There are times when I know something happened before a date: I sometimes wonder how precise I should be with the date. For example, say someone is known, on a specific date, to be a widow(er): obviously, the DOD of the spouse is BEF(ore) that date. But do I say BEF ddmmyyyy? That's strictly _correct_, and on the whole is what I do, but some people seeing it might think it means they died quite close to it. I was just wondering how others express the date when they use BEEF. (Side idle thought: when the husband dies first, the wife is widowed, becoming a widow. When the wife dies first, the husband becomes a widower - so is he widowed, or widowered?) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law." - Winston Churchill.

When using "CIR," "BEF," "AFT" I try to be as precise as the information in my source(s), which is what I think you are saying in your comment. Sometimes I can deduce something from a combination of sources, though I can't think of an example right now, and try to document my reasoning. Unfortunately, I may not have always been as careful. I understand and share your concern that there can be a potential for the reader to infer a false accuracy with such precise dates. In some cases the source information can help explain how the specificity of the date came about. For example the obituary of person "A" can provide an "AFT" date for the death of person "B" who survived person "A", but there is no way from that source to determine by how _much_ after. It could be a day after (hence the reason to include the known precision), or it could be several years after. I try not to make assumptions, even though I'm sure that I have done so in the past. Do you (or do other BKers) use the "Note square" to identify limitations, qualifying information, or reasoning to support the "BEF"? Roy Marriott On 3/26/2015 7:47 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: > There are times when I know something happened before a date: I > sometimes wonder how precise I should be with the date. For example, say > someone is known, on a specific date, to be a widow(er): obviously, the > DOD of the spouse is BEF(ore) that date. But do I say BEF ddmmyyyy? > That's strictly _correct_, and on the whole is what I do, but some > people seeing it might think it means they died quite close to it. > > I was just wondering how others express the date when they use BEEF. > > (Side idle thought: when the husband dies first, the wife is widowed, > becoming a widow. When the wife dies first, the husband becomes a > widower - so is he widowed, or widowered?)

As this IS a discussion, will approach it as such. ABT is preferred over CIR by some programs. When I do conversions of my GEDCOM files, some programs are confused by CIR (just to note the situation). The preciseness of the KNOWN data is how it should USUALLY be approached. However, even USING the most precise data known, is no guarantee. It DOES, however, facilitate a better chance of accuracy as additional data is found or provided. An example would be, using BEF and AFT. If one uses the precise date of 15-Jan-1975 as the AFT date for a spouse of someone who died on that date, DOES it preclude that person dying on any date prior to 16-Jan-1975? If so, on VERY rare occasions, it might keep one from accepting that the other spouse died on the SAME date. I had this happen, and the person I was discussing it with insisted that the 2nd spouse's date was confused with the first spouse's date (a more common reasoning and occurrence). However, in this case, they had both died in a house fire. Only the husband's name was mentioned in the ORIGINAL article about the fire. The follow-up included his wife's name, which, eventually, cleared up the date confusion for both of us. THOSE cases are much rarer, though, and having that SPECIFIC date, in the end, helped to confirm the actual facts. So, when using BEF/AFT I try to be as specific as I can. When using ABT (and, to be clear, I use Bef. Aft. and Abt. in my database), I use a year if, for instance, including aged based on census records. Or, if I know the birth order and the two children before and after are, say, 4 years apart, I'd put the year 2 years after the earlier born child as an "Abt." for the individual in question. I add more information to Abt. in cases such as burials and deaths. If I know a death date of 10-Apr-1900, I would put an Abt. date of Abt. Apr-1900. In some cases, when it's in the warmer months, especially, I might even leave out the Abt. and only put Apr-1900. This rarely proves "risky". However, if a burial date is known, I will always put Abt. for the death date. I found myself doing this early on in my research, after realizing that burial dates don't ALWAYS reflect the first burial (a move to a different cemetery, for instance). Also, in northern climates, if individuals pass in the colder months, their burial date may be at the first thaw, since the ground is too frozen for burial (this is far less likely in more recent years, but was not all that uncommon a century ago). My greatest fear of using "Abt." though, comes with births vs. baptisms. In such cases, I almost always use just the year, if only one is known. If I have information on all the siblings, I might adjust the date to be more specific based on the average age at baptism, as well as the birth order and how narrow a field might be in order. There is always the "Between" function, and I DO occasionally use that. However, I've not made it a habit, as it maybe should be in specific cases. Well, that's my two (or four) cents on the subject. :-) Jared > > When using "CIR," "BEF," "AFT" I try to be as precise as the information > in my source(s), which is what I think you are saying in your comment. > Sometimes I can deduce something from a combination of sources, though I > can't think of an example right now, and try to document my reasoning. > Unfortunately, I may not have always been as careful. > > I understand and share your concern that there can be a potential for > the reader to infer a false accuracy with such precise dates. In some > cases the source information can help explain how the specificity of the > date came about. For example the obituary of person "A" can provide an > "AFT" date for the death of person "B" who survived person "A", but > there is no way from that source to determine by how _much_ after. It > could be a day after (hence the reason to include the known precision), > or it could be several years after. I try not to make assumptions, even > though I'm sure that I have done so in the past. > > Do you (or do other BKers) use the "Note square" to identify > limitations, qualifying information, or reasoning to support the "BEF"? > > Roy Marriott > > > On 3/26/2015 7:47 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) via wrote: >> There are times when I know something happened before a date: I >> sometimes wonder how precise I should be with the date. For example, say >> someone is known, on a specific date, to be a widow(er): obviously, the >> DOD of the spouse is BEF(ore) that date. But do I say BEF ddmmyyyy? >> That's strictly _correct_, and on the whole is what I do, but some >> people seeing it might think it means they died quite close to it. >> >> I was just wondering how others express the date when they use BEEF. >> >> (Side idle thought: when the husband dies first, the wife is widowed, >> becoming a widow. When the wife dies first, the husband becomes a >> widower - so is he widowed, or widowered?) > > Remember - Use the Archives at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > ------------------------ Jared "Jed" Handspicker Usque Saeculis Vigilem

Dear John Gilliver, I have a standard approach for using ABT, BEF, AFT. BEF I use BEF very often when I know the parents from somebody without any dates for this person. If somebody married in 1840 and the person is 20 years old at the marriage date, than I mention that the parents are born BEF 1800 to have any idea in my database. AFT I use AFT mostly if I do not know the date of death. In the case before marriage 1840, if a parent is present to a marriage of one of their children than I mention died AFT. 1840 if known that one of the parents died before 1840 than I mention died BEF 1840. ABT I know sometimes the exact marriage date and the ages of groom and bride. In that case I use ABT. In my case of marriage 1840, if the groom is 22 and the bride 20 than I use born ABT 1818 and born ABT 1820. In the cases of ABT it is closer to the exact date than at BEF and AFT. Met vriendelijke groet, Max van Dam Rechovoth Israel http://www.maxvandam.info/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J. P. Gilliver (John) via Sent: 27 March 2015 01:47 To: [email protected] Subject: [BK] How do you (discussion, not enquiry) express dates with the BEF(ore) tag? There are times when I know something happened before a date: I sometimes wonder how precise I should be with the date. For example, say someone is known, on a specific date, to be a widow(er): obviously, the DOD of the spouse is BEF(ore) that date. But do I say BEF ddmmyyyy? That's strictly _correct_, and on the whole is what I do, but some people seeing it might think it means they died quite close to it. I was just wondering how others express the date when they use BEEF. (Side idle thought: when the husband dies first, the wife is widowed, becoming a widow. When the wife dies first, the husband becomes a widower - so is he widowed, or widowered?) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law." - Winston Churchill. Remember - Use the Archives at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/search ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message