Using a trick I patented ;) I noticed that Ed was elected in 1931. So scanning the incoming passenger lists I found this
_http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1518&path=Southampton%... England.1934.06.Berengaria.6&fn=Edward&ln=Doran&st=r&pid=23697689&rc=&zp=50_
(http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1518&path=Southampton,...)
Arriving from New York to Southampton 22 Jun 1934 (note that date)
Edward Doran, age 49, House of Commons, Member of Parliament
So there ya go, pretty clear case.
Will Johnson
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799634x1201361008/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj)
Great work!
Now, to play devil's advocate, at what point does this become original research and synthesis? My view is that it depends on how reproducible and verifiable the information and logic is. If someone else (the reader) can trace the same logic through the same paperwork that you did, is that sufficient?
Or should what you've done there be published and then referenced?
Of course, the sources claiming the birth year as 1892 shouldn't be removed entirely. Just in case and to stop people changing it when they see a discrepancy.
Carcharoth
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:01 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Using a trick I patented ;) I noticed that Ed was elected in 1931. So scanning the incoming passenger lists I found this
_http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1518&path=Southampton%... England.1934.06.Berengaria.6&fn=Edward&ln=Doran&st=r&pid=23697689&rc=&zp=50_
(http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1518&path=Southampton,...)
Arriving from New York to Southampton 22 Jun 1934 (note that date)
Edward Doran, age 49, House of Commons, Member of Parliament
So there ya go, pretty clear case.
Will Johnson
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799634x1201361008/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The other question to ask is why the other sources came up with 1892? Until you find that out, there is a nagging doubt. Did they find a different Doran, did they transcribe something incorrectly, or what?
Carcharoth
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Great work!
Now, to play devil's advocate, at what point does this become original research and synthesis? My view is that it depends on how reproducible and verifiable the information and logic is. If someone else (the reader) can trace the same logic through the same paperwork that you did, is that sufficient?
Or should what you've done there be published and then referenced?
Of course, the sources claiming the birth year as 1892 shouldn't be removed entirely. Just in case and to stop people changing it when they see a discrepancy.
Carcharoth
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 11:01 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Using a trick I patented ;) I noticed that Ed was elected in 1931. So scanning the incoming passenger lists I found this
_http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1518&path=Southampton%... England.1934.06.Berengaria.6&fn=Edward&ln=Doran&st=r&pid=23697689&rc=&zp=50_
(http://content.ancestry.com/Browse/view.aspx?dbid=1518&path=Southampton,...)
Arriving from New York to Southampton 22 Jun 1934 (note that date)
Edward Doran, age 49, House of Commons, Member of Parliament
So there ya go, pretty clear case.
Will Johnson
**************Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1219799634x1201361008/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133440%3B36002254%3Bj) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/4/23 Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com:
The other question to ask is why the other sources came up with 1892? Until you find that out, there is a nagging doubt. Did they find a different Doran, did they transcribe something incorrectly, or what?
This is why verbose discursive footnotes are great :-)
...was born in 1767.<ref>A number of sources (Smith 1847, Johnson 1892) quote a birthdate of 1771. However, much of the more recent research (Wilson 1974, Stevens 1982) states 1767, without ambiguity; instances where 1771 are used (the Public Domain Dictionary of Biography) appear to be directly drawn from Smith. The reason for the earlier discrepancy is unclear.</ref>
Hedges our bets (whilst still deciding on a "correct" answer); shows our working; makes people aware the sources are slightly shaky and may need to be treated with caution.
----
On a related note, an interesting issue I came across the other day is where my limited primary research - a detail found when I was trying to confirm something else - appears to *explicitly* contradict the secondary sources. What d'you do there?
a) Leave it alone, and put a note on the talkpage? b) Quote the standard interpretation of things, add a footnote about the odd result? c) Decide the secondary sources are wrong, quote the primary source?
I suspect the answer here is B - C is definitely a bit dubious from the OR perspective, but B seems to strike the right balance between the imperative to not present OR as valid and the desire to not knowingly mislead the reader.