I sometimes use the Notes for the individual to highlight any discrepancies/uncertainties for which I don't have convincing evidence (birth dates come to mind, as do name variants) and that are still a work in progress.
As I understand what you are saying, you would cite the full census record (with transcription) for the Residence event, and make a note about any discrepancies with other more certain facts, as opposed to citing the census as an unreliable source for the Immigration event? I like the idea of referencing a separate research report, but I suspect I would only go to that degree of effort for "major" family members rather than more peripheral ones. I am just finishing up one on my grandmother's brother's name (many variants and discrepancies), so when I'm done, I'll create a source in Legacy and reference it. That makes a lot of sense. On Aug 17, 2011 2:14pm, Connie Sheets <[email protected]> wrote: > 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'ta 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 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
