Durova wrote:
Suppose for discussion's sake we can fully
trust that the
brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew has indeed commented upon
the matter. Relatives have been known to get their facts wrong.
The more distant, the more likely a mistake.
Your presumption here is that the information came from "the
brother-in-law of Jeane Dixon's nephew". That may very well have
some weight in evaluating the information on a death certificate.
The birth information in the SSDI could reasonably be from a
different source: her own application for a social security number.
Other official sources exist
My own cousins and I debate the spelling of a
grandmother's name.
And certain records are unverifiable because of warehouse fires.
In a few instances I know the later records are wrong because I
was present when the later data was recorded and the person who
answered the questions, who was choked with grief, simply
misspoke. Others who were present were jet lagged from sudden
arrangements to attend the funeral and too slow to react. There's
a family member who ought to have a military honor on his burial
marker but doesn't, because of that. I wish I'd had the presence
of mind to correct the omission when the opportunity came.
Spelling gives rise to a broad range of different errors. My own
father misspelled my middle name on my birth record as "Micheal"
even though his own first name was "Michael".
On census records spelling errors abound. When census takers went
out to gather information in a less literate era they were left to
their own devices when they had to record the name of an
illiterate, particularly in the case of an immigrant whose name was
in a strange tongue. Priests who performed marriages often "fixed"
names to make them more consistent with community norms.
Let's go with the secondary sources here. No
disrespect
intended.
Leaving data from a secondary source untouched when it is in
reasonable doubt is more obtuse than disrespectful. If we continue
in this way we perpetuate errors, and only add fuel for those who
consider Wikipedia unreliable
One secondary source that uses 1904 for Jeane Dixon's birth is
IMDB, but they err in their link to her husband James Dixon. He
was an acquaintance of Hal Roach, and the Dixons were married in
1939, but the linked James Dixon was *born* in 1939.
In my experience, IMDB is
hugely unreliable as a secondary source,
notably because the material can be edited by you and me (provided you
have an account); and while it is all subject to editorial review, a
good portion of the data is accepted without question.
- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkrDsrsACgkQyQg4JSymDYncJwCeL92o7D5JX1bupsrOl1vh0oH6
PtEAn2xF8qZJHJ/t51rUywv8LXhwWhnD
=DONK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----