TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-04 > 1114644832

From: "Karenhappuch" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Bibliography - IGI Entries
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:33:52 -0700
References: <001201c54b40$9ba6fed0$2fb2b8a1@seanixxolmzp0y> <>

I use IGI marriages when they have been extracted from county records. When
I view microfilms of the marriage records, I replace the IGI source with the
record (microfilmed) source. Much of my research centers on Ohio where most
of the 19th century marriage records have been filmed and also extracted.
My experience has been that the IGI marriage extractions are at least as
reliable as genealogy society marriage books (also generally "indexes").
Viewing the record does often provide additional information, but otherwise
the transcribed names and dates are well done.
I'm more concerned with some books from local genealogy societies where
information appears to have been added or modified by members.
While recognizing the IGI is an index, it doesn't make sense that Mills
considers Ancestry File ok if it is undocumented. I'd never consider using
that as a source.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hoffman" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [TMG] Bibliography - IGI Entries

> Peter & Doreen Neilley wrote:
>>I created the report in a Bibliographic sorted format, and got 21 sources
>>at the very beginnig of the report which showed nothing but the Source #.
>>When I looked at them, they were all IGI (International Genealogical
>>Index) sources. Wondering what I had done to the IGI source to cause them
>>not to print in the Bibliography, I looked at the Source Template and
>>discovered that the Bibliography showed " -- " (without the quotes).
>>Having rediscovered Appendix F - Source Templates in The Book a few days
>>ago, I checked the template there, and discovered that, in fact, the
>>Template was created that way.
>>My question is, why? If you do a Bibliography for a group of people,
>>shouldn't the fact that the IGI was a Source for some of the information
>>be reflected in it? I am wondering what the rationale was behind this
>>exclusion of the IGI from the Bibliography. Whoever put the Source
>>Templates together obviously put a lot of thought and work into it, so I
>>am wondering if there is some accepted reason not to cite the IGI in the
>>Bibliography, although citing it in footnotes or endnotes? Mom has our
>>copies of Mills and Lackey with her in Saskatchewan, so I can't consult
>>them for several more days, to see if Mills says something about this (the
>>IGI Template is in the Mills section).
> I would agree with your question. I understand that the International
> Genealogical Index (IGI) is just that -- an index. And indexes are not
> considered a valid reference. For example, if the page of the index of a
> book on Abraham Lincoln is cited then the reader does not gain any
> information unless they look at each and every page indicated on that
> index page. On the other hand, the IGI is somewhat more than just a
> cross-reference and does contain some actual data as opposed to a book
> index.
> I would agree that the IGI should really be used as a an index that points
> to the actual data, I try not to use it as a Source. However, in a few
> cases, I only have the IGI as a Source. Mostly these are for persons that
> are more on the periphery of the people I am researching, such as the
> parents of a spouse of a 32nd cousin's.
> Still I often want to state that one of my Sources is the IGI for what its
> worth. Therefore I have changed the Bibliography Source Template from:
> --
> to:
> International Genealogical Index (IGI)
> While it goes against the recommendation of Elizabeth Shown Mills in
> "Evidence!", it just adds information which I doubt she would complain
> about. <g>
> Hope this helps -
> Lee Hoffman/KY
> TMG Tips: <>;
> My website: <>;
> A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)
> ==== TMG Mailing List ====
> Send all messages and replies to <>.

This thread: