Early Elyin. Is there any way to edit or request delete? (Historical records)

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: According to FamilySearch
Early Elyin
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

Father of Elizabeth Mary Bruce at her marriage
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...

I looked at the image on Findmypast, and the father is stated to be Earl of Elgin.
Find My past transcription with name transcribed Earl of Elgin
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcri...

Findmypast image
https://search.findmypast.co.uk/recor...

At that time the Earl of Elgin was Viceroy of India, the most senior person in British India. How the mighty have fallen, to suffer the indignity of being called Early Elyin

There is no edit option showing next to the name Early Elyin, is there any other alternative such as requesting deletion?

LegacyUser

Juli said: What's in the index doesn't change what's in the actual historical record; the error just makes it harder to find -- and provides a good laugh once you do.
(And as I keep saying: the moral of the story is, you found it anyway.)

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: Just bad indexing. Here is the image that the indexers obtained "Early Elyin" from:
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/619...
Image 315

although the ability to correct poorly indexed names in historic record index files is being added, it is not yet available on all names. However, those sources can still all be attached to the correct names. For the time being, add a note in the source citation indicating the incorrect indexing of the name

I suspect that the person in the family tree database that this belongs to might be Victor Alexander Bruce-9th Earl of Elgin K2TN-KCZ

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: Thanks Jeff. Yes you have the correct person. As I have not ventured into Family Tree, and being non LDS cannot access the digitised microfilm whose link is quoted, perhaps some kind person may be able to attach the above source to the correct person.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: The images appear to be available to non-LDS at FHCs as well.

LegacyUser

Juli said: The popup says the image is courtesy of FindMyPast, so it's almost certainly exactly the same thing that's found at the (paywalled) link you included in your question.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: Regarding Juli's comment, although I would expect that the images on FamilySearch (available for church members on home computers, and non LDS church members at a Family History Centre) and Findmypast are the same, both filming the same original records now at the British Library in London, it is a FALSE STATEMENT for FamilySearch to say the images are courtesy of Findmypast.

This is because the images are digitised FamilySearch microfilm, as confirmed in other topics on this Forum.

It is true that Findmypast have separately digitised SOME of the records from the British Library in London which are included in the India births, marriages and deaths database on FamilySearch, but the images available on FS are not Findmypast images, they are FamilySearch digitised microfilm.

I refer to a post by Tom Huber July 24, 2018 in another topic where he says in respect of another digitised microfilm from this group of records
"Hm. I don't know why film 533201 is "courtesy of Find My Past, Ltd." The material was filmed "by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1966-1967," long before Find My Past came into existence. Indeed before computers were anything approaching small enough to sit on a desk. Most filled rooms or considerable space in a room and had specific power requirements.

So, it would be nice if FS could look into why the images are courtesy of Find My Past, since they were not involved in filming the original work".
https://getsatisfaction.com/familysea...
Topic: "Historical Records and Affiliate Libraries. Programming bug, FS decision or external Archive direction?"

Why does FamilySearch persist in making FALSE STATEMENTS also known as LIES about these images?

I would also like to point out that FamilySearch have never responded to the images issue in the "Historical Records and Affiliate Libraries" topic and in addition have never responded to the issue in the same topic as to why the India related digitised microfilms are no longer available at Affiliate Libraries, apparently due to some FamilySeach/Findmypast agreement.

LegacyUser

A van Helsdingen said: Since the British Library ultimately owns these records, you could ask them about the access arrangements. Any contract involving the British Library has to be made public on request (by anyone anywhere in the world) subject to the Freedom of Information Act, with some exceptions for commercially sensitive information etc. FS and FMP would never dream of releasing specific details on these matters.

As I have discussed on previous threads, I made a Freedom of Information Act request to the Leicestershire County Council concerning the Church of England registers on FMP and FS. A copy of the contract between the Council and FMP was then given to me, except for some redactions such as the amount of royalties the Council receives. There was no contract between the Council and FS, but the FMP contract did deal with some matters relevant to how the records were being made available on FS. In short, to make the records available to Latter Day Saints from all computers but only from FHCs for non-LDS was inconsisent with the contract. The Council, FMP and FS all denied any wrongdoing, the Local Government Ombudsman handled my complaint in an extremely poor and incompetent way (which cannot be appealed) and refused to investigate, but these particular records have now become available from Affiliate Libraries to non-LDS users of FamilySearch at some point in the last few weeks.

There is probably a similar situation with the British Library- a contract with FMP, and a subcontract to FS. If FS filmed the records long ago there is presumably also contract from then, though it may have been replaced by the FMP contract.

LegacyUser

Jeff Wiseman said: I added the source, corrected the Title, and put in a note identifying the image number on the film since it is not identified in the Citation.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: Thank you Jeff, much appreciated.

LegacyUser

MaureenE said: Thanks for your comments A van Helsdingen. I will keep them in mind.

LegacyUser

Juli said: The tooltip/popup says "This image courtesy of Find My Past, Ltd". I interpret that to mean that access to the image somehow involves a contract or arrangement between that company and FamilySearch -- which may be true regardless of the employer of the imaging crew. That is, FMP may have stipulated that in order to provide whatever it is that they were contracting to provide, FS would need to restrict access to some images/records that are held in some form by both entities, in order to increase FMP's revenue by paywalling those other images/records.

LegacyUser

David Newton said: Well at least you can see why someone indexed Earl of Elgin as Early Elyin! It's a plausible (although dumb) interpretation of the handwriting.

LegacyUser

Adrian Bruce said: Yes indeed. It's a sound argument against the idea that you don't need to understand a language in order to index documents written in it. Even when you do understand it, it's perfectly possible for the brain to think "Early Elyin" before the next neurons say, "Don't be daft - no such words / names!"