Yes Kirsten, I'm looking at Elizabeth's book right now. I have quite a few ancestors back to the third or fourth generation and I have one, two, three or sometimes four excellent sources for their names, dates of birth, marriage, death and burial. But like the rest of us, I'm sure, I have many, many that I have names and dates, but they are only clues from online and other sources. What I'm trying to say is that multiple sources is a good problem--I just want to make sure I have them correctly cited.
Thanks, Jim On 9/9/07, Kirsten Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim: > > I certainly cite multiple sources, and for several reasons. One is the > "preponderance of evidence" business for when I run into conflicting data; > another is in order to have a record of everything you've found on an > individual. Surely there are others, too. Elizabeth Shown Mills in > _Evidence Explained_ seems to have an interesting take on this. If I > interpret correctly, she advises citing *all* sources for facts when you are > in the "research phase" of a project, and trimming down to the single most > reliable source for any given fact when you publish. But when are we ever > out of the "research phase"? > > Kirsten > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
