:54 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Elizabeth Clapp (27))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Elizabeth Clapp (27)‎; 17:54 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Hannah Leeds (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Ebenezer Clapp and Hannah Clapp (1)‎; 17:54 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Hannah Clapp (9))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Samuel Clapp (14)‎; 17:54 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Samuel Clap and Hannah Leeds (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Nicholas Clapp and Sarah Clapp (1)‎; 17:53 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Sarah Clapp (22))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Sarah Clapp (22)‎; 17:53 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs)
(diff) (hist) . . ! Person:Nicholas Clapp (6)‎; 17:50 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Add spouse family: Family:Nicholas Clapp and Abigail Unknown (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Nathaniel Clapp and Elizabeth Smith (1)‎; 17:29 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Elizabeth Clapp (28))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Ebenezer Sumner and Elizabeth Clapp (1)‎; 17:29 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Elizabeth Clapp (28))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Elizabeth Clapp (28)‎; 17:29 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs)
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Nathaniel Sumner (4)‎; 17:28 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Ebenezer Sumner and Elizabeth Clap (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Nathaniel Sumner and Lydia Unknown (1)‎; 17:28 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Nathaniel Sumner (4))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Nathaniel Sumner and Deliverance Weeks (1)‎; 17:28 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Nathaniel Sumner (4))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Ebenezer Sumner (4)‎; 17:28 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Ebenezer Sumner and Elizabeth Clap (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Samuel Sumner and Mary Ruggles (1)‎; 17:26 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Samuel Sumner (6))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Samuel Sumner (6)‎; 17:26 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Edward Sumner and Elizabeth Clap (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:Samuel Sumner and Abigail Mather (1)‎; 17:26 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:Samuel Sumner (6))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:John Sumner and Susannah Stevens (1)‎; 17:26 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:John Sumner (2))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Family:John Sumner and Jedidah Smith (1)‎; 17:26 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Person:John Sumner (2))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:John Sumner (2)‎; 17:26 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Edward Sumner and Elizabeth Clap (1))
(diff) (hist) . . m! Person:Edward Sumner (1)‎; 17:26 . . Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) (Propagate changes to Family:Edward Sumner and Elizabeth Clap (1)) --Jrich 03:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I made the egregious mistake of running searches on both surnames. The werelate entries that came up "Clapp" were better than 400 while those which came up for "Clap" were 24. I suggest that you go back and review what Jacobus had to say about varied spelling of surnames. See Families of Ancient New Haven, pp. 767-68. If it makes you feel better, go back and change them all to "Clap." I agree with DLJ that consistency within the family trumps the varied spellings which town clerks, other public officials and cutters of gravestones impart.--jaques1724 03:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

So based on the authority of WeRelate (which is not a source of Jacobus' quality, and may be skewed towards one spelling because only one branch is well represented, or most Clapps were entered by one user, who choose Clapp as their preferred spelling, not because it is objectively so) you are overriding a spelling backed by records showing how the name was consistently spelled at the time, that previous collaborators obviously preferred. It would seem the better collaborative policy would have been to recognize the historical truth that they were both the same, that WeRelate search recognizes both as the same surname, and simply leave it instead of generating so many wasteful change notices, especially since your apparent research did not even appear to involve looking up a source. And I wonder what your rationale was for this change: 10:12, 24 September 2012 Jaques1724 (Talk | contribs) m (Person:Mary Curtis (32) renamed to Person:Mary Curtice (2))? Surely Curtice is not more universal than Curtis? --Jrich 06:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Benedict Alvord/Alford in Great Migration Directory [2 December 2016]

Jaques, since you have the Great Migration Directory, I am curious what it gives as the best account for Benedict Alvord/Alford, who was in Windsor by 1640.--Daniel Maxwell 09:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Manwaring 1:268; TAG 65:13-16; Search for Passengers of Mary & John 19:108-10.--jaques1724 18:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

bad source [13 October 2017]

On Family:Matthew Whipple and Jemima Lane (1), there is a reference to a non-existent source Source:20435 that seems to have been added during one of your edits [3]. I have searched for phrases in google but found nothing so assume this an abstract. Can you see if you can figure out what source it is? Thank you. --Jrich 23:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Samuel Cass birthdate. [15 January 2018]

Wondering why you consider 13 5 mo 1659 as being the 13th of July 1659 instead of 13th May 1659. I'm trying to understand how the 5th month can be translated to July.

Here is the source you have.

2.↑ Sanborn, George Freeman, and Melinde Lutz Sanborn. Vital Records of Hampton, New Hampshire to the End of the Year 1900. (Boston, Massachusetts: New England Historic Genealogical Society, c1992-1998), 1:92; 549.

"Samuell: the son of John Cass & of Martha: His wife born ye 13: 5 mo 59 [July 13, 1659]" "Samuell ye Sone of Jno Cass & Martha his wyfe was borne 13th 5th Mo: 1659 [July 13, 1659]"

Thanks, QCTRADER--Qctrader 03:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Through 1751, the legal year started on 25 March. 1752 was the first year where the legal year started January 1st. The old-style made March the first month of the year, April the second, etc. See Old Style Dates with Numeric Months. Note also, in 1752, the calendar was switched from Julian to Gregorian. This was a separate phenomenon, not affecting the above issue, where 11 days were skipped to realign the calendar with Biblical times, i.e., the day after 3 Sep 1752 was 14 Sep 1752. --Jrich 06:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Guess you're never too old to learn something. And I appreciate you explaining it. I've run into people that don't respond or I get "Because I'm right". So I really appreciate learning something new.

QCTRADER--Qctrader 14:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

St. Mary Arches, Exeter [1 August 2021]

Hi

There is already a page for St. Mary Arches. If you read down the Exeter page you will see that each of the parishes within the city has been named "Exeter St. ...". This includes Exeter St. Mary Arches. Perhaps you would add your description to that page.

Adding the main town as a prefix to the parish name was a "way round" the three-part rule that WR prefers for places outside the United States and Canada. I adopted it for many of the cathedral cities of England that I have worked on. It avoids confusion between the many St. Marys and St. Johns around the country. It is used for some places in other sources, particularly Southwark. The one exception is the parishes of the City of London where I decided to adopt the four-part rule--making a list of 108 parishes all beginning with London was too much, and, as of last night, City of London parishes each have a description!

Not all the parishes of Exeter have a description. Sources giving more information than the name of the parish are hard to find, and when I was working on Devon a few years ago personal circumstances prevented digging in depth for worthwhile material. Devon is one of the many large counties of England that I have worked on for a while and then dropped.

Regards, --Goldenoldie 07:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Person:Ruth Huntington (2) [26 July 2021]

I am wondering why you would erase sources that linked to scanned images of the original handwritten records in order to replace them with indexes of the same records. This is blatantly changing things from better quality to lesser quality. If you want confirmation of what it says, add the index, but do not erase the better source. --Jrich 21:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Also not sure why you think it is so important to add "Also recorded in Mansfield" to the birth description. There are two sources attached to the birth event, one of which references the Mansfield records, which make that description seem somewhat redundant. The record adds in Windham and does not differ, so the record is merely confirmation of what the Windham record says. And based on the history given on the page, it was clearly recorded several years, even decades after the event. So if they differed, the Windham record would be the presumptive authority unless there was other evidence. Great to cite it, since it is close to contemporary, but seems excessive to call such attention to it, not being of equivalent in terms of probative weight as the Windham record. --Jrich 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: John Grant (1716-1792) [22 September 2021]

Jacques,

Thanks for the update on Neal.

Best,

Steve--Sagrant 00:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Interest in Thomas Hurlbut [23 September 2021]

I see today (9/23/21) you left a comment.

Contact me if you get a message.

Gil Hurlbut ghurlbut@yahoo.com--Ghurlbut 19:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ruth Bancroft [17 July 2022]

You changed the mother of Ruth and cited Stiles, though your abstract neglects to say who he thinks her parents are. In fact, he says the first 7 children were the first wife Margaret and Ruth is the 9th so according to the source you cited, she did indeed have the correct mother. However, I note she is not mentioned in her father's will. Strange. --Jrich 00:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I got balled up trying to sort out Thomas's wives and their dates. I should have just reverted the change and left it alone. Thanks! --jaques1724 21:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Understandable, since Margaret's death date is shown on WeRelate as 1699, the marriage to Hannah is 1676 (obvious contradiction, but both dates are unsourced unfortunately), and according to Stiles all children born 1667 and after belong to the second wife (disagrees with both the previous items). To further complicate things Westfield VRs show an unnamed wife of Thomas dying in 1672/3 (maybe you were right). This is going to need some research and I didn't want to take the time to do it right now, maybe some day it would be interesting to work on it if it hasn't been fixed. --Jrich 04:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

adding married name redundantly is not best practice [9 January 2025]

Hi

Just to let you know that adding a married name to a page where this can already be determined from the existence of the family page isn't considered to be best practice, because it is one more place to make a correction in the case of an error. WeRelate already indexes women using the surnames of all their husbands, without needing a married name entry.

Married name entry is useful in situations where the family page is not being created - which might be because the husband's first name is unknown, or because he is living.

For more information, see person name conventions (additional conventions), which has been rewritten as part of the ongoing (and still not completed) refresh of Help.--DataAnalyst 21:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this discussion. In my mind, regardless of indexing, assigning a married name does add some value. Example 1: Assigning that married name to Prudence May also allows a search to find her if you search on "Mary Warner". Example 2: Her sister Elizabeth, who married a Newcomb, does not have a married name assigned. A search on "Elizabeth Newcomb" will not find her. It's probably not all that often that this increased utility is a factor, but until that's changed, I don't think, short of it being a requirement, that I should stop the practice.

WR Search is very good these days. FWIW, here she is at #15 in this Search for "Elizabeth Newcomb" in Hartford, CT. Best wishes, --cos1776 02:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. If you search for Elizabeth Newcomb in Hartford, Connecticut, United States or Wethersfield, Hartford, Connecticut, United States, she pops up. However, if you just search for Elizabeth Newcomb with no place modifier, she does not. Odd.--jaques1724 01:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

She does show up, it is just on the second page, as some of the other matches (variations on spelling of surname) are considered more relevant. When I have the opportunity, I'll see if a tweak would make her show up earlier on the list. But it might be a while.--DataAnalyst 01:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, when searching exact and close. Why not when searching exact.--jaques1724 01:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Good question - that would take some digging and I'm not sure I'd even be able to figure it out.--DataAnalyst 02:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)