Converting Julian Dates
When the project advice is to convert pre 1752 Julian dates to Gregorian dates, does that mean adding 11 days to every recorded date (as well as the year change before March 25) - surely that breaks with the general advice to record what is there, not to 'correct' it. And it offers plenty of scope for miscalculation when the month is consequently to be changed as well.
Answers
-
I'm running into this for the first time today, with Lancashire Nonconformist Records. The specific instructions telling us to change the dates would override the general "type what you see" instructions. Mine also gave me a link to a date converter. I am plugging in the numbers ("sixteenth day of the third month"), converting the month as the instructions said (i.e., the third month = May) and indexing the date the converter gives me. I don't know why they would have linked to that converter if they didn't want us to use it. For mine, it becomes May 26.
3 -
On reflection, it is, I think, totally wrong to 'correct' or alter the date that is in the source. The date recorded was the legal date at that time and should be indexed as such. If one wants to refer to a recorded date using a different calendar, perhaps in your own family tree, then one should do so openly and acknowledge the change. If you 'correct' the date in the index, how is the user to know that the date has already been converted - a second correction might be applied! It's not just the 10/11 day shift that should not be applied, the year should not be changed (between 1 January and 25 March) - that's how it was then, March 1685 was followed by April 1686. Some people use the device 1685/6 to draw attention to the later dating system that starts the year at 1 January but that's not an option in Indexing.
2 -
Would you kindly escalate this issue to a manager within the Indexing team, as these instructions go against all conventions and are even totally against general project instructions.
However, I have just found comments of yours at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/119019/uk-england-gloucestershire-nonconformist-church-records-1642-1996-part-c#latest and am quite worried that you did not seem to be disturbed by an apparently similar issue there.
Why are "project leaders" being allowed to include these instructions, which go against any accepted practice I am aware of?
3 -
We are always told type what we see, the researcher will do the research.... This step does the researchers job.
We should just type what we see.
1 -
I'm not sure why this appeared in my notifications, but, I am glad it did! For once, I fully agree with @Paul W and @David Iles that this subject needs to be revisited by Indexing Operations. This started in January 2022 because a reviewer, who is very well-versed in these old records, wanted to change the second month from Feb to Apr. I was involved in that thread and followed the project to see what would happen. My understanding at the time was they simply wanted to change the month and keep the day and year the same. Within days of that post, and the reviewer's contact with telephone Support, this project instruction was inserted:
- England adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752. Prior to 1752 in England, the year on the Julian calendar began in March and continued to the next February. This would mean that the 3rd month in 1730 would be May. In the Gregorian calendar adopted in 1752, the 3rd month would be March. When indexing records for this project, please convert the Julian calendar dates to their Gregorian calendar equivalents. Click here for help converting dates.
I was amazed as we have been taught not to do calculations for dates or ages! In this project the original fields helps said that if the month was written as 12 to index Dec. Now things were quite different!
JMO: It would be better to have the indexers/reviewers type what they see and let the researcher make the change in their personal records. Not all indexers and reviewers are this familiar with the calendar changes. I would venture to say that many family historians are not. It is doubtful that most know the steps in making the correct conversions based on that instruction, as David has mentioned.
1 -
After reading this thread, I need advice for my current batch; what should I do with it? I've put the dates back to the unconverted ones but haven't completed the batch. It's due on March 25th. Should I hold onto it in the hopes of getting a definitive answer from IO? Should I return it to be redone? Or should I go ahead and finish it with unconverted dates (or maybe just converted months?)
0 -
You should go ahead and finish it using your best judgment. (I would convert it to the proper months, and then use the conversion calculator.) We can't search on months or days, so it hardly makes a difference - except for being a technicality. If that is the only problem with the batch, you surely should not return it to be redone.
1