TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2010-12 > 1292852763


From: "Teresa Elliott" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Always specific names for specific events? Bad idea.
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 07:46:03 -0600
References: <50423F5353C54DCFA4D9E1CCE34A1213@jfc><4D0E9F3C.5090508@sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D0E9F3C.5090508@sprynet.com>


To me, the name is inferred as Dutton, so I would enter it that way. It
have also seen censuses where the last name was listed for every person.
Makes it very hard to read and probably still is no more accurate, since he
probably still copied the surname of the HOH. But if I have concluded from
other evidence that she was in fact Beth Jones (his daughter, who married
and then moved back home) I will make a note of that in her WM field. I am
not changing what the census said, but I am clarifying what I believe to be
true about her for my readers to see.

The 1930 census is full of people like that in my family. The men went off
someplace else to hopefully find jobs. The women and children (or often just
the children) stayed on the farm and lived with the grandparents to have a
place to live and food in their bellies. I can't wait to see the 1940 census
to see how many of these missing fathers show back up with their families in
some other larger city, like Detriot.

> I might later find via other evidence that she was the wife of Adam and
her
> maiden surname was Jones, or that she was a step-daughter with a different
> surname, or her given name was actually MaryBeth (or Elizabeth, or
Bethany),
> or something else. I believe your basic point here is that as researchers
we
> draw conclusions when processing evidence and it's inescapable, and if so,
I
> agree.

Yes, that is the main point. I
"wonder out loud" how many people
who say they enter the data "just
the way they find it" go to the
extreme of reproducing such
things as this practice in the
census (i.e. leaving the surname
blank). I don't recommend it. For
me the name in the record is best
interpreted "Beth Dutton", and I
would enter it that way; but
there is the possibility that the
enumerator was a dolt, and that
means a risk that by concluding
he meant "Beth Dutton", I have
introduced an error.


This thread: