How, in the context of the New Netherlands Settlers Project, do you go about getting corrections made in the "fill in the blanks" part of a profile at the top of a web page?
I direct your attention to profiles Depuy-35, Depuy-83, DePuy-217, and Depuy-226. Also related are Bevier-54, Dupuis-585 and Schoonmaak-1.
Now that I've filled in a lot of sourced facts about Catherine Bevier-54's husband, it leaps to the eye that he can't be the same person as either of Benjamin Depuy-35, Esq.'s sons named Benjamin.
Depuy-83 needs to be attached as one of Benjamin Depuy-35, Esq.'s children.
Benjamin Depuy-35, Esq.'s son baptized in 1758 needs to have a profile where he dies young, before Benjamin Depuy-83 is born.
Benjamin DePuy-217 as it stands is a chimera, combining the 1758 baptism incompatibly with the features of having Catherine Bevier as his third wife. I do not know if it's better to let DePuy-217 keep the 1758 baptism and die young in Peenpack, or ditch the baptism and let him have an earlier birth date to accommodate his three wives, two in Rochester and one in Warwarsing.
Benjamin DePuy-226, born in 1742 or 1743, is the Benjamin the various family-written history books attach to Catherine Bevier and the other two wives. He could be merged with DePuy-217, keeping -226's birth date, or else all the wives could be flushed out of DePuy-217 (baptized in 1758) and attached to DePuy-226.
I applied to Alex Terwilliger for help and have it on his authority that the wanted 1764 and 1743 baptisms (for Depuy-83 and DePuy-226) are not to be found in Rochester, Wawarsing, Marbletown, New Paltz, Shawangunk, and Montgomery records (I had already checked Hoes Kingston Church). This is not a surprise. If these baptisms were easily found, the Benjamin puzzle probably would not have existed in the first place. Alex did find the 1758 baptism in Worden's Rochester Church record book, on page 7. Thank you, Alex.
If you look at Depuy-35 you'll see why the existence of this Rochester record doesn't prove Depuy-35's family was living in Rochester. They were living in Peenpack, and mostly had baptisms recorded in the Minisink-Machackemeck records. Whereas Catherine's husband's earlier children were baptized in the Rochester Church records, and Catherine's own children were born at Warwarsing. Catherine Bevier married her Benjamin DePuy in Warwarsing in almost the same year that Arriantje van Aken married her Benjamin Depuy in the Machackemeck Church. Not the same Benjamin. The earlier, sparse condition of these profiles made this confusion hard to avoid.
Connecting Catherine Bevier's husband to DePuy-226 is slightly impeded by the presence of a death date of 1783 on DePuy-226's profile. I have a notion about 1783 within the context of DePuy-226 being the Benjamin with three wives. Benjamin had his first two wives in Rochester, then moved away, into the range of the Warwarsing Church. The last children he had with Wife #2 were baptized in 1783. Thus 1783 could be less of a death date and more of a "last known to be alive date," posited by someone who didn't know about Benjamin's later life in Warwarsing with yet a different wife. In WikiTree speech it should have been marked down as "died after 1783." Thus maybe it's not really an impediment to DePuy-226 being Catherine Bevier's husband. I admit the evidence for this last connection is less compelling than the proof for Benjamin Depuy-83 being Benjamin Depuy-35, Esq.'s son. I'm hoping maybe other people could put effort into investigating this point.