Should we be using Quaker date calculators for vital dates in the data field?

Question

I don't think Quaker date calculator results should be entered in the vital data fields. 

Seems to me the calculated dates are not helpful in the matching and merging process. 

In the case of Lois Ivory, her date of birth was published in the Vital Records of Lynn, Massachusetts ... as "7 : 12 m. : 1660."

The calculator produces her date of birth  "18 Feb 1661."

I would prefer to see "7 Feb 1661" entered in the data field.

In the narrative, I would use the double date, "7 February 1660/1, or "7 : 12 m. : 1660" or even "7 : 12 m. : 1660 [7 February 1660/1]."

If someone finds the Quaker calculated date to be noteworthy, I suggest it could be included in a research note.

Back to Lois Ivory, all we are trying to do is correct the rather simple error made by a no doubt hard-working FamilySearch volunteer when they created a database entry previously relied upon as a source for her birth--the date was extracted as "7 Feb 1660," but should have been "7 Feb 1661." The FS database entry is here; the record from which the entry was extracted is here (img. 115 of 229). The image is a page from the published Vital Records of Lynn, Massachusetts ...--it is the same page linked earlier, see it at Hathi Trust. To my knowledge, FamilySearch double dating era extraction guidelines call for the "later year" to be entered into the system (just as WikiTree uses the later year in its data field).

Thank you for supporting WikiTree.--Gene

Comments

How do we know that the information in the referenced non-original documentation is Quaker related or that it is a faithful representation of original documentation?

---

I'm not sure about the meaning of "non-original" documentation.

The case in point involved working from a date in a primary source.

There may be other descriptions of it, but the process of the "calculated date" is often described as having used a Quaker date calculator.

---

The book you reference is not original documentation for the information it contains. The book was published long after the events that are recorded within it.

The records recorded when the events occurred would be original documentation.

---

Lindy,

The book you are referring to contains the published vital records of Lynn, Massachusetts.

It contains the transcribed, contemporaneous records.--Gene

---

Yes, it contains transcribed records, not original documentation.

I am concerned that you are basing your question on transcribed data, which may be prone to error and which may not be a faithful reproduction of original documentation.

---

Lindy,

I am sorry you are concerned and am not sure it is warranted.

My question is not based on "transcribed data." It is based on two different approaches to the same bit of transcribed data.

Answer 1

I agree entirely. The 18th is an adjustment to the new style calendar which, for England and North America, did not come in until the mid-18th century, and on WikiTree the date should be 7 February 1661.

If you give 7 12 month 1660 in the narrative in some form or other, it would be sensible, as you have in mind, to add 7 February 1661 or 7 February 1660/1 as explanation. Quaker dates are a trap for the unwary and there are masses of mistakes in transcripts on Familysearch and elsewhere, and in books. It is very common to see 12th month interpreted as December.

Answer 2

Totally agree.  Does one need to follow this process to set an official recommended format:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Developing_New_Rules

or does getting a style guideline written work differently?  Thank you again. 

Comments

+1

Thank you!

I will try by adding proposals as a tag to the G2G

Answer 3

Definitely not, I have seen these dates entered on profiles (example x y 60/61) that have nothing at all to do with Quakers, and appear to be another interpretation of them, mostly coming from Ancestry gedcoms.  So one should beware.  

Quakers may have had their own dating system, I know nothing about that, but elsewhere when dates are written out then use that, never mind the calendar changes, to the people writing it this was the correct date.