Talk:Rehoboth Carpenter family

NRHP info
I just added sentence "Three Carpenter family houses in Rehoboth are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places: Christopher Carpenter House, Col. Thomas Carpenter III House, and Carpenter House." Please feel free to revise or remove.

The articles about the 3 NRHP-listed houses are currently very short stubs, based just on minimal information in the National Register's NRIS database. Much more information, probably including biographical information about Carpenter family members who lived in them, is available in the NRHP nomination documents. These are available for free upon request to the National Register. You just need to send a request by email to nr_reference (at) nps.gov. If the documents are available in scanned form, they will be emailed to you, otherwise they'll send a hard copy by postal mail. Hopefully this might be helpful, for persons interested here to improve this article and/or to improve the 3 NRHP articles. --doncram (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Thomas Carpenter one was covered in HABS. --doncram (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexander Carpenter's brood on the Anne. 'ours' on the Bevis.. and the lure of the new world.. apart from religion: a big fish contact here.
Hello. Yesterday evening I tried to put into the article something very interesting about how and why the Carpenters may have been lured to America, namely due to the romantic relationship between the eventual governor Wm Bradford, and the Carpenter cousin Alexander Carpenter's daughter Alice. DOCUMENTED BY A LETTER AMOS B. CARPENTER HAD FROM WILLIAM BRADFORD TO ALEXANDER CARPENTER. Interesting, to say the least... I don't know what happened, why it was pulled down. Can somebody help me 'help the article'.. to do it properly? THANK YOU. Christopher Carpenter Ceamescarpenter (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded to on users talk page. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Relationships and Genetics
The paper trail relationship with other Carpenter families in New England is difficult to determine unless genetic or Y-DNA is used. The Rehoboth & Providence Carpenters were once believed to be first cousins and a genealogy was provided. However, more current research has disporoved the paper trail when a will cited was disproved. The only way to tell other Carpenters apart in New England without a confirmed paper trail is by genetics.

Understanding the DYS markers of the Rehoboth Carpenter family is important to understand the difference between the Carpenter families. The chart provided on the link above is complied from various sources but primarily from the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project.

Should Wikipedia provide genetic tables in articles compiled from a source(s) to better understand the difference? It is not normally done, because some people don't think it should? But, is it WP:OR or a newer way to provide a difference in the Rehoboth Carpenter family?

I think the genetic table should stay in the article and I have asked for another opinion on this. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC) {|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
 * [[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px]] Response to third opinion request:
 * style="padding-left:0.6cm"|No, the table should not be in the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is impossible to read and conveys no information to the lay reader. It might be possible to read if one is a geneticist or something, but Wikipedia is pitched mostly to general readers. Not entirely, and material in many of our mathematical articles can only be read by people well versed in higher mathematics, for instance. And the same applies to some material on physics, astronomy, plant genetics, and so forth. But this is not an article in one of the recognized branches of science, it is an article about the history of a family, and one shouldn't have to be a geneticist to read such articles.
 * style="padding-left:0.6cm"|No, the table should not be in the article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is impossible to read and conveys no information to the lay reader. It might be possible to read if one is a geneticist or something, but Wikipedia is pitched mostly to general readers. Not entirely, and material in many of our mathematical articles can only be read by people well versed in higher mathematics, for instance. And the same applies to some material on physics, astronomy, plant genetics, and so forth. But this is not an article in one of the recognized branches of science, it is an article about the history of a family, and one shouldn't have to be a geneticist to read such articles.

As to whether it is original research. If it is not original research, then you could at least point to it as an external reference when expressing the general point about the differences between the families.

The source is a wiki, and those are never allowed, but the source of that is not a wiki. But it is self-published. And WP:SELFPUBLISH says such sources are largely unacceptable. Largely, not absolutely. It says "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The problem is, there is no "established expert on the topic of the article" who has published material on the topic of the article (the Rehoboth Carpenter family) in reputable journals, I guess. But you could stretch it and say that the "relevant field" is genetics, and so if the compiler of the table has published material on genetics in reputable journals, maybe it would pass muster. But I don't see any indication that this is so. At any rate, no credit is given, that I can see. So unless authorship by a published expert can be shown, it's original research.—Herostratus (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. Your explanation was well done.  I added an external link to the ISOGG wiki for the genetic reconstruction of the ancestral DYS markers.


 * FYI Work on Y-DNA or surname projects is similar to astronomy work. Many new items and discoveries are made and documented by non-professionals or "volunteers." Material is often published on line with the DNA studies. For an example, many DNA projects use web sites provided by DNA testing companies. See the following examples. Some projects include multiple DNA testing company results like the Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project.


 * FTDNA Walker surname project
 * FTDNA Carpenter surname project
 * Carpenter Cousins Y-DNA Project web site

Thanks again. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

John Carpenter, passenger on Bevis?
The note for John Carpenter states that he was christened in 1626. This means it is likely he would have been born in 1626. However, the Bevis manifest states four children ages 10 and under. If John was born in 1626, this would have made him 12. Is it possible there is a John I and a John II (like Samuel)? I'm working on transcribing a family tree given to me by a relative in the 1980's. I don't know what her sources are, but I feel that so far her information has been fairly accurate. She states that John (the one that would have been on Bevis) was born circa 1628 and died May 23,1695, husband of Hannah, father of Samuel born 1666 in New York. 99.156.135.206 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For the best documentation on the William Carpenter (Rehoboth) immigrant family, please see: Carpenter Sketches. You may also be interested in the We Relate - William Carpenter web page. Jrcrin001 (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

? md to Abigail Briant
Both Wm1 & Wm2 are listed as marrying Abigail Briant. Same woman for both husbands, different women same name? PLS explain.75.172.97.140 (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello - I added a few more generation (Gen. 1 and Gen. 2) marks to make it more clear. William Carpenter (Gen 2) was the one who married Abigail Briant. That he is also referred to as Senior in comparison to his son can be confusing. I hope this helps. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)