US, New York, Eastern District—Naturalization Records, 1867–1943 [Part H]
Indexers, This is NOT a question: Please, please read and review the Project Instructions and Examples for US, New York, Eastern District—Naturalization Records, 1867–1943 [Part H]. Pay special attention to the example for Naturalization Petitions Page 2. Please read and learn how to use the Reference Images. Thank you 😎
Answers
-
To add to that, I wish people would look at the entire document for name variations. Variations is the #1 error I've come across with this project.
3 -
Record Place is the #1 error I'm finding as I just reviewed 20 Declarations of Intention and corrected all 20. The correct entry for Intentions is New York, United States Of America per the PI Example.
The Record Place for Petitions for Naturalization is Brooklyn, New York, United States Of America per the PI example.
In every case, please spell out United States of America. Do Not use abbreviations or variations such as USA, United States or US, per the examples and PI.
0 -
I've seen:
Brooklyn
New York
NY
New York, New York
NY, USA; NY, United States; NY, United States of America
USA, US and United States of America
A couple more problems I've been seeing, across all current Naturalization projects, are indexing the certificate number with the OOA and indexing things like Sex, Birthdate, etc with the OOA. The certificate number has never been indexed. The sex and other fields, other than what is shown on the example, has never been indexed with the Oath, either. The OOA is its own, separate document and is treated as such.
It takes only a few seconds to read through the examples. This has always been a problem. Either indexers either don't read the PI or don't read through the PI completely.2 -
I know this is not the place to ask this, but I am going to.
Yes, I know what the instructions read as I look at them each time, I log in to see if something has changed but why not put in Brooklyn, New York, United States of America for the eastern district or why not put in Manhattan, New York, United States of America for the southern district? I have come across other locations in New York even though they are few and far between for the Declaration of Intentions. I am just curios on why.
0 -
Because that's what the PI calls for.
1 -
Thank you.
0 -
i would have to concur. people just don't read the instructions. Or EVEN look at the examples for the various records.
Sadly people seem that is OK to list a sex due to the name and/or occupation when the instructions CLEARLY state, that other than housewife, you can't do that.
Also sadly seems folks seem it is okay to list the state and not the country in the record as well.
Lastly for record location, most records in this collection (with the exception of page 2 of the Petition for Naturalization) do have a location for the record. One might have to look for it, since it might not be on the top line. Sadly some folks don't wish to do that and just use the top lines as the location (i.e listing Eastern District as the location).
0 -
We can use the occupation of "housewife" to determine sex. That only came about after a lengthy discussion of using specific occupations—like housewife, policeman or fireman—to determine sex.
0 -
I was concurring with that info. But also the pop up info notes for sex also states to not use it (with the housewife exception) for determining it. Since back in the early 1900s (as one of many examples) they didn't use salesman and saleswoman for people who do sales, just salesman. Likewise, both male and females could be nurses.
Again, i wish people really did look at the notes and record examples on what to key vs just taking a batch and keying info w/o a clue. Too bad there is no "test" to do before people can key info in! And for humor on this particular NYC batch, one keyer put the 2 witnesses as a married couple!
0 -
It all comes down to reading the PI. There's no way to force people to read the PI, and as reviewers, we can only correct their mistakes.
There was a discussion not too long ago for doing something before folks started indexing and reviewing. We all agreed that it Would be a good thing, but it's never been a requirement in the 10 years I've been indexing.0 -
Sex field being entered - Unless the sex is specifically stated on the record, it should be a <BLANK> for the field. I have seen WAY WAY too many people listing a sex when there is none stated on the record due to using the name and/or occupation listed on the image. When in doubt do look at the help and images.
0 -
You can use "housewife" to determine sex.
0 -
That is the only occupation you can use to determine sex. That only came about from a lengthy conversation on using occupations to determine sex.
0 -
as stated before, I understand that…that is NOT the case here. People are entering sex left and right for NO reason other than by either the name and/or occupation OTHER than housewife. So my point is valid. I know what I'm talking about since I have reviewed thousands of items here. Also as stated, the help does mention this item as well.
And IRONICALLY on 1 naturalization there WAS a housewife that was male. I personally believe it was a typo in the sex field but of course one has to use the sex field as entered for the sex.
0 -
I had one a couple days ago that had birthdates listed as early 1830's on the record with children born in 1915 so all I can say is that even way back in 1940 people make mistakes and don't proof their own entries - they think reviewers exist only to correct indexers work😅
0
