-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ray Saintonge wrote: > Durova wrote: >> Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully trust that the >> brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon >> the matter. Relatives have been known to get their facts wrong. >> The more distant, the more likely a mistake. >> > > Your presumption here is that the information came from "the > brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew". That may very well have > some weight in evaluating the information on a death certificate. > The birth information in the SSDI could reasonably be from a > different source: her own application for a social security number. > Other official sources exist > >> My own cousins and I debate the spelling of a grandmother's name. >> And certain records are unverifiable because of warehouse fires. >> In a few instances I know the later records are wrong because I >> was present when the later data was recorded and the person who >> answered the questions, who was choked with grief, simply >> misspoke. Others who were present were jet lagged from sudden >> arrangements to attend the funeral and too slow to react. There's >> a family member who ought to have a military honor on his burial >> marker but doesn't, because of that. I wish I'd had the presence >> of mind to correct the omission when the opportunity came. >> > > Spelling gives rise to a broad range of different errors. My own > father misspelled my middle name on my birth record as "Micheal" > even though his own first name was "Michael". > > On census records spelling errors abound. When census takers went > out to gather information in a less literate era they were left to > their own devices when they had to record the name of an > illiterate, particularly in the case of an immigrant whose name was > in a strange tongue. Priests who performed marriages often "fixed" > names to make them more consistent with community norms. > >> Let's go with the secondary sources here. No disrespect >> intended. >> >> > Leaving data from a secondary source untouched when it is in > reasonable doubt is more obtuse than disrespectful. If we continue > in this way we perpetuate errors, and only add fuel for those who > consider Wikipedia unreliable > > One secondary source that uses 1904 for Jeane Dixon's birth is > IMDB, but they err in their link to her husband James Dixon. He > was an acquaintance of Hal Roach, and the Dixons were married in > 1939, but the linked James Dixon was *born* in 1939. In my experience, IMDB is hugely unreliable as a secondary source, notably because the material can be edited by you and me (provided you have an account); and while it is all subject to editorial review, a good portion of the data is accepted without question.
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkrDsrsACgkQyQg4JSymDYncJwCeL92o7D5JX1bupsrOl1vh0oH6 PtEAn2xF8qZJHJ/t51rUywv8LXhwWhnD =DONK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
