|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Incorrect L D S Church records (Read 3242 times)
|
JAP
RootsChat Marquessate
 Offline
Posts: 4357
|
This is why people caution us only to accept records from the extracted PRs, but try to check those as well if you can, only use Family Search as a starting point. This is part of the reply I got when I e.mailed them to say that they had over 200 records recorded in the wrong parish and County, they were attributed to a parish in Sussex when it should have been Gloucestershire, all came up as extracted records - so it was clearly their mistake International Genealogical Index
Thank you for contacting Family History Support in regard to making corrections to the International Genealogical Index.
The International Genealogical Index (IGI) contains information as it appeared on the original record or submission. It cannot be changed. An alternative to correcting the information on the IGI is to submit the accurate information to Pedigree Resource File on FamilySearch Internet. Suey
Hi Suey,
I fully accept that submitted entries cannot be changed - that's what the submitter submitted 
But extracted entries are a different matter altogether.
My experience is that total stuff-ups like the one you mention in an extracted batch did not happen in the old controlled extraction program of the LDS which was of a very high quality (ah, the good old days, eh).
However, in extracted (labelled thus) Batches (C, M, I) added more recently (often/usually without any source information whatsoever; why eh  ), careless mistakes have been made and quality control seems to be lacking - not only are there errors such as the one you describe (i.e. the utterly wrong location given for a whole batch) but also trivial typos (e.g. "St Mary'S" throughout - typos of this latter trivial sort are extremely common).
The answer you received from the LDS is wrong - and I have proof positive 
I don't know whether you noticed the following thread:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,254676.0.html
(Talk about misunderstanding upon misunderstanding!)
It started out with someone asking if IGI records were ever corrected. A reply was given that they were never corrected - and the reason given was (as I understood it) that what's in the IGI is what has been submitted in temple ordinances (let's not go into that, eh!) and that temple ordinances could never ever be corrected i.e. even if an LDS member had made a typing error in the location and then 'filled down' that wrong location, the wrong info was what had been submitted in the temple ordinance and had to stay wrong i.e. could never be corrected. Similarly, if the data entry person had entered the wrong name or date or whatever. 
However, I knew that I had come across a similar situation to the one you describe, had notified the LDS, and the records had been corrected 
This was extracted Batch C000246 (some 3068 records) where the place name was incorrectly entered throughout as Earsdon by North Shields, Northumberland when it should have have been Great Yarmouth, Norfolk! After my notification, the place name was corrected throughout to Great Yarmouth, Norfolk 
I fear that the people in Salt Lake City who do data entry, and who answer queries, sometimes appear like learners who really don't quite know what they are doing (and I get the impression that some of the LDS members running major LDS Family History centres have the same view.)
Unfortunately, in the case I mentioned, there were other Batches which also had the place incorrectly entered throughout as Earsdon by North Shields, Northumberland instead of Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. So what's happened to all the batches I have now identified to the LDS?
C000242 - a right mess. All records were previously (and wrongly) Earsdon by North Shields, Northumberland. All those records are still there. BUT most entries (but not every single entry!!) are now duplicated with a second entry giving the (correct) location of Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. Fixing the batch would not just be a matter of removing the Earsdon entries because a correct Yarmouth entry has not been added for every Earsdon entry Oh dear me!
C000243 - as for C000242
C000244 - also as for C000242
C000245 - also as for C000242
C000246 - hooray! every record in this batch has had the place changed from the wrong Earsdon by North Shields, Northumberland to the correct Great Yarmouth, Norfolk
C000247 - every record still has the place as Earsdon by North Shields, Northumberland
C000248 - every record still has the place as Earsdon by North Shields, Northumberland
Regards,
JAP
DISCLAIMER: I love the work that the LDS has done, and continues to do, and their Family History centres. I cannot thank them enough. Without them I'd be nowhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scotland - HALL, HARLEY, LOCHTY/LOCHTIE/LOUGHTIE/LOUGHTY (very rare), MCLAUSE/MCLAWS/MCILHOSE/HOSE (quite rare and many very variable spellings - close to 100 to date), PHILP/PHILIP, VASSIE; Ireland - BOURKE/BURKE, DONOHUE (many spellings), DOOLEY, KINSELLA, MAXWELL, OSBORNE, RAFFERTY, STA(U)NTON, SULLIVAN; England - BAYES, BROWNELL, DALTON, FREEMAN, HACKING, PIERCY, SIDDLE, SWIFT, SULLIVAN, TINK(L)ER, TRIPPIT. Any spellings and many other names!
|
|
|
Roobarb
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 561
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hit a nerve there eh Jap? 
It must be horribly frustrating for you to know that the LDS have made errors that are taken as truth by users worldwide. Sounds to me like they don't like being told they're wrong! Anyone can make a mistake but they obviously don't want to admit it! 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Bell, Salter, Street - Devon, Middlesbrough. Lickess- North Yorkshire, Middlesbrough. Etherington - North Yorks and Durham. Barker- North Yorks, Crooks- Durham, Forster- North Yorks/Durham, Newsam, Pattison, Proud - North Yorks
|
|
|
JAP
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 4357
|
Hi Roobarb,
Ah well. At least the 3068 records of one batch have been corrected
JAP
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scotland - HALL, HARLEY, LOCHTY/LOCHTIE/LOUGHTIE/LOUGHTY (very rare), MCLAUSE/MCLAWS/MCILHOSE/HOSE (quite rare and many very variable spellings - close to 100 to date), PHILP/PHILIP, VASSIE; Ireland - BOURKE/BURKE, DONOHUE (many spellings), DOOLEY, KINSELLA, MAXWELL, OSBORNE, RAFFERTY, STA(U)NTON, SULLIVAN; England - BAYES, BROWNELL, DALTON, FREEMAN, HACKING, PIERCY, SIDDLE, SWIFT, SULLIVAN, TINK(L)ER, TRIPPIT. Any spellings and many other names!
|
|
|
aghadowey
RootsChat Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
 Online
Posts: 7682
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
There's what seems to be a whole batch of extracted records on IGI which lists place of birth as 'Antrim, Ballymoney, Cork, Ireland' which for those outside the area that don't know should be 'Ballymoney, Antrim, Ireland.' Ballymoney is almost on North Coast and Cork is at the opposite end of Ireland in the extreme south!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 894
|
If the records were described the way the IGI lists them at the time of the Temple Ordinance then the IGI cannot be corrected as it correctly records the event.
It is only if the Temple Ordinance and the IGI disagree that a correction can be made.
Remember the IGI does *not* index parish registers only Temple Ordinances.
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Tuesday 15 July 08 11:40 BST (UK) by Rick »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Newf
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 12565
|
Sorry, but I'll never undertand that either ......
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk PLEDGER – 1678, Gt BardField, Essex EVERETT - 1830, Scoles, Norfolk & Epping, SX OSGATHORPE - 1825, North Kensington LILLEY – 1711, Ickleton, Cambs DAVISON – 1700-1710, Horncastle & Coningsby, Lincs BOWER – 1690-1700, Killinworth, Lincs CHASE – 1735, Kings Lynn, Norfolk LAIRD – 1777, Portsmouth, Hants & Kings Lynn, Norfolk GOWENLOCK – 1850, Carlisle KEW – 1814, Carlisle |
|
|
meles
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 2917
|
I don't understand either, and neither JAP nor I are stupid. We are not part of the LDS church, and some of these concepts are difficult to grasp. A little patience, please.
meles
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Tuesday 15 July 08 11:41 BST (UK) by Rick »
|
Logged
|
Brock: Alburgh, Norfolk, and after 1850, London; Tooley: Norfolk Grimmer: Norfolk; Grimson: Norfolk Harrison: London; Pollock Dixon: Hampshire; Collins: Middx Jeary: Norfolk; Davison: Norfolk Rogers: London; Bartlett: London Drew: Kent; Alden: Hants Gamble: Yorkshire; Huntingford: East London Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk |
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 894
|
Sometimes it gets a little wearying saying the same things over the past twenty odd years as every new batch of family historians believes the myth that the IGI indexes parish registers.
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: Tuesday 15 July 08 11:42 BST (UK) by Rick »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jayson
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 1025
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Perhaps another forum would be more appropriate for those who cannot express themselves appropriately. We all have varying degrees of knowledge here, & therefore should be patient & understanding. Jayson
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JAP
RootsChat Marquessate
Offline
Posts: 4357
|
Guy,
Making the same assertion over and over does not constitute an explanation
You write that saying the same things over and over "gets a little wearying" for you.
Guy, I am sorry to have to say that it also "gets a little wearying" reading those same assertions over and over.
If you carefully re-read my post at #15 above, you will see that of course I have clearly understood what you have been asserting over and over again. I now quote from my post #15 - in it I referred to another thread (I provided the URL) and the reply I mention had been from you (I did not name you).
... It started out with someone asking whether IGI records were ever corrected. A reply was given that they were never corrected - and the reason given was (as I understood it) that what's in the IGI is what has been submitted in temple ordinances (let's not go into that, eh!) and that temple ordinances could never ever be corrected i.e. even if an LDS member had made a typing error in the location and then 'filled down' that wrong location, the wrong info was what had been submitted in the temple ordinance and had to stay wrong i.e. could never be corrected. Similarly, if the data entry person had entered the wrong name or date or whatever ...
Guy, you now yet again assert that "If the records were described the way the IGI lists them at the time of the Temple Ordinance then the IGI cannot be corrected as it correctly records the event".
The problem is that your repeated assertions do not explain in any way at all why the LDS has done (or not done) what it has in the case of the sequence of 7 consecutive batches (C000242-C000248 inclusive) which, initially, appeared in the IGI with the location as Earsdon by North Shields, Northumberland throughout each batch.
I notified the LDS that the place - recorded in the IGI in these 7 consecutive batches as Earsdon by North Shields, Northumberland - should properly have been Great Yarmouth, Norfolk.
So, what happened?
*Batches C000242 to C000245 (inclusive)
All the Earsdon by North Shields, Northumberland records are still there.
BUT most entries (though not every single entry - aargh!!) are now duplicated with a second entry giving the location as Great Yarmouth, Norfolk.
*Batch C000246
Throughout this batch, the location has been changed to Great Yarmouth, Norfolk.
*Batches C000247 and C000248
These batches remain throughout with the location as Earsdon by North Shields, Northumberland.
Guy, it would be helpful if you could turn your efforts to finding out from the LDS exactly what they did, and why, in the case of the above ('corrected', semi-corrected and uncorrected) batches (please don't repeat the old assertions yet again, and please don't proffer hypotheses - to do so wouldn't help us to know or understand what really happened and why).
If you could find out what and why the LDS did what they did (or didn't do) in these specific batches, and then pass on the information to us, that would actually constitute an explanation.
JAP
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Scotland - HALL, HARLEY, LOCHTY/LOCHTIE/LOUGHTIE/LOUGHTY (very rare), MCLAUSE/MCLAWS/MCILHOSE/HOSE (quite rare and many very variable spellings - close to 100 to date), PHILP/PHILIP, VASSIE; Ireland - BOURKE/BURKE, DONOHUE (many spellings), DOOLEY, KINSELLA, MAXWELL, OSBORNE, RAFFERTY, STA(U)NTON, SULLIVAN; England - BAYES, BROWNELL, DALTON, FREEMAN, HACKING, PIERCY, SIDDLE, SWIFT, SULLIVAN, TINK(L)ER, TRIPPIT. Any spellings and many other names!
|
|
|
Jayson
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 1025
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Excellent! Well said, JAP. That wasn't in the least bit wearying. Jayson
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jc26red
RootsChat Aristocrat
Offline
Posts: 2134
no not me... this time my god daughter
|
Sometimes it gets a little wearying saying the same things over the past twenty odd years as every new batch of family historians believes the myth that the IGI indexes parish registers.
Cheers
Guy
erm.... when was the last time you enquired how the IGI records where being transcribed 
A year ago, I did a stint at transcribing for the LDS (I'm not affiliated to them at all and I do not live in UTAH ) on a voluntary basis and I can assure you I received the images of the parish records to transcribe! Only one parish at a time and the data entry allows you to add the name of the parish and location only once. If it is wrong on the first entry, then it follows all the way through the file. Entries are proof read and corrections made if necessary.
The annoying thing now is that you are not allowed to enter the birth date from the parish records if it is recorded in the register, only how old the child/adult was. i.e days, weeks, months, years. I liked to work out how many days if the child was only a few months old... but it did slow down the data entry! I was also allowed to mention if the child was baseborn!
The LDS are still in the process of updating the search site to incorporate extra extracted info.... :
jc
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
RESTORERS EYES ARE PRECIOUS - please scan at 300-600dpi
BIG is beautiful - around 300-500kb is great
thank you
Creed-Ireland
Howell-Somerset/Bristol/Maesteg
Anderson-E Lothian/Bucks
Walton-North'land,/Durham
Dagg-Durham
Burdett, Gwilliam, Berriman, Langford
|
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 894
|
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint believe that “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”
In view of this they have a system of vicarious ordinances in the temple for the dead and the recording of such baptisms conform “to the ordinance and preparation that the Lord ordained and prepared before the foundation of the world, for the salvation of the dead who should die without a knowledge of the gospel.”
It is these ordinances that the International Genealogical Index (IGI) records.
Now for a moment imaging instead of the procedure being carried out in a LDS Temple it was carried out in a court of law, one would expect that the records of the court recorded what was said in the procedure not what may be know form other records outside the court.
Therefore if someone stated in a court of law that they were from London when really they came from Glasgow the court record would record the person came from London because that is what he/she said in the court.
The court record would be correct as it simply records the events that occur in the court. However other records would also be correct as they record other events such as a baptism in a parish register would record the above person as being baptised in Glasgow.
Both records are correct as they are recording different events one (the court record) records what was said in the court the second (the parish register) records where the baptism took place.
So to the IGI the items within the square brackets are the identifiers used in the ordinances-
[Berry – Elizabetha – Henrici Berry – F – C – 16Oct1631 – Bakewell] – 04Oct1989PV – 24Oct1989PV – 08Nov1989PV – K049632 - 1630
In the above example a person identified with the name Elizabetha Berry who was said to be the daughter of Henrici Berry and purported to have been baptised on 16th October 1631 in Bakewell was presented in the Provo, Utah Temple of the LDS Church on three separate occasions.
The source of these facts came from a film source/batch number K049632 sheet 1630
The first on 04 November 1989 was for the ordinance know as Baptism.
The second on 24 October 1989 was for the ordinance know as Endowment.
The third on 02 November 1989 was for the ordinance know as Sealing
If any error was made in identifying the person when presenting her to the Temple Ordinance then it would not be possible to simply change the details on the IGI as the IGI has to record what took place at the temple. Instead new ordinances would have to be arranged leading to a “duplicate” entry in the IGI.
If however, when the record was being entered into the IGI a mistake was made, then the IGI entry would be in error and have to be changed.
This sometimes happens when the person keying the information in enters what they think should be written rather than what is written.
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Guy Etchells
RootsChat Veteran
Offline
Posts: 894
|
erm.... when was the last time you enquired how the IGI records where being transcribed A year ago, I did a stint at transcribing for the LDS (I'm not affiliated to them at all and I do not live in UTAH ) on a voluntary basis and I can assure you I received the images of the parish records to transcribe! Only one parish at a time and the data entry allows you to add the name of the parish and location only once. If it is wrong on the first entry, then it follows all the way through the file. Entries are proof read and corrections made if necessary. The annoying thing now is that you are not allowed to enter the birth date from the parish records if it is recorded in the register, only how old the child/adult was. i.e days, weeks, months, years. I liked to work out how many days if the child was only a few months old... but it did slow down the data entry! I was also allowed to mention if the child was baseborn! The LDS are still in the process of updating the search site to incorporate extra extracted info.... : jc
JC, you are writing about the procedure before the entry is submitted to the Temple for the Ordinance.
You were in effect transcribing the Identifier information.
Cheers
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
|
|
|
|
|
