Another little problem

[eileenb]

I had so much help with my familysearch problem I thought I would try with this one!

Looking at the IGI I have found a possible match for a brother of my 2 x gt grandmother. However it is doing my head in!

Thomas Bridge BIRTH 20 Sept 1811 Bolton Le Moors
Parents William & Betty

Thomas Bridge BIRTH 21 Sept 1811 Prot Diss Ch Bolton Le Moors Parents William & Betty

Thomas Bridge BIRTH 25 Sept 1811 Dukes Alley Indpendent Bolton Le Moors Parents William & Betty

Thomas Bridge CHRISTENING 18 Nov 1811 Dukes Alley Independent Bolton Le Moors Parents William & Betty.

Now - allowing for LDS errors AND it could all just be coincidence that these are 2 totally separate sets of parents baptising a son called Thomas at virtually the same time -
has anyone any other thoughts on a possible scenario please?

I feel a headache coming on again.

[Peter Goodey]

Easy one, Eileen. You're forgetting the first rule of dealing with the IGI .

Only the Dukes Alley Independent one is a 'controlled extraction' and therefore the only one worth looking at.

[eileenb]

Hi Peter and thank you - that's was my first thought but I honestly can't believe the rest of the information could be that way off or could it? I thought there must be something else I was missing.

In your experience, do you believe LDS members could be that bad?

[Guy Etchells]

I don't understand how you can be so dismissive of the data in this instance.
From the facts displayed the infant's birth was recorded in
(a) what appears to be a Church of England church.
(b) a non-comformist chapel
(c) a second non-conformist chapel
then (d) is baptised in the second non-conformist chapel about 7 weeks later.

There is nothing displayed to show any cause for doubting that the dates were accurately transcribed to the IGI.
Perhaps the "error" was in the original records, first step would be to consult the original registers to see what information was actually recorded.
Cheers
Guy

[Peggy]

Hi Eileen,

In my experience (as volunteer staff at my local FHC, & in using the IGI), some LDS members are excellent genealogists, but others have no interest in doing research, and are trying to get a religious requirement behind them any old way. Some think that they are doing genealogy, but grab their information from unreliable sources without doing any checking. I've seen IGI submissions with the right city, but the wrong country! Of course, many people do "genealogy" in a similar way without any religious requirement to find ancestors. I've recently heard from a new cousin who told me that she has one of her lines traced back to 1600. She found it on the web, unsourced. She doesn't want to hear that it is the wrong line, or why. <sigh>

Peggy

[Geoffers]

In your experience, do you believe LDS members could be that bad?

In my experience, yes.

Geoffers

[Rod Neep]

Hi Peter and thank you - that's was my first thought but I honestly can't believe the rest of the information could be that way off or could it? I thought there must be something else I was missing.

In your experience, do you believe LDS members could be that bad?

The evidence is right before you. There are four entries in the IGI for the one event. Only one of them can be correct. Therefore three out of the four members submitted inaccurate innacurate information. I have seen much worse.

Rod

[uksearch]

Manchester Central Library has Dukes Alley PRs on film.I'll try to check it out tomorrow.

UK

[uksearch]

I have just had a look at the film,sadly the first three Chapels has gone missing.The film must have been damaged by some heavy handed person.On a slightly brighter note is was a PRO film and there should be a copy at the NA.The baptisms were listed as being on RG 4/1462 and RG 4/4365.

UK

[Peter Goodey]

Duh!

I'm just back from the FRC and could have checked this one (they have RG4 on film).

It would have been nice to have chalked up one success today instead of a string of totally negative searches....