TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2011-01 > 1295118715

From: Rick Van Dusen <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Conclusions
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:11:55 -0800
References: <003901cbb409$003304c0$00990e40$@net> <> <000901cbb446$aa2b0e90$fe812bb0$@com> <><002701cbb4c3$91769040$b463b0c0$@com>
In-Reply-To: <002701cbb4c3$91769040$b463b0c0$@com>

In your reply here I don't see any difference between your thinking and

1. I would not ignore the testimony of any person or documents.

2. I usually end up giving some "weight" values to different sources
(but this is where I'm skittish; would rather just cite them w/o comment).

3. Definitely, I would not try to correct a document, nor an index which
correctly indexes the erroneous document.

4. However, though I won't dispute you making a note, to me, if the
evidence is all there, the reader can see the issue and doesn't need my
note. (This is different, IMO, from a case where my research reveals a
non-obvious reason to think the source is not reliable. That's where I
would definitely think a note is not only warranted but essential.)

(5. I should note again that with the entry of names, some of my
practice, if not my thinking, has been shaped by years of using a
non-TMG gen app that would record only one name. I had to choose "the
best" name. In TMG, thankfully, that's not necessary; I can enter and
separately source any number of names. It's still necessary to choose
the most likely one as primary, though, which sometimes has to be done
more as a guess than as a scholarly "conclusion".)

Teresa Elliott wrote:
> I haven't ignored the birth certificate, in fact I have a copy of it in my
> database (and my filing cabinet). Neither am I ignoring the testimony of
> people who filled out FGS, and who knew this man from birth. I am just
> giving both equal weight. I would not try and correct the document, though
> this man certainly could. But in my notes to the birth tag (and his primary
> name) I have indicated that I believe the birth certificate to be in error.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf
> Of Rick Van Dusen
> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 6:53 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [TMG] Conclusions
> But this is where I think you're completely missing my point, and the
> only place we actually disagree.
> I don't see "know for a fact" having a valid place in a scholarly study,
> nor do I agree with "going with" one source or another.
> Granted that we generally will desire to choose one, say, birthdate, to
> be "Primary", but I don't call that a final conclusion, and I base it
> either on the evidence that is preponderant or (if I must) on the
> evidence that appears on the face to be the most trustworthy. Even so, I
> will not say, "I know for a fact"; as I said, there's not much I "know
> for a fact", not even my "clear recollection". (Yes, the SSDI may be
> wrong, but I, myself, am not willing to "swear to" my recollection, and
> neither should you trust my memory!)
> (BTW, I've known of people whose belief of their name was wrong.)
> Know nothing; report what others say as what they said, not what you
> "know" or believe.
> Teresa Elliott wrote:
>> But I stated I knew for a fact the man's name. He knows for a fact his
> name,
>> and his older sister, knows for a fact his name. I am going with the
> record
>> being incorrect.

This thread: