I think you are on the right track (and perhaps 'overthinking' it just a little :-) ). One thing I didn't see in the replies was that you can assign a source in Legacy, always available to you, the researcher, but mark the source detail such that reports do not print a citation for this source. Thus, if you have multiple sources for something, you could use the best, most comprehensive source(s) in your report citations and keep the other, limited sources in reserve. (Keeping them helps you recall what you've seen, and might help if a conflict were to come up.)
Ward ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Hall" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Three source questions Thanks for the replies. The reason I was asking about names is because one of my principal sources is a "Settler's History" published some 160 years ago which lists the genealogy and descendants of the first settlers in a particular area. It is from this book, for example, that I know Ancestor #1 had 4 children, who's names were A, B, C, and D. I know nothing else about A, B, C, or D -- no birth dates, marriage dates, death dates. I only know their names and parentage. I want to be sure my file answers the question "why do I think A existed and was a child of Ancestor #1?" For some names, however, additional research yields the missing pieces. The name may appear in other lineage books, or other source materials. Let's say I find A listed in another book, with his birthdate. Obviously, I'll reference the second book as the source of the birthdate, but should I also cite the book under name? Perhaps my source citation under name should simply be the first place I discovered the name. A similar situation occurs when Book #1 lists a person as Joe Nobody, and Book #2 helps clarify that it was actually Joe C. Nobody. If I only souce Book #1 under name, I haven't really linked to why I know Joe's middle initial. Thinking aloud as I write this, perhaps this is a good solution: 1. Under name, cite the first source where the person is discovered; that is, evidence of his or her existence. 2. If other sources fill in the details, cite that source for those details only. 3. If other sources enhance knowledge about the name, cite those sources under name. 4. If two sources conflict, use the "Alt." events and cite each line seperately; keeping the most likely data in the main entry. Now, under this "rule", if I had run across the other sources first, I wouldn't have included the first source, but that's a detail I can live with. I suppose I could eliminate the first source if the second clearly evidences the person's existence, or I could leave both as confirming sources (maybe source #1 is a lineage, and source #2 is a marriage record -- I wouldn't want to leave open the question of "How do you know THIS Joe Nobody is the same Joe Nobody whose children were A, B, C, and D?" Because the two sources, together, confirm it. Thoughts? I'm probably overthinking this, but one of my major file improvement objectives is accurate and thorough source citation -- of course, without excessive source citations. On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Connie Sheets <[email protected]> wrote: > Scott Hall wrote: > >> 1. What do people put under source for name? All >> records/books/materials discovered in which the name >> appears? Only the one it was first discovered? >> Something else? Nothing? > > If you're asking what source(s) I assign to the person's name, mostly, I > put those sources which tend to prove the parentage of the person, like > census records where the person is listed as a son in the father's > household, or a will in which the person is named as an heir. I certainly > don't put every single place I find the name. If the person is usually > found in records as John, but I find an odd record that refers to him as > Johnathan, I enter Johnathan as an Alt. Name and assign a source to the > Alt. Name. > >> 2. When using a published lineage book as a source >> (such as the many >> family genealogy books published in the 19th century), in >> which a >> family line may go on for multiple pages, do you attach >> each fact to >> the particular page it was found, or simply use the page >> range for any >> and all facts (e.g. pp. 102-5)? > > I always put the specific page where I can find the data I'm entering. If > John Doe's birth date is on p. 102, that is the source detail (page #) > that goes in the birth date field. If his death date is on p. 103, then p. > 103 is the source detail for the date of death field. > > You want to be able to easily find where you found a piece of information, > and for your readers to be able to do the same thing. > >> 3. What do people use the "Unspecified" source line >> for? > > I never use it. > > Connie Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
