Suggestion choice "before this date" changed to "on or before this date"

Question

Doing a one name study I add load of sources such as baptisms pre civil registration. Often there is no birth date just a baptism date.

The baptism is either the same day of birth or later. From baptisms that give birth dates for some time periods the birth is usually the same date as the baptism.

I enter the baptism date , and can make no choice, as "before this date" would often be wrong.

The correct would be "on or before this date" as birth date from baptism

is it possible to get this changed

to clarify I am only asking a change for the choice not any other text

on/before date   on/after date

about/uncertain   exact/certain
before this date   after this date

Comments

"Born before the 16th" means exactly the same thing as "Born on or before the 15th."  Literally.  Identically.

You are right, Herbert.  

---

Jean, suppose WikiTree changed nothing but the labels/meanings of the radio buttons on the Edit page, as you propose.  A member creates a profile, and puts the baptism date in the Birth Date field, correctly marking 'on or before.'  Returning to the Public or Private View, the member sees the date written as 'Born before....'  Can you imagine the ensuing chaos?  If you make the change in one place, you have to make other changes consistent with it.

Now imagine that WikiTree changes the meaning of the radio buttons and the corresponding date display.  How many existing profiles that used to say 'before' now say 'on or before?'  And how many PMs now get upset because they feel their radio button choice has been arbitrarily invalidated?

---

I think the elephant in the room here is that many members have indicated (in past G2G posts) that they would like to see additional fields for baptism and burial added.  This, of course, requires major changes - changing the database architecture plus developing the necessary programming and the cost/benefit analysis likely puts it off the table.

Although just changing the labels that are displayed on the page would take minimal effort, it would be like putting a band-aid on a hemmorhage.  It might be a little bit of a start, but wouldn't really do very much to fix the problem, plus we apparently have people on both sides of the issue, and Herbert's point about effectively changing the meaning of legacy choices would open another whole can of worms.

I'm not taking a position either way on this - just trying to point out the complications it would raise to do anything.

---

I get your point but it is also my point as the same applies in both cases so is an argument for both so irrelevant in my opinion as to the labels on the buttons. 

just as you say would happen also now happens

It is left blank and someone makes a choice that for the first is not correct and then Returning to the Public or Private View, the member sees the date written as 'Born before  

The same then applies how many PMs now get upset because they feel not making a wrong radio button choice has been arbitrarily invalidated by someone making a choice that is not correct, can only be changed and not removed again. 

---

Ideally, we would have the option in edit mode to pick either "before" or "on or before". Only the one we selected would show up in non-edit view. This would not change any existing profiles that had selected "before".

---

If we're adding choices, I'd also like to see a distinction between slightly uncertain (say, a birth date based on age stated on a census) and very approximate (like estimating a woman's birth date based on what is known of her childbearing years).  I'm sure other people could come up with other choices they'd like, but expanding the choices would mean more difficulty in selecting the best choice and more opportunity for error.  Given that, why don't we just leave things as they are (which is likely to happen anyway)?

People always have the option of explaining further in the narrative.  That is where all the shades of meaning can be discussed.

---

Herbert as I wrote below

I make no choice- as there is no correct choice --that to me is the correct solution and does not add the wrong wording "before this date". I add the date as it is helpful. Someone comes along and makes a choice that is not correct and results in the wrong text.

Is the other option to make it possible to remove a choice back to no choices at all. This at least does not give the wrong wording, that so many are using as a reason not to change the labels.

There is no great solution no matter which way we go

---

To follow up on Gaile's comment, you might consider the lack of fields for baptism or burial dates, or the inability to enter date ranges, design flaws in the WikiTree database.  Leadership has told us repeatedly that they won't add baptism or burial fields.  I don't think they have answered about adding or changing radio buttons, but I would not expect such changes any time soon.  Just my opinion; they could prove me wrong any second.

I prefer to think of these things as current factual circumstances that we have to work with, rather than as design flaws.  Sometimes it takes a little flexibility to maintain accuracy while working within the provided framework.  WikiTree has a field for birth date.  The best or only source you have is a baptism record, so you know the person could not have been born after that date.  If you insist on entering the baptism date in the birth date field as your estimate, and no other date will serve, then the 'before' radio button creates a problem.  That is a current factual circumstance, a minor obstacle to overcome.

You can demand that WikiTree modify its code to eliminate the problem, and wait patiently for that to happen, or you can adapt.  Enter the date one day after the baptism, and click 'before' with a clear conscience.  Your profile is as accurate as possible and consistent with its sources, and WikiTree's design has not invalidated anything.

The counter-argument seems to be, "But that's not the baptism date."  I agree, it's not.  It's an estimate of the birth date, based on a baptism record.  Don't confuse the source with the event.  If potential reader confusion over the one-day difference concerns you, please consider that your readers might be able to grasp the concept of 'before.'  And of course you can, and should, always spell it out in the bio.

---

THANKS everyone for your input. Nothing is ever as easy as it looks ,but it helps to get others opinions. It appears it is a problem with no easy fix just a lot of wishes.

---

There are a lot of people who enter the baptism date as a birth date and also call it a birth date in the bio. Changing the button to "on or before" to make it correct doesn't change the lack of knowledge or poor genealogical habits that led to it being entered as the birth date in the first place. The rest of us know that when the before button is selected, the actual birth date could be the same day, the previous day, or several years earlier. If there is evidence that suggests the birth wasn't some time close to the baptism date, then it is also good genealogical practice to note that in the bio. Changing the button to turn it into a catch-all doesn't address poor genealogical practice.

Answer 1

Very few records I have found have baptism same day as birth (unless child is dead or dying). Most are within a few months. The exception being when parents wait until they have a number of children to baptise, probably because of cost.

Comments

Which country and what time period are your referring to?

Local customs, period in time and religion all play a roll.

---

They are many in Scotland in the 1700s and you will find them in other European countries as well

I know in Spain for some time periods the majority were baptized same day.

Possibly the reason is back then, when child mortality was much higher ,they often baptized them same day to be sure it was done if they died.

Examples

25 Aug 1721 baptism Ann born same day dau of Sir John Nisbet of Dean baronet and Ann Myrton Or Morton witnesses: Mr Alex Stewart writer in Edinb Mr Alex Nisbet brother german to said Sir John Nisbet

15 Nov 1722 baptism Eupham born same day dau of Sir John Nisbet of Dean baronet and Ann Myrton Or Morton witnesses:  Mr George Dalrymple Thomas Watson serv to said Sir John Nisbet   lawfull son to John Nisbet couper in Newtown b 9 Nov 1756 bap same day witness John Nisbit childs grandfather and William Lawson there

---

In old Sweden children had to be baptized within their first week - this was law as well as the general belief that an unbaptized child attracted the devil. Thus many children were properly baptized on their first day (not counting emergency baptisms performed by a layperson).

---

In my German family with the online family books the baptisms are mostly the Sunday after the birth or the Sunday after that. I don't have baptisms several months later at all there.

---

In Hungary, I've encountered an entire page of a baptismal register where every child except one was baptised on the day it was born, and the exception was on the next day -- and this was in a register late enough to have columns for both birth and baptism date, i.e. second half of the 1800s. (This was about 90 baptisms.)

They really, really, really did not want their babies to die as unnamed heathens.

---

Yes, most of the Swedish kids were baptized on the Sunday - but in many cases when they lived close to the church they seem to just have popped over to the vicary.

The early exceptions to this were the nobility and the clergy themselves - where the baptism had to wait for important godparents from afar with full calendars. Guess they had better protection from the devil.

---

The Church of England 'rule' was that babies should be baptised at a normal service on the first Sunday or Feast day after the birth. (that's if they weren't baptised at home after birth because they were sickly)

 During the Commonwealth period when Cromwell was head of state  there were very many  babies that  were not baptised .After the restoration,  C of E rules were also restored. Perhaps  though there was less of a sense that it was imperative to baptise close to birth. By the end of the 18th and certainly in the 19thC you do find quite a lot of batch baptisms . The old fears, and reality in some cases of not being buried in the consecrated part of the churchyard were still there.I've often found that when  an infant or child died: perhaps baptised on his sickbed, his unbaptised siblings were baptised very soon after.

The C of E didn't charge for baptisms. There were in some periods taxes on baptism registrations These periods  were  relatively brief, so most times cost was not an issue.  A good summary  with dates of taxes in this forum (Stan's answers). https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=492071.0

---

Au contraire. A significant proportion of the profiles on my mother's side have the baptisms on the same day as the birth, typically a French heritage thing where the priest would visit the home.

---

The answer here confuses me.

Is their any reason it shouldn't be changed because some people don't have any such cases in their research?

---

In those countries where children were routinely baptised on the day of birth or within the first week, you also have a birth date.

Answer 2

Is there any reason why it can't be done or shouldn't be done?

Comments

IF not how do we get it done?

---

In regards to the "How?" -

Jamie monitors the WikiTree Tech Category and tags like "bugs", "improvements", etc. Once she comes across the thread, she will usually chime in if something is possible or not, or add information on how she is tracking the suggestion.

---

Sometimes when using Estimated Dates (a must now, since it is no longer possible to save a profile unless it has at least a birth or death date), the status entered means exactly that, "before" (perhaps long before) or "after" (perhaps long after).

Two examples:

1) Joseph gets married on 31 July 1702. The marriage act records that his parents Pierre and Marie were deceased at the time. When entering profiles for Pierre and Marie, if there is no other information on them (extremely frequent if Joseph is a migrant - ask someone who has worked on New France profiles!), their profiles are entered with death date "before 31 July 1702" - we have no idea if they died three months or 30 years earlier, but it was certainly not on the day.

2) Medieval profiles, where it is very frequent to be forced to use broad estimates i.e. estimate the birth date of a parent without any other info than the year their child married (lots of examples).

For such cases, I believe "On or before"/"On or after" is not appropriate. And the proposal was to change the current wording, not add a new one.

---

Isabelle, see a discussion further down.

Answer 3

I agree with "on or before this date".  In New England, sometimes when a child is born to a pastor, he/she is baptized the same day.

Answer 4

I agree: The option for the date of birth should be "on or before."  

Something else which would be helpful would be a radio button to select if the date is for a baptism rather than a birth. This would eliminate a lot of the error messages having to do with a child's baptismal date being too close to that of a sibling or too long after a parent's death - or where the program picks up a parent's baptismal date as a birth date and objects because of the parent's age at the time the child was born.

Comments

It would seem that in such cases, the error message is due to the baptismal date erroneously being entered as the birth date.

---

I had understood that WikiTree policy was to enter a documented baptismal date in the data field with the "before" option when no birth date can be documented.  Has this changed when I wasn't looking?

---

Here's one Help page.  It says:

Christening, baptismal, and burial dates 

WikiTree does not have traditional fields for Christening, Baptism, or Burial. You are encouraged to include this information in the biography/narrative space.

These dates can and should be used as clues for estimating a birth or death date when those dates are unknown.

Use the date status indicators 

All date fields on WikiTree can be marked as "uncertain", "before", or "after." These should be used with estimates where appropriate.

Explain how an estimate was made 

Always explain how you arrived at an estimated date in a Research Notes section in the text of the profile.

Answer 5

I fully agree with your proposal Jean, and I don't think the suggestion should hang its hat on just the argument about baptisms.  It's not unusual to encounter other situations where you don't have an exact date, but "on or before" provides a more precise estimate than just "before."  That's the case for almost any event (BDM or other event) for which you just have a month and year.  It's also true when you know something had to occur on or before the enumeration date of a census record, or on or before the publication date of a newspaper article.  And you may not know when Joe Smith got married, but you know it was on or before the first record of Mrs Joe Smith showed up.

Answer 6

It would also help prevent duplicates, I often see date of birth is actual date of baptisms, and many also check off certain.

Someone with same common name, with a birth date source before the certain date, that is displayed, may not be considered to be same person, when they actually are. Resulting in a new duplicate profile being created.

Answer 7

In the OHBs I have for my own family, there are often both dates listed. But I agree that a wording that includes the meaning of "on/in and before" or "after" respectively should be implemented.

Question to the English natives: Would it help to use the word "by" in the sentence? Like "s/he was born by..."?

Comments

Jelena, I think the choice between "on or before" and "by" for the birth date is essentially one of style.  

Although: "On or before" is understandable but awkward with only a year (or even a month and a year) for a date, while "by" works well with that situation, as well as with a specific day.

I'd be interested to hear what others have to say on this.

---

I see the terms 'on or before' and 'by' as being very different. 'On or before' means that it happened on that date or (shortly) before that date.

I think of 'by' as being a date when we definitely know they were alive, but this could be years after they were born.

Also not sure how you would apply the term 'by' to 'on or after'?

---

John, are you saying that people should read "on or before" as meaning "on or shortly before"?

Edited for clarity.

---

I don't read "on or before" as meaning "on or shortly before."  If some do interpret it that way, perhaps it's a bad choice here, since any number of historical (and present-day) Christian sects have had objections to infant baptism.  Also, I admit to being completely ignorant of what dates in a person's early life might be important enough to track and document in other religions.  Even in Christian cultures, sometimes the earliest date we can document in someone's life isn't a baptism but, for example, a confirmation, guardianship, apprenticeship, or a simple mention in a parent's will.

Barry Smith's suggestion of "birth no later than" is an interesting alternative.

Answer 8

Absolutely, and similarly "on or after this date" is more useful than "after this date".

If the last trace you have of a person is on 3 May 1782 when they took part in something you want to be able to conveniently notate that they died on or after that date. Chances are they didn't die immediately after whatever it was, but you have to draw the line somewhere, and the correct line to draw is on "on or after".

I think it is hard to think up any situation where an actual date you have in your research is suitable for exclusive "before/after".

Answer 9

I agree! Did anyone answer your question about how to get it done?

Answer 10

What we would ultimately be looking at is the display on the profile page (not in edit mode), correct?

Using a few examples with possible combinations:

• Born before 19 Feb 1881
• Born before Feb 1881
• Born before 1881

Versus the suggested:

• Born on or before 19 Feb 1881
• Born on or before Feb 1881
• Born on or before 1881

In the second case, using the proposed change, I am not sure I agree a change should be made. The last two combinations ('Mon YYYY' and 'YYYY') don't make sense in the context given, since there is the inclusion of "on". Born on '1881' would be incorrect.

In addition, wouldn't about/uncertain be the most useful option in the given scenario? When used with a date or number, "about" would mean "approximately" which seems to fit better here (at least how my brain is working at the moment).

Comments

I am not asking for any change in the text shown on the profile as that is more difficult--just for the choices so there is a correct choice that can be made for some events. 

a baptism can be on or before a burial on or after 

on/before date   on/after date

about/uncertain exact/certain
before this date after this date

---

I do not make a choice for a baptism as there is no correct choice. So often someone will came along an put certain which is incorrect. If a choice is first made you have to have one and none apply in some of these cases.

---

Jean, if the change was not visible to most users (on the profile view), I am not sure I see a benefit in the coding/Help: page updates that would need to be made to change the name of the radio button alone?

---

It appears to me we have no correct choice to-day that results in many different choices made for baptism etc and the wording then is not correct to-day either.

I make no choice- as there is no correct choice that to me is the correct solution and add the date as it is helpful. Someone comes along and makes a choice that is not correct and results in the wrong text.

Is the other option to make it possible to remove a choice back to no choices at all. This at least does not give the wrong wording that so many are using as a reason not to change the labels.

There is no great solution no matter which way we go

---

In your main post, the proposal is to change the radio buttons that are only displayed in Edit mode. The profile itself (the main view that everyone normally sees) says "before" if "before this date" is selected.

So if the proposal is only for the Edit version, I am not sure how this helps.

If the proposal would indeed affect the profile display that everyone normally sees, I am not sure how this could be applied effectively with the examples given above.

---

Steve do i need to start a new topic for

Is the other option to make it possible to remove a choice back to no choices at all. 

to see if there are any issues there why that can't be done? 

Answer 11

"Birth no later than 1 January 1881" is precise and has this meaning. It also works with "Birth no later than 1881", whereas some have noted in that constructions with "on" don't work well with just a year as the date. Constructions with no earlier than serve the other purpose.

The drawbacks I see are (1) being a negative construction, it requires more convoluted thinking than a positive construction, and (2) someone reading too quickly might miss the "no" and construe exactly the opposite meaning.

Answer 12

Solomon Grundy,

Born on or before Tuesday.

Comments

Was that this Tuesday or last Tuesday?

Good point, Joe!