TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2011-01 > 1295128573

From: Rick Van Dusen <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Conclusions
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 13:56:13 -0800
References: <> <> <003c01cbb4d4$becec740$3c6c55c0$@com> <><004901cbb4f7$58627380$09275a80$@com>
In-Reply-To: <004901cbb4f7$58627380$09275a80$@com>

This gets away from our topic of reporting from sources as opposed to
concluding, and on that issue, what you're reporting here is not really
in conflict with what I've been asserting.

However, I haven't/probably wouldn't taken this approach. My reasoning
is that the use of separate tags to report varying data allows both the
tying of the data to the source and getting the data out where it can be

What you and Terry are doing is similar to what FTM forced me to do with
names (and that always frustrated me).

I can understand the problem with multiple tags (and Terry's interest in
producing reports is, I'm sure, a part of his choice here), but I want
that data clearly tied to its source, in large part so I don't have to
"conclude" which source is correct.

(However, there are some elements in your example which take away some
of the guessing: 1. If he's listed in the 1850 Census, he clearly was
not 12 years old in 1870, or even, perhaps, 10 in 1860. Makes me wonder
if this is in fact the same person. Another reason why I wouldn't want
to bury those alternate dates.)

One alternative for the sake of "cleaner" reports would be the use of
exclusions for alternative tag types, or some other means of keeping
them from printing. (But if we take up that issue, that is definitely a
new thread.)

Teresa Elliott wrote:
> For birth tags I used to have several tags, but about a year or so ago, I
> moved to Terry's method of recording only one birth tag and using the CD to
> record the date of each source record. That shows in the tag edit screen and
> prints in footnotes. Many reports only allow one birth tag, so that is my
> reasoning for doing this.
> So if the 1850 says he was 8, the 1860 says he is 10 and the 1870 states he
> was 12 and his death certificate in 1923 states he was 80, I would record
> each record for the date field putting 1842, 1850, 1858 and 1843 in the CDs.
> Then for his birth I would use "between 1842 and 1858." While not perfectly
> happy with that method, I haven't found a better way to deal with
> conflicting information so that it reads the way I like. Now granted if the
> first three censuses agreed and the death certificate had 1858, I would tend
> towards the date of 1842, but would still record the dates of all four
> sources in the CD with a note explaining why I'd picked the 1842 date.
> That's as much for me doing future research as it is for my reader.

This thread: