Born or baptized?
Batch: MSP4-PJ7
I am reviewing this batch. Each entry begins with "Born: Baptised" followed by name of child, parents and a date. The indexer has entered the date as date of birth, and blanked the baptism date. I would have done just the opposite. And it does not make sense to me that all the persons were born and baptized on the same day.
Should the date be entered as a baptism or birth?
Answers
-
Hello @ Janet Weston, thank you for posting your enquiry re; the date shown on the Baptismal record to Batch: MSP4-PJ7.
Having viewed the record UK, England, Northumberland—Nonconformist Church Records, 1613–1920 [Part B] it would be the Baptismal date and not the Birth date. Most of the dates are in chronological order, depending when the entries were made, so I think you could record them as the baptismal date.
Thank you for the invaluable work that you do in Indexing,
Kind Regards
Peter A Basford.
0 -
HI Janet. The project instructions really handle this question well.
- If you are not sure if a date column refers to a baptism date or a birth date, index it as a baptism date. Sometimes you may find clues in the text of the document that suggest the date in question is either a birth date or a baptism date. A baptism date will always be after a birth date. Similarly, if you are unsure if a date column refers to a burial date or a death date, index it as a burial date. A burial date will always be after a death date.
So, when we are unsure whether it is a birth date or baptism date, we always enter in the baptism field.
0 -
I know Melissa will probably not appreciate my "sticking my nose in", but these should probably not be indexed as either births or baptisms, but as "christenings".
It has long been a peeve of mine (and of many other experienced Family Tree users) that indexing events as baptisms completely messes up the process once these records get online and are available to be attached to individuals, via the source linking process.
Apart from where adult baptisms are involved (usually in denominations that do not approve of the ritual being applied to children), the "christening" and "baptism" events are identical. To me, this shows that most project leaders (in writing their instructions) must have a complete lack of understanding of the implications of telling indexers to record such events as "baptisms".
If (and I suppose this is highly doubtful) anyone who produces project instructions is following this thread, please desist in this practice! Until "Christening" is renamed "Baptism" in the Vitals section of Family Tree, this is causing a great deal annoyance to users - who are fed-up of having to unnecessarily add the same event manually, when it does not carry across to the correct place when linking the source.
Yes, this has been reported over the years - in the "correct" section of Community ("Ideas") - and its predecessor forum, but no one seems to listen or care about what happens to these records, post the indexing stage.
0 -
Thanks to all who responded to my query.
Melissa, I am embarrassed. I recalled having read somewhere about indexing a date as baptism when it is not clear whether it is birth or baptism. I even read through the instructions before posting my question. After reading your response, I went through the instructions again and there it was. I must have been asleep the first time around.
Paul, I too have experienced frustration over baptism vs christening, but I am not sure I would want to change christening to baptism. While I have not studied the issue to the extent that you have, my understanding is that christening usually happens not long after birth. Baptism, on the other hand, is often postponed until the child is at the age of understanding, or even to adulthood. If no birthdate is available, a christening date would be a more accurate substitute for a birthdate than would a date of baptism. At least, that is the way I see it. You make an interesting point. Thank you.
1 -
Never be embarrassed @Janet Weston - we have all been there, and oftentimes we read the instructions so many times that we end up glossing over what we are really looking for! Been there, done that!
Perhaps FamilySearch is reaching out to the concern by identifying the indexing field as Birth/Baptism/Christening. They are interchangeable depending on the religion.
1 -
Don't worry - I am not pressing for a change in the Vitals heading from "Christening" to "Baptism"!
It's just the inconsistency here that is particularly puzzling. I often add two sources for the exact same event to an ID in Family Tree - one of which has been indexed as a Baptism and one as a Christening. It just seems so strange to me that project leaders (in issuing the project instructions) still can't adopt a common approach. As long as these events are known as "christenings" in Family Tree, why should they ever be indexed as "baptisms"?
Just another of my "pet peeves" I guess! But I know I'm far from the only Family Tree user affected (and annoyed) by this practice.
Best wishes in your indexing work.
Paul
0
