Should I edit this clearly incorrect date?
The usual advice is to leave entries that are indexed as recorded in the original document, but this date (burial before death) is clearly an error. The death date of 16 June is also found in other documents / records, so should I just leave this alone? Obviously, I have not recorded the 11 June burial on the Details page of this individual as it is not factual. The date against the person below in this document (20 June) is probably correct, but I am not making any assumptions here and intend to record as "(about) June 1924".
How I have entered on Details page:
Answers
-
I wonder if undertakers Goodhall & Williams kept records? They would probably have the correct date.
The date was apparently certified by Dr. H R H Denny - R. H.(?) Hospital (or is that R N - Royal Navy? assumed from later burial allotment note). Perhaps their records would also clarify? (The allotment of interment in Naval area of cemetery I suppose could be checked).
https://pocketsights.com/tours/place/Old-Hospital-Terrace-Complex-45819:5349 does indicate the hospital could have been connected with the Navy.
0 -
Thank you for your response. I was assuming I would not be able to get any further in obtaining an accurate burial date, but even if I do, still have the question of whether to edit this source, given that it has been indexed perfectly correctly from the original.
0 -
Since the index is perfect I would not edit it (only Note the obvious error). Instead of about June 1924 - how about just June 1924 (we know he died in June 1924 we just don't know the exact date of burial yet)? Somewhere I think it indicates about indicates a level of uncertainty - we are almost certain he was buried in June.
Idea(s) (That researchers stumble upon erroneous records should have a path for the Record Custodian to investigate/correct or notate such): ... If there were any more weight from someone to check with the Record Custodian - they could check the record - do an investigation, correct the error and notate somehow in the actual record. Since the record - line above this one in this example - is redacted - the implication is that someone has the power to notate records... So should such be an option? Sure - anyone should be able to get a Record Custodian to correct their records... (they should appreciate such feedback - it seems Record Custodians could hire more staff to fill such requests...?). Notations of such by Record Custodians could link to the investigation/results (so that researchers following would not have to repeat such).
Would this Idea go anywhere? probably not ... because Record Custodians are probably thin on staffing to begin with ... and are probably not incentivized enough ... thus it leaves it to the traditional solution - for some professional working with the Record Custodian to compile such notation for the researcher (free staffer with a particular research interest in the Record Custodian records - or willing to do such a labor of love - usually/traditionally for right to publish).
... So it would be best if Record Custodians had such a process implemented directly from the researcher (again free staff - helping them correct records). These are my best guesses.
... but now we are wandering closer to Ideas I've had in the past ... oh boy ... now that would be an interesting solution ... redacted records ...
0 -
Well, one of the options in index correction is "wrong in document"; this may be one of the rare instances where it's appropriate to use it.
0 -
Good point Julia. I went ahead and added that index note. Who knows what will become of it? On my record view - it appears to have highlighted the error.
Plus with the new edit every field index coming online (who knows if/when it might reach this index/record) - it might have different options...
0 -
Thanks for your responses.
The reason I raised this is that there does seem to have been a shift from the advice always given in the past that one should not change data recorded in the original document - only to edit if the document has been indexed incorrectly.
I think I have only ever made one edit (most of the sources I add do not have a connecting image), so have not noticed that "wrong in document" option that Julia references.
In my example, I wonder what I would change the date to, regardless. Perhaps "June 1924", as genthusiast suggests, but that would probably not be appropriate for a late-June death event, where the burial could have taken place in either in June or July!
1 -
I noticed a few days ago that someone had added a "correction" note on a record I have attached in my family.
The note is of recent vintage. It was not there when I attached the record or when I retrieved the image by visiting my FSC. The edit could only have been made by someone viewing the record at an FSC or in Salt Lake.
The death by drowning occurred at the beginning of the year; the body was not found for some days. As often happens, the coroner entered the wrong year. The entire record is a mess. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2WD3-69Q
The reference to "North Room" in the note is also incorrect since the location is "North River ft W 37th St."
0 -
Once the record is in the public realm for editing, there is no reason not to edit, IF you are sure the information you are supplying is correct.
As indexers, we follow that rule to Type Exactly What We See, knowing that the family or someone else may make the necessary changes after publication of the record.
As a researcher, I have made corrections to published 1950 census records. Still, not sure why Jeffersonville, Jefferson County, Steubenville, Ohio was ever indexed as such on a computer-generated index, but, Jeffersonville is not in Jefferson County, Ohio (and it never was) - 189 miles apart! Jeffersonville wasn't even on the image! So, I fixed that and some misread names on the images.
1
