Re: You just can't trust nobody no more.

[JYoun...@aol.com]

> I was doing one of those RAOKs, looking up in my database and
> fleshing out loose-ends for someone.
>
> Dropped by wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com and ran the name. Found
> several trees, apparently quoting one another, that appeared to
> have conflated two women (mother and daughter) of very similar
> given names. One had a death date a good 15 years after anything
> I had in my database.
>
> Played further, checking that later death-date.
>
> OK, now I've got a problem. The state's Vital records says she
> died 9 Oct 1913. But the county newspaper in an issue published
> in October 1911 says she died the 8th.
>
> The obit listed surviving children, who can yes indeed be found
> where it says they are and who yes-sirree-bob do belong to the
> woman I had.
>
> No prizes for guessing which of the two dates I'm keeping (g),
> but just for laughs on dreary rainy day 2 ... which would YOU
> keep and why?
>
> Cheryl Singhals <sing...@erols.com>


You should ALMOST always accept the source recorded the closest to
the event in question UNLESS there is reason to believe the person
had reason to lie or the record could be error-ridden.

A newspaper published in 1911 obviously couldn't be publishing a
death two years in the FUTURE unless they are psychic. The Vital
record --- is it a transcription perhaps where 8 sloppily written
could look like 9 to the transcriber?...no matter, I'd opt for the
8th regardless.

My grandfather's birth certificate says he was born March 20, 1864
but he was a Quaker and the Quaker records say he was born March 21,
1864. He always celebrated his birthday on the 21st. He was born at
home on the farm and the doctor responsible for reporting his birth
to the state probably got it wrong or who knows...maybe he was born
close to midnight and it is questionable. But for me his birthdate
is the 21st. My mom says her dad always said he was born in the
first day of spring that year and that this was the 21st.

Joan

JYoun...@aol.com

[bob gillis]

> OK, now I've got a problem. The state's Vital records says she died
> 9 Oct 1913. But the county newspaper in an issue published in
> October 1911 says she died the 8th.
>

> Cheryl Singhals


I would use the 9 Oct date as it probably came from the doctor's
death return/certificate.

The provenance of the newspaper date is not as good. But I hope you
are using a program where you can record at least in a memo the two
dates and sources.

bob gillis

bob gillis <robert...@verizon.net>

[JYoun...@aol.com]

> bob gillis <robert...@verizon.net>


Bob-

I think you overlooked the difference in the YEARS. Also, at this
time most babies were born at home and the doctors were usually not
present for the birth but stopped by later and sent in their reports
to the state whenever they got around to it. That allows errors to
creep into their records.

As someone else noted but I failed to mention in my previous
reply...I wouldn't DISCARD the vital record even though I wouldn't
accept it based upon these two available records. Whenever there is
conflicting evidence it is always a good idea to list BOTH in notes
and then give the reasons you have accepted the one you chose. That
way, if new evidence surfaces in the future you can always "revisit"
the case and reevaluate.

Joan

JYoun...@aol.com

[kha...@dishmail.net]

I generally do not join in on these discussions due to lack of time.

The first thing I want to say to the original poster regarding this
topic is "Welcome to the wonderful world of genealogy".

I have run into so many odd things it is hard to know where to
begin. Having sadly been put in the position of having to deal with
the loss of loved ones and being responsible for the arrangements as
well as having been there at the time of death I know where a good
share of the information that goes into the official documents come
from. They come from the person, maybe a family member, maybe not,
that happens to be standing there at the time.

Keep in mind that this person or persons are under extreme emotional
distress when they are questioned for the information that goes into
a death certificate. Any information on the death certificate and
the death record can be wrong, due to circumstances at the time of
the event, dates and places of birth, names of parents, even the
true name of the deceased may be unknown, guessed at, or
misstated due to stress. You don't generally have that information
handy at the time the person dies.

I have an uncle who died as an infant in 1919 due to the flu and
pneumonia epidemics that were occurring at the time. The death
record has this child as buried in Armstrong, Iowa but I know for a
fact that he was buried in Wallingford, Iowa many miles away. I
know this because my father, brother of the infant, knew where the
grave was located. I have been to the grave site and seen it for
myself.

As to inaccuracies in dates, my great aunt was a nurse during this
same time frame. She was in the Des Moines, Iowa area with her
hometown being Goldfield, Iowa. Her brother, my great uncle wrote
of having the misfortune of learning of his sister's death through
the hometown newspaper. He learned his sister had died as a result
of having contracted the illness through nursing the seriously ill
at work. Understandably he was outraged to learn of her death in
such a manner. He couldn't understand how his sister should become
so ill and then to die without someone in the family letting him
know. As it turned out, Gladys had been ill but had not died; she
recovered, married, had a family and did not leave this world for
another 60 years.

I have worked for a newspaper; I know that most attempt to be
accurate in what they print but some work at it harder than others.
A check of a later issue may or may not, produce a corrected
article. These corrections are generally buried within the issue
and do not leap out at you. They do not necessarily occur in the
very next issue either, time can pass depending upon when the error
was caught, if the error was caught and even whether or not the
paper considers it worth the space in the paper to correct.

I guess if I have a point to make it is this, document what you can,
get as many sources as you are able, use the most logical documented
information in your tree but make sure that you identify any
discrepancies in your field notes along with where you obtained the
information. That is about as good as you can do. After all, you
are dealing with time, distances, and the fact that we are all human
and thus prone to mistakes.

Good luck in your research and may these occurrences be few and far
between.

Caitlyn

kha...@dishmail.net

[Kathleen Craine]

> OK, now I've got a problem. The state's Vital records says she died
> 9 Oct 1913. But the county newspaper in an issue published in
> October 1911 says she died the 8th.
>
> Cheryl Singhals

By "state's Vital records" do you mean the actual death certificate
(with doctor's signature, etc.), or do you mean an index or some
other compilation of state records?

"Kathleen Craine" <kacr...@aol.com>

[bob gillis]

>>> OK, now I've got a problem. The state's Vital records says she
>>> died 9 Oct 1913. But the county newspaper in an issue published
>>> in October 1911 says she died the 8th.
>>>
>>> Cheryl Singhals
>>

>> I would use the 9 Oct date as it probably came from the doctor's
>> death return/certificate.
>>
>> The provenance of the newspaper date is not as good. But I hope
>> you are using a program where you can record at least in a memo
>> the two dates and sources.
>>
>> bob gillis<robert...@verizon.net>
>
> Bob-
>
> I think you overlooked the difference in the YEARS. Also, at this
> time most babies were born at home and the doctors were usually not
> present for the birth but stopped by later and sent in their reports
> to the state whenever they got around to it. That allows errors to
> creep into their records.
>
> As someone else noted but I failed to mention in my previous
> reply...I wouldn't DISCARD the vital record even though I wouldn't
> accept it based upon these two available records. Whenever there is
> conflicting evidence it is always a good idea to list BOTH in notes
> and then give the reasons you have accepted the one you chose. That
> way, if new evidence surfaces in the future you can always "revisit"
> the case and reevaluate.
>
> Joan <JYoun...@aol.com>

I would do just what Joan Young mentioned. I would have two Death
Tags Tags sourced; the one I think is correct is marked Primary.

But as usual Cheryl's penchant for leaving out much pertinent data
such as location of death; location of newspaper; and what version,
image, original or transcription, of the newspaper she saw raises
as many questions as she asked.

She thinks that the group can arrive at a conclusion with just a few
tidbits of information when the whole context is needed.

I thought her original question which Date, Oct 8 or 9 wold she
keep.

[singhals]

>>>> OK, now I've got a problem. The state's Vital records says she
>>>> died 9 Oct 1913. But the county newspaper in an issue published
>>>> in October 1911 says she died the 8th.
>>>>
>>>> Cheryl Singhals
>>>
>>> I would use the 9 Oct date as it probably came from the doctor's
>>> death return/certificate.
>>>
>>> The provenance of the newspaper date is not as good. But I hope
>>> you are using a program where you can record at least in a memo
>>> the two dates and sources.
>>>
>>> bob gillis<robert...@verizon.net>
>>

>> I think you overlooked the difference in the YEARS. Also, at this
>> time most babies were born at home and the doctors were usually not
>> present for the birth but stopped by later and sent in their reports
>> to the state whenever they got around to it. That allows errors to
>> creep into their records.
>>
>> As someone else noted but I failed to mention in my previous
>> reply...I wouldn't DISCARD the vital record even though I wouldn't
>> accept it based upon these two available records. Whenever there is
>> conflicting evidence it is always a good idea to list BOTH in notes
>> and then give the reasons you have accepted the one you chose. That
>> way, if new evidence surfaces in the future you can always "revisit"
>> the case and reevaluate.
>>
>> Joan<JYoun...@aol.com>
>
> I would do just what Joan Young mentioned. I would have two Death
> Tags Tags sourced; the one I think is correct is marked Primary.
>
> But as usual Cheryl's penchant for leaving out much pertinent data
> such as location of death; location of newspaper; and what version,
> image, original or transcription, of the newspaper she saw raises
> as many questions as she asked.
>
> She thinks that the group can arrive at a conclusion with just a few
> tidbits of information when the whole context is needed.
>
> I thought her original question which Date, Oct 8 or 9 wold she
> keep.
>
> bob gillis

Ehh, what's a day among friends? It was the 2-year discrepancy that
bothered me.

And, for the record:

I looked at:
1) the original county death register

2) the on-line digital copy of the state's death record which is
nothing more than a digital copy of the county record because the
state's actual copy burned in 1918.

3) the microfilm of the actual newspaper.

4) the newspaper was (and still is) published in the county-of-death
and county-of-residence of the deceased.

5) cross-referenced with my own extracts of that newspaper from
1866-1906 and with other family deaths and marriages from (1), (2),
and (3) above, as well as county and state marriage records.

Cheryl

singhals <sing...@erols.com>