DISCREPANCY
I have found a discrepancy in a listing for my ancestors. How can I report it and get the details changed. The GS Film No. is 499001. It states the date of birth for two people as Sep 11 1859 and Nov 22 1859. They are supposedly brother and sister.
Best Answer
-
Well that's too bad.
This image collection belongs to Find My Past, @Anne Kibble_1 , so if you have a lot of family in those records, you may want to check out that website. I just looked and they do offer a free trial. It doesn't say how long it is, but you might want to assemble an efficient research list and check out all the actual sources you can during that time if you don't want to just get a full subscription. As you see here, it is always very important to get to actual documents and not rely on just an index.
0
Answers
-
This is currently the place to report things of any type. But you will have to report more information than this. Can you post a link to where you are seeing this? The film number you list comes up in the catalog as "Parish register transcripts from the Presidency of Bengal, 1713-1948." Is that the one you mean? Or is that an old number that is no longer valid for searching by? Where are you seeing these dates? On the film itself or from the index of the film?
0 -
Taking a look at the film that comes up, I do see a baptism on 11 Sept 1859 for a Pritchard O. Frank. He is listed as an adult and no birth date is given:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33SQ-GY2N-944M?i=202&cat=143280
However, I don't see any birth dates or baptismal dates of 22 November 1859. So I must be in the wrong place.
Please post links to what you are seeing so it can be evaluated.
0 -
"India Births and Baptisms, 1786-1947", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FGX8-QPX : 5 February 2020), Edith Rose Culloden, 1860.
"India Births and Baptisms, 1786-1947", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FG37-Y4D : 5 February 2020), Edward Richard Culloden, 1860.
I keep my family tree in My Heritage. They flagged up the discrepancy.
0 -
Found them. And there is actually nothing much to report. Instead you have a potentially difficult research project on your hands to determine the actual birthdays of these two. The index was transcribed correctly except for putting Edith Rose's christening day as 22 instead of 21.
I don't know whether you have access to these images so I attached it as a source which is supposed to make that page viewable for everyone from the Family Tree source page for these two. I also don't know if that is accurate or not.
In addition, I don't know whether posting a small clip of the page is against any terms of use or where to find those terms of use but I'll try anyway and hope it doesn't have to be deleted:
The rest of the record does have identical information for them so they are indeed siblings that were both christened on 21 October 1860. I find the header of the birth date column interesting: "Said to be born." That makes me wonder if there exists any other type of birth record for these two.
In any event, there is nothing that can or should be corrected in the index except that minor error in Edith Rose's christening date. You can put a note in your tree stating that clearly an official's pen slipped when he wrote either Edward Richard's birth date of 11 September 1859 or Edith Rose's birth date of 22 November 1859. But you may never be able to determine which date, if either, is correct and just have to live with the uncertainly.
And regarding Edith Rose's christening being the 21st instead of the 22nd, this collection is not editable so it can't be fixed right now. But since the image is attached as evidence, you can just put a note on the indexed source regarding what the record actually says.
1 -
@Gordon Collett, nope, attaching an image as a source does not make it available to everyone. I get the "FHC or affiliate library" message for the image regardless of whether I clicked the link here or in Edith Rose's sources list.
0
