TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2012-04 > 1334800381

From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source Type for 1940 Census
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:53:01 -0400
References: <><><>
In-Reply-To: <>

Terry Reigel wrote:
>On 4/18/2012 5:16 PM, Lee Hoffman wrote:
> > But, is the relationship indicator only drawn from the census? So,
> > the next door daughter would not likely be known just from the
> > census.
>Not in my view. I write the citation based on what I know, not
>necessarily only information in the source itself.
>On the other hand, the few examples I've seen of neighbor as informant
>actually said that it was a neighbor, and gave the name.

Yes, but that information is in the census itself. But, if there is
some other relationship besides being a neighbor (e.g., child or
sibling of the head) should that be included and how should it be
included? Would it be something like "Susan Jones, neighbor
(believed to be the daughter of the head of household)"? Or just a
flat statement: "Susan Jones, neighbor and daughter"? What supports
the "daughter" part of the flat statement if it is not in the
census? Is a "secondary" citation included in the main citation
supporting the daughter claim [when it is not stated in the census]?

Of course, the first statement "(believed to be..." might be used
without citation in the same sense that provenance of a document
might have some vague as in:
"... from mother ... to daughter ... probably to
great-granddaughter ... to
second cousin ... to son.

> > The problem here is how to enter "Mary Smith, neighbor" in a name
> > type Source Element. It either has to be without commas (e.g., Mary
> > Smith neighbor) or entering the standard name entry modified by
> > adding the relationship in parentheses after the surname and before
> > the comma.
>Good point, which I hadn't thought of. That's an issue with the standard
>[Informat] source element. Since I would use it only in the FF and enter
>the text exactly as I want it to appear, there is no need to use a
>"name" source element.

The [INFORMANT] Source element does have some good points --
particularly when the relationship is stated in the census and thus
is not too wordy. But, it requires making use of the escape feature
(not big a deal for a relatively short entry. However, for long
entries as many such might be, I suspect the [COMMENTS] Source
Element may be best. It is designed for long entries while the
[INFORMANT] Source Element does have a content limit (255
characters) -- probably long enough for most entries
though. However, that 255 would include all commas and escape
characters which would likely be many in a long entry.

Lee Hoffman/KY
TMG Tips: <>;
My website: <>;
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)

This thread: