Scott, I have only been keeping a fairly general eye on your threads, so I apologise if I repeat things already said.
I do not consider that there any absolutes in sourcing, and, for me, all that is required is for a source to be accurate, clear and will enable someone else to find the source without too much trouble. I do not believe in spoon feeding and I am not writing a thesis nor submitting anything for publication except on my own website. Note also that I have to consider the properties of the webpage including size and loading times. Given the above please see below: Scott Hall wrote: > A search of the archives pulled some threads on this topic, but from a > few years back, so I thought revisiting it would be OK. > > I'm still trying to figure out the best way to record multiple sources > that provide a single piece of information. There seem to be three > key considerations: > 1. Whether each source corroborates or conflicts with the other > sources > 2. The surety level of the source (e.g. primary v. secondary) > 3. Keeping track of your research history (identifying that you've > researched a source) > > There must be a balance between these considerations. > That sounds about right > For example, let's say your only record of a particular ancestor is > the U.S. census, and appeared in all censuses from 1850–1880. Let's > also assume that the each census accurately shows his age in intervals > of 10 (in other words, the censuses corroborate each other). Because > you have no other record of his birthdate, you can calculate the range > based on his age. If, in 1850, he was 25, you know he must have been > born between 2 Jun 1824 and 1 Jun 1825, given the census date of June > 1. As implied above, the 1860, 70, and 80 censuses list his age as > 35, 45, and 55, respectively, all calculating to the same birth range. > Do you list all four censuses as sources? > No I don't, I only list the first one I found. Frequently there may be the odd variation in dates, and after reviewing all census I may then pick a date, using the census with that date as the sole source. > Now, let's add the 1900 census to our example, which again > corroborates the earlier censuses, listing your ancestor at age 75 and > providing the month and year of birth, say August 1824. I assume > you'd replace the birth range with the month and year provided by the > 1900 census, but what do you do with the other censuses as sources? > Do you leave them (and if so, how do you indicate that they are only > corroborating, as none support August 1824, just the range)? Do you > remove them entirely (and if so, how do you note that you have, in > fact, researched them)? > If I get additional information from a new source I would add this source without deleting the original > Let's add another piece of information to our example—a death > certificate. Although the census is a fairly reputable source, its > likely lower on the surety scale than an official death certificate. > Let's say the death certificate again corroborates the censuses, > listing your ancestors birthdate as 15 August 1824. Again, you update > the field and cite the certificate, but what you do with the censuses > as sources? > As above I would have this, and hence have 3 sources > Lastly, let's twist the scenario slightly—let's say the death > certificate does NOT provide you ancestor's date of birth, but rather > only the date of and age at death. If he died on 5 September 1901 at > age 77 years, 0 months, and 21 days, you could alculate the birth date > as 15 August 1824. But proper protocal demands that you prefix this > date with "Cal." to show that the date was calculated. Now what do > you do with the censuses as sources? > I don't use "Calc", and have little interest in so called "protocol". I would just enter the date, and add the death cert. as another source. > We could continue the example with other records that corroborrate or > conflict, such as obituaries, cemetery indexes, tombstones, etc. All > have varying levels of surety. You want to know that you reviewed > each source, so as not to duplicate your work, but do you want a > catalog of every source you've ever looked at? If not, how do you > balance keeping track of what you've reviewed, having sufficient > sources such that the conclusion can be reasonably supported, and > keeping your data file neat and organized and your reports crisp and > not burdened with excessive redundancy? I stop entering new sources when when I consider I have enough to show that the information I give is correct (or as correct as it can be) However new sources are usually linked to another event, you have already mention different censuses, death certificates. Birth certificates, Forces registration documents, naturialisation papers, parish registers, etc etc. may all give a date of birth, or enable one to calculate it, but they all also sources for specific events. If I am happy with the sourcing for a particular piece of information I would not use them as a source for that piece of information. > > Scott Ron Ferguson _____________________________________________________ *New* Tutorial: Add Location Pins to Google Earth http://www.fergys.co.uk Includes the family tree for Alan J Grimshaw And the Fergusons of N.W. England ____________________________________________________ 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
