TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2005-12 > 1136056124


From: Terry Reigel <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Question on Terry Reigel's Conclusions source
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 14:08:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <003201c60e30$ef699150$6401a8c0@youro0kwkw9jwc>


On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:37:55 -0600, Cheryl Freeman wrote:
> Hi Terry, thanks so much for replying!
You're welcome. <g>

> If I say that Frank Pollard was born August 18, 1895 in
> Missouri and cite the SSDI, his sister's note, and 3
> censuses it sounds to me like I am saying that all 5
> sources support both the date and location, and they do
> not. However, two of the sources support the date and no
> location is given, and 3 sources support the location and
> no date (or only a partial date) is given. I am looking
> for a way to make that clear to the reader (who can't see
> my sureties).

I deal with this situation by adding notes to the CDs for each source,
something like this:

Sister's note: shows date
SSDI: shows date
1900 Census: shows month, year, age 4, and state
1910 Census (excluded): shows age 14 and state
1920 Census (excluded): shows age 24 and state

This assumes that all of them are consistent (give or take a year for
the census ages) - if not I explain in the CD how they differ. I'd
exclude the last two census because 3 cites is enough if they agree,
and they show the least detail and are farther from the event.

> I suppose I could add to each citation that it supports
> only the year and place of birth, or only the date of
> birth and not location, but I think I would like to use a
> conclusions source to tie it all together. I guess my
> real question <G> is would it be best to use a
> Conclusions source in place of the source citations (and
> perhaps add the source citations to the Conclusions [CD]
> after explaining my conclusion, or would it be better to
> show the source citations followed by a Conclusions
> citation.

I wouldn't use the conclusions source that way because either you lose
a lot of detail that the individual citations would include, our you
have a serious amount of typing to type all that in.

I suppose you could do it by citing each source you want to include
and add the conclusions source to flesh out the details, then use the
"Combined" feature on the sources tab of the report definition to
merge them all into one note.

> Another situation is names: My primary name for each
> person in my database is now the most accurate name for
> which I have actually found at least one source, but I
> want to make the primary name that which I have concluded
> is correct after analysis of facts. I have a man whose
> name I believe to be Steven Alexander Jones. I have
> found his name recorded as S. A. Jones (back of a photo),
> Steven Jones (census), Steven A. Jones (death
> certificate), Alexander Jones (census) and Alexander S.
> Jones (census). If I say I believe his name to be Steven
> Alexander Jones, and cite the various sources, none of
> them will actually give this name, and if I just use a
> Conclusions tag, it won't show the actual citations to
> the sources upon which I base my conclusion.

For cases like this I just cite the best sources and call it good,
since generally they all agree. I do detail in the CD what each said
when the sources don't totally agree... "shows name as S. A. Jones"
etc.

If you wanted to clarify why you chose Steven Alexander rather than
Alexander Steven, you could use the conclusions tag to do that. Again,
I'd not use a summary citation instead of citing individually, because
you either loose too much or have to type in too much to capture all
the source details.

Terry Reigel


This thread: