Posts

I’m staring at the GEDCOM for a record that is showing her married before she was born. And have no idea how to fix:

1 NAME Esther /CAHANSKY/
2 GIVN Esther
2 SURN CAHANSKY
2 _MARNM Esther /RUBINOVITCH/
1 SEX F
1 BIRT
2 DATE 1860
2 PLAC Rechitsa, Kaluga, Russia
1 DEAT
2 SOUR @[email protected]
2 DATE 1909
2 PLAC Rechitsa, Kaluga, Russia
1 FAMS @[email protected]
1 CHAN
2 DATE 19 SEP 2016
3 TIME 17:44:36
2 _WT_USER admin
1 REFN A13317

What I also noticed with the record is when viewing as a visitor, the marriage doesn’t show, just birth and death.

----- [updated: 31Dec2022] MacOS: 10.15.7  (Catalina) Safari   14.1.2;  Firefox 108.0.1 (64-bit);  108.0.1462.54 (Official build) (x86_64)

Alter-Drukarsh connections | The Garelick: 3.3.11b - PHP 8.0 FastCGI - mySQL 8.

Not sure why you are looking at GEDCOM data. I suspect something you haven’t told me, as the obvious answers I shall give are I’m certain things you know well.

If you are looking at the individual’s page, Facts and Events tab, just click on the marriage event and edit the date – assuming that is the error. Could it be the birth date that is wrong? Are these events REALLY for the right person? Perhaps it is her parent’s marriage, and her mother had the same name as her? Check your sources.

Alternatively visit the family page for F5522 and edit the marriage there.

If you don’t know the facts, then change the date to something based on EST, CAL and some date that seems more reasonable, or don’t enter a date at all.

What I also noticed with the record is when viewing as a visitor, the marriage doesn’t show, just birth and death.

That suggests that a child or spouse is (or is calculated to be) still living, therefore making the entire family record private.

Nigel
My personal kiwitrees site is www.our-families.info

Looking at what appears to be the same person on a couple of ancestry.com trees there seems to be some very “dodgy” genealogy floating around for this person.

The both assert (with no given evidence) that the first child of Esther and Aaron Rubinoff (their interpretation of the name, not mine) Chaya Kayla Rubinoff was born in 1873. But they also give Esther’s birth as 1860, So was she really only 12 to13 when giving birth? Possible I guess, but how likely?

I would say both her 1860 birth and whatever marriage date you have are highly suspect and should not be stated as facts. From this limited information I would be putting her birth as “BEF 1850” with “unsubstantiated” (“based on date of birth of children and husbands known date of birth (1845) as a source or note; and the marriages as “BEF 1873” with a note “Estimated date based on birth of first child”.

Nigel
My personal kiwitrees site is www.our-families.info

I wasn’t looking at the GEDCOM date, it’s the Facts and Events tab, view where the *undated* marriage is before the birth (1860).

The dates aren’t from Ancestry, they’re from the family member of that branch that did extensive genealogy and then wrote a book. Not always accurate, but a starting point. It wasn’t uncommon to marry and have kids before 16, so it’s hard to say. To find birth/marriage/death records won’t be attempted until sometime next year. (When I can access the Archives via transit.)

I didn’t catch the mother’s birth being too close to her first child (1870).

However, still don’t understand how the birth, if it had been 1860, came before the marriage, undated.

----- [updated: 31Dec2022] MacOS: 10.15.7  (Catalina) Safari   14.1.2;  Firefox 108.0.1 (64-bit);  108.0.1462.54 (Official build) (x86_64)

Alter-Drukarsh connections | The Garelick: 3.3.11b - PHP 8.0 FastCGI - mySQL 8.

macalter wrote:

it’s the Facts and Events tab, view where the *undated* marriage is before the birth (1860).

That’s exactly what I meant by “ I suspect something you haven’t told me“. You never mentioned anything about the marriage date not existing, and only quoted the INDI GEDCOM data. Marriage dates are part of the FAM GEDCOM data (F5522).

So does the book that family member wrote provide you with source references for the birth date of 1860? If not, you should err on the side of caution and take it as nothing more than a guess. In my mind it’s not even an educated guess if it’s not explained.

As to why the marriage appears before the birth in the facts and events tab, that will be because to place things in order where dates are missing kiwitrees must make some assumptions and one of them is that first children are not born less than 15 years after marriage. May not be perfect, but we have to do something. As I’ve said many many times – don’t enter facts without dates. It is, in my opinion NEVER necessary with good use of BEF, AFT, FROM / TO, EST, CAL etc…. As I said above, in this case the marriage (assuming there actually was one) should be dated “BEF 1873”. That simple change will put it after the birth date, plus save the system from spending time / resources on heavy calculations to try and figure where to place events in time, often with conflicting evidence and therefore random results.

Nigel
My personal kiwitrees site is www.our-families.info

I tend not to use the prefixes because then I could have 10 kids all with the same year of birth in the family navigator as it doesn’t have the >, < or ~ symbols.

I know not all the dates are accurate but a starting point is better than nothing to me. When entering new entries in Reunion, there is a warning popup to say birth is before/after a range of the parent (too young, too old) or after their death. But confess sometimes I enter in hopes I find something to substantiate the date.

----- [updated: 31Dec2022] MacOS: 10.15.7  (Catalina) Safari   14.1.2;  Firefox 108.0.1 (64-bit);  108.0.1462.54 (Official build) (x86_64)

Alter-Drukarsh connections | The Garelick: 3.3.11b - PHP 8.0 FastCGI - mySQL 8.