Scott: The examples you cite are very common. Even more common is finding one source that gives a date of birth or death and another source that gives the place. That's why I always include the exact text from the source in Text/Comments under Source Detail. You have the option to include or exclude this text in reports.
Kirsten -----Original Message----- From: Scott Hall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:11 AM To: [email protected] 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. 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
