It is perfectly acceptable to use the "best" source for a fact. For example, if I have an original marriage record, I cite that for the date and location of a marriage, rather than a book of compiled marriage records. Or, if I've been to a cemetery and saw a tombstone with my own eyes, I cite that for the date of death and place of burial, rather than a book of cemetery inscriptions or FindAGrave. I cite the derivative sources (sometimes called secondary sources) only until I've found the original source (sometimes called primary source).
The example you gave is a bit more complicated, however, because it involves conflicting evidence, not just original vs. derivative sources. For a date of arrival/immigration event, I would cite the steamship arrival records (assuming they are originals, or images of originals) and related immigration records, not the census. However, I would still have a census or residence event, and I would cite the census for that. In my transcription of the census, I would transcribe it exactly, and probably make a separate note or source detail comment that I know the date of immigration in the census record is wrong because of the passenger list. This assumes that you're certain there wasn't a second person of the same name who arrived on a different date. I am of the firm belief that no genealogy program is the only tool one can or should use in genealogy. For more complicated situations, I write a separate detailed research report, proof summary, or proof argument in a word processing program, with tables, charts, and proper source citations. Then, I cite that document in my database, with a brief summary and link to the document. For example, I have this summary in Legacy: "John Doe could have been born as early as Jun 1807 or as late as 1 Jun 1815. Based upon currently available data, however, the most likely range for his birth is about 1811 to 1812. This seems to be the most frequently calculated date, and is consistent with the ages recorded in the earliest available documents. Only one record, the 1900 census, explicitly states a birth year (1809), but given his advanced age, his illiteracy, and the fact that he was an "inmate" of the county poor farm, it is probably not as credible as the ages recorded in earlier census records." I entered his birth as Abt 1811-1812, and my source citation for his birth date reads: "Solomon Morgan Age Data," report prepared by Connie Sheets, (address), 10 Feb 2011; compiled from ages stated in obituary, state, and federal census records. Because the obituary, state, and federal census records are entered, transcribed and cited in Legacy as separate events, and because my Word document also contains detailed source citations, I don't see the need to cite them again for his birth date. Others will choose differently, but this is what works for me. Connie --- On Wed, 8/17/11, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: I have a question on citing documentary sources that you know to be incorrect, especially when you have a primary source to back up the event. It seems as though census records are particularly prone to error. For example, I have seen varying information on successive census records for an individual concerning such things as date of immigration to the US and citizenship status. Since I may have steamship records to show the actual date of arrival and naturalization records to validate Declaration of Intent and final oath of citizenship dates, I really don't see the reason to cite conflicting information that shows up in the census. If my only source of evidence is census data, I can see citing it, but I don't know if it is "standard practice" to ignore less reliable information if authoritative information on the event exists. And while we are on the subject, I have seen non-relatives documented in the census as a "sister" or "cousin" when I am positive that no relationship exists. In one case, the "sister" appears to be a random border, and the "cousin" was a close family friend from the same town, but not a blood relative. Conversely, I have seen "boarders" who are in fact, cousins (although technically just because someone is listed as a boarder doesn't mean that they aren't related). I can't see adding the "sister" to Legacy, since I know that the only other sister had not yet immigrated, and she had a different name! So my question is, how do other people handle unreliable evidence when reliable evidence exists - do you ignore the unreliable evidence or do you create an alternate conflicting event which is less reliable than a known event? I guess this applies to ages as well - how do you handle ages when there is no birth record, yet a person ages less than 10 years between censuses? Do you treat an earlier census as more reliable (in some cases they seem to be, but this is just a gut feeling) or just document everything? Maybe Geoff could address some of these issues in his upcoming webinar as well. Thanks in advance, Marion Werle 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 Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
