Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Cathy Pinner]

Hi Scott,
RE question 1.
If you have sources that disagree in substance (not typos and not 
transcripts) then you need to record all of them. Depending on the 
disagreement, add Alt. Events. eg if sources differ on the birth date or 
year, add an Alt. Birth (I don't mean from Census if the age given is 
only plus or minus one from the age from a more reliable birth record).
The genealogical standard is to note all information and write notes to 
resolve the differences or why you can't resolve them.


RE question 2.  I sometimes add notes as you suggest (Year only), (day 
and month only - no year eg from a birthday book)
The actual relevant part of the text of that source will be in Source 
Detail text which I don't normally include in a citation.


RE question 3. If a book disagrees with itself then you need to note 
that. The page with the most complete detail may be correct but may not. 
This often happens with compiled family histories as the data comes from 
various family members over a period of time. I then try to find a 
better source.


RE question 4. If you've seen and sourced an original publication I 
wouldn't source something that referred to it UNLESS there was a 
discussion of the accuracy or not of that earlier publication. However, 
I look for original sources, not sources from compiled histories.


For more on sourcing adequately and what should be in the source 
citation see https://www.evidenceexplained.com which has heaps of 
examples and discussions.


Cathy


Scott Hall 
Saturday, 12 December 2020 10:26 PM
I have recently begun replacing my extensive sourcing notes with 
direct sources attached to the record fields. This will allow the 
sources to be more easily transferred and understood when my tree is 
uploaded to genealogy sites, as well as enabling sources to appear on 
reports.


But I have a few questions about how you handle a few sourcing challenges.

First, how do you handle sources that a) disagree or b) have incorrect 
information (such as typos)?


My thought is that if I know that one source is correct, I'll link 
that source, and only include a note regarding the other in the 
Research Notes.  This way the source is recorded, but it's identified 
as incorrect.  Only the correct source(s) will appear on reports.


Second, how do you handle it when a source only provides PART of the 
information in the field (e.g. only the birthdate but not the place).  
When the complete picture is sewn together from multiple sources, its 
challenge to reference it (again so it appears properly on reports).  
Two options, perhaps:
1) Record the actual information found in the notes. While the linked 
source may appear to support all the information, the notes will 
clarify that it's only partial.  However, this may not be obvious on a 
report
2) Append the detail source with a note that clarifies the information 
(for example, "(birth date only)".  This seems the more thorough approach.


Third, how do you handle detail sourcing when data appears in a single 
source multiple times (for example a genealogical book of a region 
that contains multiple intermarried families)?  This is especially 
true when the information within the book doesn't agree.  Here's what 
I've been thinking:


Rather than clutter up the source link with every instance the data is 
found within the text, I record the page where the most complete data 
is found and ignore the remaining pages.  If the data disagrees with 
itself, I either a) link to the correct page and note the incorrect 
data, or b) make no links and record both sets of data in the research 
notes.


Lastly, how do you handle derivative sources?  By this I mean texts of 
data that use earlier publications as their source.  It seems 
redundant to source them at all if its known that the data is just 
pulled from an earlier publication that you've already sourced.  Yes, 
you could link it and append the source with "citing " but if 
you've already linked the original source, what's the point?  In this 
case, I feel like I should only link any additional information found 
in the newer publication.


Thanks
Scott







--

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

[LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Scott Hall]

I have recently begun replacing my extensive sourcing notes with
direct sources attached to the record fields. This will allow the sources
to be more easily transferred and understood when my tree is uploaded to
genealogy sites, as well as enabling sources to appear on reports.

But I have a few questions about how you handle a few sourcing challenges.

First, how do you handle sources that a) disagree or b) have incorrect
information (such as typos)?

My thought is that if I know that one source is correct, I'll link that
source, and only include a note regarding the other in the Research Notes.
This way the source is recorded, but it's identified as incorrect.  Only
the correct source(s) will appear on reports.

Second, how do you handle it when a source only provides PART of the
information in the field (e.g. only the birthdate but not the place).  When
the complete picture is sewn together from multiple sources, its challenge
to reference it (again so it appears properly on reports).  Two options,
perhaps:
1) Record the actual information found in the notes.  While the linked
source may appear to support all the information, the notes will clarify
that it's only partial.  However, this may not be obvious on a report
2) Append the detail source with a note that clarifies the information (for
example, "(birth date only)".  This seems the more thorough approach.

Third, how do you handle detail sourcing when data appears in a single
source multiple times (for example a genealogical book of a region that
contains multiple intermarried families)?  This is especially true when the
information within the book doesn't agree.  Here's what I've been thinking:

Rather than clutter up the source link with every instance the data is
found within the text, I record the page where the most complete data is
found and ignore the remaining pages.  If the data disagrees with itself, I
either a) link to the correct page and note the incorrect data, or b) make
no links and record both sets of data in the research notes.

Lastly, how do you handle derivative sources?  By this I mean texts of data
that use earlier publications as their source.  It seems redundant to
source them at all if its known that the data is just pulled from an
earlier publication that you've already sourced.  Yes, you could link it
and append the source with "citing " but if you've already linked the
original source, what's the point?  In this case, I feel like I should only
link any additional information found in the newer publication.

Thanks
Scott
-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[Shirley Crampton]

When I add a document that proves the parent-child relationship I add that
to the child's screen and use the document as the source.

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 4:24 PM, BARTON LEWIS 
wrote:

> Good to know, thanks.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 04:08 PM, Brian Kelly wrote:
>
> If you open a person's assigned sources screen you will see that you can
>> assign a source to the Father - Child and Mother Child relationships.
>>
>> I personally do not do that but anyone who intends to apply to one of the
>> associations like Daughters or Sons of the American Revolution which
>> require proof of your descent from a revolutionary war participant needs to
>> assign sources to those fields because those societies are very interested
>> in what documents were used to confirm the descent.
>>
>> Brian Kelly
>>
>> On 21-Apr-17 1:12 PM, BARTON LEWIS wrote:
>>
>>> Diane,
>>> I see your point now - add it to all 3 name fields (the child and both
>>> parents).  I would absolutely do that if it were the only or one of the
>>> only sources for the relationship, and I understand the reason for doing
>>> it regardless.  Here is my dilemma:  I have transcribed the sketch which
>>> is about 4 paragraphs, and I am reluctant to add the source without the
>>> transcript, and I am also reluctant to add the source for every
>>> relationship named (the many siblings and aunts and uncles of the
>>> sketch's subject).  So I have to decide how to err - on the side of
>>> leaving out a good (but not the only) source for the relationships or
>>> having a lot of information duplicated and taking up a lot of printed
>>> space in reports, etc.
>>> Barton
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:00 PM, Diane wrote:
>>>
>>> Barton;
>>> It is probably an unnecessary step   to add the source to the father
>>> relationship and mother relationship fields, but it is something I do
>>> routinely.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>> From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com]
>>> On Behalf Of BARTON LEWIS
>>> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 9:27 AM
>>> To: Legacy User Group Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question
>>>
>>> hi Diane, thanks for your reply.  By adding the book as a source in the
>>> name field, I assume that's what I would be doing (using the book as a
>>> source for those relationships).
>>> Barton
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Diane wrote:
>>> Barton;
>>>
>>> You could also use the book as a source for child/parent relationships.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>> From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com
>>>  ] On Behalf Of Barton
>>> Lewis
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:45 PM
>>> To: 'Legacy User Group'
>>>
>>
> --
>
> LegacyUserGroup mailing list
> LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
> To manage your subscription and unsubscribe http://legacyusers.com/mailman
> /listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
> Archives at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
>
-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[BARTON LEWIS]

Good to know, thanks.


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 04:08 PM, Brian Kelly wrote:

If you open a person's assigned sources screen you will see that you 
can assign a source to the Father - Child and Mother Child 
relationships.


I personally do not do that but anyone who intends to apply to one of 
the associations like Daughters or Sons of the American Revolution 
which require proof of your descent from a revolutionary war 
participant needs to assign sources to those fields because those 
societies are very interested in what documents were used to confirm 
the descent.


Brian Kelly

On 21-Apr-17 1:12 PM, BARTON LEWIS wrote:

Diane,
I see your point now - add it to all 3 name fields (the child and 
both
parents).  I would absolutely do that if it were the only or one of 
the
only sources for the relationship, and I understand the reason for 
doing
it regardless.  Here is my dilemma:  I have transcribed the sketch 
which
is about 4 paragraphs, and I am reluctant to add the source without 
the

transcript, and I am also reluctant to add the source for every
relationship named (the many siblings and aunts and uncles of the
sketch's subject).  So I have to decide how to err - on the side of
leaving out a good (but not the only) source for the relationships or
having a lot of information duplicated and taking up a lot of printed
space in reports, etc.
Barton


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:00 PM, Diane wrote:

Barton;
It is probably an unnecessary step   to add the source to the father
relationship and mother relationship fields, but it is something I do
routinely.

Diane


From: LegacyUserGroup 
[mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com]

On Behalf Of BARTON LEWIS
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 9:27 AM
To: Legacy User Group Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

hi Diane, thanks for your reply.  By adding the book as a source in 
the
name field, I assume that's what I would be doing (using the book as 
a

source for those relationships).
Barton


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Diane wrote:
Barton;

You could also use the book as a source for child/parent 
relationships.


Diane


From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com
 ] On Behalf Of Barton
Lewis
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:45 PM
To: 'Legacy User Group'


--

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[Brian Kelly]

If you open a person's assigned sources screen you will see that you can 
assign a source to the Father - Child and Mother Child relationships.


I personally do not do that but anyone who intends to apply to one of 
the associations like Daughters or Sons of the American Revolution which 
require proof of your descent from a revolutionary war participant needs 
to assign sources to those fields because those societies are very 
interested in what documents were used to confirm the descent.


Brian Kelly

On 21-Apr-17 1:12 PM, BARTON LEWIS wrote:

Diane,
I see your point now - add it to all 3 name fields (the child and both
parents).  I would absolutely do that if it were the only or one of the
only sources for the relationship, and I understand the reason for doing
it regardless.  Here is my dilemma:  I have transcribed the sketch which
is about 4 paragraphs, and I am reluctant to add the source without the
transcript, and I am also reluctant to add the source for every
relationship named (the many siblings and aunts and uncles of the
sketch's subject).  So I have to decide how to err - on the side of
leaving out a good (but not the only) source for the relationships or
having a lot of information duplicated and taking up a lot of printed
space in reports, etc.
Barton


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:00 PM, Diane wrote:

Barton;
It is probably an unnecessary step   to add the source to the father
relationship and mother relationship fields, but it is something I do
routinely.

Diane


From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com]
On Behalf Of BARTON LEWIS
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 9:27 AM
To: Legacy User Group 
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

hi Diane, thanks for your reply.  By adding the book as a source in the
name field, I assume that's what I would be doing (using the book as a
source for those relationships).
Barton


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Diane wrote:
Barton;

You could also use the book as a source for child/parent relationships.

Diane


From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com
<mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com> ] On Behalf Of Barton
Lewis
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:45 PM
To: 'Legacy User Group' mailto:legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com> >
Subject: [LegacyUG] sourcing question


As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a
biographical sketch of my ancestor’s brother in a Texas history book
published in 1893.  It contains a trove of information about my
ancestor’s family and that of his parents, presumably from the subject
who was 44 years old at the time.  The names of his siblings and aunts
and uncles and all their spouses are included.  As a source for these
names, I’m wondering where to best enter them; I usually put census
entries into the birth field, since date and place of birth are always
identified (usually).  Since date and place are not included in the
sketch, should the source be added to the person’s name?  I usually
don’t input sources into the name field but this seems to make the best
sense.  Any thought would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Barton






--

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[BARTON LEWIS]

Diane,
I see your point now - add it to all 3 name fields (the child and both 
parents).  I would absolutely do that if it were the only or one of the 
only sources for the relationship, and I understand the reason for doing 
it regardless.  Here is my dilemma:  I have transcribed the sketch which 
is about 4 paragraphs, and I am reluctant to add the source without the 
transcript, and I am also reluctant to add the source for every 
relationship named (the many siblings and aunts and uncles of the 
sketch's subject).  So I have to decide how to err - on the side of 
leaving out a good (but not the only) source for the relationships or 
having a lot of information duplicated and taking up a lot of printed 
space in reports, etc.

Barton


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 01:00 PM, Diane wrote:

Barton;
It is probably an unnecessary step   to add the source to the father 
relationship and mother relationship fields, but it is something I do 
routinely.

 
Diane
 
 
From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com] 
On Behalf Of BARTON LEWIS

Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 9:27 AM
To: Legacy User Group 
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question
 
hi Diane, thanks for your reply.  By adding the book as a source in the 
name field, I assume that's what I would be doing (using the book as a 
source for those relationships).

Barton


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Diane wrote:
Barton;
 
You could also use the book as a source for child/parent relationships.
 
Diane
 

From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com 
<mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com> ] On Behalf Of Barton 
Lewis

Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:45 PM
To: 'Legacy User Group' <mailto:legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com> >

Subject: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

 
As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a 
biographical sketch of my ancestor’s brother in a Texas history book 
published in 1893.  It contains a trove of information about my 
ancestor’s family and that of his parents, presumably from the subject 
who was 44 years old at the time.  The names of his siblings and aunts 
and uncles and all their spouses are included.  As a source for these 
names, I’m wondering where to best enter them; I usually put census 
entries into the birth field, since date and place of birth are always 
identified (usually).  Since date and place are not included in the 
sketch, should the source be added to the person’s name?  I usually 
don’t input sources into the name field but this seems to make the best 
sense.  Any thought would be appreciated.

 
Thanks,
 
Barton

--
LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com <mailto:LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com>
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com 
<http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com>

Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ 
<http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/>

--



LegacyUserGroup mailing list

LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com

To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com 
<http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com>


Archives at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ 
<http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/>



-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[Diane]

Barton;

It is probably an unnecessary step 😊  to add the source to the father 
relationship and mother relationship fields, but it is something I do routinely.

 

Diane

 

 

From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com] On 
Behalf Of BARTON LEWIS
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 9:27 AM
To: Legacy User Group 
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

 

hi Diane, thanks for your reply.  By adding the book as a source in the name 
field, I assume that's what I would be doing (using the book as a source for 
those relationships).

Barton




On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Diane wrote:

Barton;

 

You could also use the book as a source for child/parent relationships.

 

Diane

 

From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com] On 
Behalf Of Barton Lewis
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:45 PM
To: 'Legacy User Group' mailto:legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com> >
Subject: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

 

As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a 
biographical sketch of my ancestor’s brother in a Texas history book published 
in 1893.  It contains a trove of information about my ancestor’s family and 
that of his parents, presumably from the subject who was 44 years old at the 
time.  The names of his siblings and aunts and uncles and all their spouses are 
included.  As a source for these names, I’m wondering where to best enter them; 
I usually put census entries into the birth field, since date and place of 
birth are always identified (usually).  Since date and place are not included 
in the sketch, should the source be added to the person’s name?  I usually 
don’t input sources into the name field but this seems to make the best sense.  
Any thought would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Barton


  _  


-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com <mailto:LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com> 
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[BARTON LEWIS]

hi Diane, thanks for your reply.  By adding the book as a source in the 
name field, I assume that's what I would be doing (using the book as a 
source for those relationships).

Barton


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Diane wrote:

Barton;
 
You could also use the book as a source for child/parent relationships.
 
Diane
 

From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com] 
On Behalf Of Barton Lewis

Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:45 PM
To: 'Legacy User Group' 
Subject: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

 
As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a 
biographical sketch of my ancestor’s brother in a Texas history book 
published in 1893.  It contains a trove of information about my 
ancestor’s family and that of his parents, presumably from the subject 
who was 44 years old at the time.  The names of his siblings and aunts 
and uncles and all their spouses are included.  As a source for these 
names, I’m wondering where to best enter them; I usually put census 
entries into the birth field, since date and place of birth are always 
identified (usually).  Since date and place are not included in the 
sketch, should the source be added to the person’s name?  I usually 
don’t input sources into the name field but this seems to make the best 
sense.  Any thought would be appreciated.

 
Thanks,
 
Barton
--



LegacyUserGroup mailing list

LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com

To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com 
<http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com>


Archives at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ 
<http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/>



-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[Diane]

Barton;

 

You could also use the book as a source for child/parent relationships.

 

Diane

 

From: LegacyUserGroup [mailto:legacyusergroup-boun...@legacyusers.com] On
Behalf Of Barton Lewis
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 7:45 PM
To: 'Legacy User Group' 
Subject: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

 

As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a
biographical sketch of my ancestor's brother in a Texas history book
published in 1893.  It contains a trove of information about my ancestor's
family and that of his parents, presumably from the subject who was 44 years
old at the time.  The names of his siblings and aunts and uncles and all
their spouses are included.  As a source for these names, I'm wondering
where to best enter them; I usually put census entries into the birth field,
since date and place of birth are always identified (usually).  Since date
and place are not included in the sketch, should the source be added to the
person's name?  I usually don't input sources into the name field but this
seems to make the best sense.  Any thought would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Barton

-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[BARTON LEWIS]

This sounds like sound advice.  Thank you.  I have not upgraded to 
Legacy 9 yet - a bit nervous as I some have described problems but the 
consensus seems to be that it's fine.  So I'll go ahead and do it and 
check out the Stories feature. 


Barton


On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 08:17 AM, Brian Kelly wrote:


I see two things here:

1. The article/excerpt itself seems like it was tailor-made for the 
new Stories feature in Legacy 9.0. I would enter the entire sketch and 
use the Texas history book as the source. You can then share that 
story with all the other family members mentioned if you wish.


2. If the article mentions new people (or new information about 
existing ones) then I would enter/add the data and use the article as 
the source for the data. For example, if the article has a date that 
you were missing then it is the source for that new date. If it 
mentions a new person then it is the source for all the data you enter 
from that article about that person.


Brian Kelly

On 20-Apr-17 10:44 PM, Barton Lewis wrote:

As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a
biographical sketch of my ancestor’s brother in a Texas history book
published in 1893.  It contains a trove of information about my
ancestor’s family and that of his parents, presumably from the 
subject
who was 44 years old at the time.  The names of his siblings and 
aunts

and uncles and all their spouses are included.  As a source for these
names, I’m wondering where to best enter them; I usually put census
entries into the birth field, since date and place of birth are 
always

identified (usually).  Since date and place are not included in the
sketch, should the source be added to the person’s name?  I usually
don’t input sources into the name field but this seems to make the 
best

sense.  Any thought would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Barton



--

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com

Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/



--

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[BARTON LEWIS]

Thanks, Cathy.  Both you and Jenny have asked me why I don't source 
names.  I should clarify.  The censuses form the foundation for 
identifying the composition of families (for me), and provide one of the 
most important vitals - a person's place and date of birth.  I enter the 
census data in the birth field for an individual and that record 
contains (for most censuses after 1870) their relationship to HOH.  I 
feel that it would be duplicative to add that same record to the name 
field.  It would also significantly add to the notes at the end of a 
report, for example, and since I transcribe each and every census entry 
and include it with my citation, I prefer not to have those entries 
appearing multiple times. 
If other data in addition to the name is being given then I tend to add 
the source for that data - and not additionally to the name.  However, 
when a record proves a name and there is no other confirmatory evidence 
for it, I'll add that record to the name field.  E.g. if a deceased 
person's mother is listed in their death certificate, and that's the 
only source for her maiden name, I'll enter that source in the name 
field for the mother.  (Death certificates, of course, present their own 
problems.)  A deed which states someone is giving land to "my beloved 
son" would be a source for the person's name (name field).  I may or may 
not add that if other sources (e.g. censuses) existed for that person 
which identified their relationship to their parent, but I would 
definitely add it if there were no other confirmatory evidence of their 
relationship.  I welcome your thoughts on this approach.

Barton

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Cathy Pinner wrote:


You don't source Names?

How do you know where you found the name or the name variants?



Yes if it only has the name, then you add the source to the name.

If it had name and birth date, I'd add it to both name and birth date.



The only exceptions for me is if I have a number of better sources for 
the Name already.




Cathy



Barton Lewis wrote:



As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a

biographical sketch of my ancestor’s brother in a Texas history book

published in 1893. It contains a trove of information about my

ancestor’s family and that of his parents, presumably from the subject

who was 44 years old at the time. The names of his siblings and aunts

and uncles and all their spouses are included. As a source for these

names, I’m wondering where to
best enter them; I usually put census

entries into the birth field, since date and place of birth are always

identified (usually). Since date and place are not included in the

sketch, should the source be added to the person’s name? I usually

don’t input sources into the name field but this seems to make the

best sense. Any thought would be appreciated.



Thanks,



Barton

--



LegacyUserGroup mailing list

LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com

To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com 



Archives at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/ 




-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[Margaret Gagliardi]

Ever since I began using Legacy, I have transcribed everything I found on
each individual under the General tab.  Census, Deeds, Wills, Birth & Death
Records, obits, letters, etc. and the last item I put is the Find-a-Grave
information.  I copy and paste into the General Tab when I can.  In some
cases, when I print out a family group sheet it may be 20-30 pages long,
all telling about the life of that husband and wife.  I can refer back to
it at any time and see the full information exactly as I found it.  I wish
we would have had that story tab a long time ago, so unless there is,
something very special about it, I don't plan to look at my almost 20,000
folks and move what is in my General Tab to the Story Tab.  Can anyone tell
me what the difference would be and how it would PDF or print out to
include all my work?
Thanks Margaret

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Brian Kelly  wrote:

> I see two things here:
>
> 1. The article/excerpt itself seems like it was tailor-made for the new
> Stories feature in Legacy 9.0. I would enter the entire sketch and use the
> Texas history book as the source. You can then share that story with all
> the other family members mentioned if you wish.
>
> 2. If the article mentions new people (or new information about existing
> ones) then I would enter/add the data and use the article as the source for
> the data. For example, if the article has a date that you were missing then
> it is the source for that new date. If it mentions a new person then it is
> the source for all the data you enter from that article about that person.
>
> Brian Kelly
>
>
> On 20-Apr-17 10:44 PM, Barton Lewis wrote:
>
>> As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a
>> biographical sketch of my ancestor’s brother in a Texas history book
>> published in 1893.  It contains a trove of information about my
>> ancestor’s family and that of his parents, presumably from the subject
>> who was 44 years old at the time.  The names of his siblings and aunts
>> and uncles and all their spouses are included.  As a source for these
>> names, I’m wondering where to best enter them; I usually put census
>> entries into the birth field, since date and place of birth are always
>> identified (usually).  Since date and place are not included in the
>> sketch, should the source be added to the person’s name?  I usually
>> don’t input sources into the name field but this seems to make the best
>> sense.  Any thought would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Barton
>>
>
>
> --
>
> LegacyUserGroup mailing list
> LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
> To manage your subscription and unsubscribe http://legacyusers.com/mailman
> /listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
> Archives at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
>
-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[Brian Kelly]

I see two things here:

1. The article/excerpt itself seems like it was tailor-made for the new 
Stories feature in Legacy 9.0. I would enter the entire sketch and use 
the Texas history book as the source. You can then share that story with 
all the other family members mentioned if you wish.


2. If the article mentions new people (or new information about existing 
ones) then I would enter/add the data and use the article as the source 
for the data. For example, if the article has a date that you were 
missing then it is the source for that new date. If it mentions a new 
person then it is the source for all the data you enter from that 
article about that person.


Brian Kelly

On 20-Apr-17 10:44 PM, Barton Lewis wrote:

As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a
biographical sketch of my ancestor’s brother in a Texas history book
published in 1893.  It contains a trove of information about my
ancestor’s family and that of his parents, presumably from the subject
who was 44 years old at the time.  The names of his siblings and aunts
and uncles and all their spouses are included.  As a source for these
names, I’m wondering where to best enter them; I usually put census
entries into the birth field, since date and place of birth are always
identified (usually).  Since date and place are not included in the
sketch, should the source be added to the person’s name?  I usually
don’t input sources into the name field but this seems to make the best
sense.  Any thought would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Barton



--

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] sourcing question

[Cathy Pinner]

You don't source Names?
How do you know where you found the name or the name variants?

Yes if it only has the name, then you add the source to the name.
If it had name and birth date, I'd add it to both name and birth date.

The only exceptions for me is if I have a number of better sources for 
the Name already.


Cathy

Barton Lewis wrote:


As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a
biographical sketch of my ancestor’s brother in a Texas history book
published in 1893. It contains a trove of information about my
ancestor’s family and that of his parents, presumably from the subject
who was 44 years old at the time. The names of his siblings and aunts
and uncles and all their spouses are included. As a source for these
names, I’m wondering where to best enter them; I usually put census
entries into the birth field, since date and place of birth are always
identified (usually). Since date and place are not included in the
sketch, should the source be added to the person’s name? I usually
don’t input sources into the name field but this seems to make the
best sense. Any thought would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Barton
-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

[LegacyUG] sourcing question

[Barton Lewis]

As a little diversion to all the questions about Legacy 9, I found a
biographical sketch of my ancestor's brother in a Texas history book
published in 1893.  It contains a trove of information about my ancestor's
family and that of his parents, presumably from the subject who was 44 years
old at the time.  The names of his siblings and aunts and uncles and all
their spouses are included.  As a source for these names, I'm wondering
where to best enter them; I usually put census entries into the birth field,
since date and place of birth are always identified (usually).  Since date
and place are not included in the sketch, should the source be added to the
person's name?  I usually don't input sources into the name field but this
seems to make the best sense.  Any thought would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

Barton

-- 

LegacyUserGroup mailing list
LegacyUserGroup@legacyusers.com
To manage your subscription and unsubscribe 
http://legacyusers.com/mailman/listinfo/legacyusergroup_legacyusers.com
Archives at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Connie Sheets]

Scott,

We may be getting too nit-picky for many people (so those who aren't interested 
in the details of source citation a la EE can stop reading now).  But, for 
those of us for whom details may be important:

> 1.  The title of the website is in italics, which you
> can't see here because of the Plain Text e-mail format.

I am aware of that; but the title of the website is not "Mt. Hope & Riverside 
Cemetery Records;" that is only one item on a much larger website maintained by 
the University of Rochester.  Therefore, as I read EE and her related 
QuickSheets, "Mt. Hope & Riverside Cemetery Records" would be in quotes, not 
italics.  University of Rochester, River Campus Libraries - Department of Rare 
Books, Special Collections and Preservation would be in italics.  [Not that I 
worry about punctuation in my day-to-day work, but you sound as though you want 
to understand and follow EE].

> 3.  The Mount Hope Cemetery Office (essentially anything I put after
> that semi-colon) is my attempt to properly credit the original source,
> as recommended by Mills (also demonstrated in the census template
> which cites a NARA microfilm roll).  The U of R didn't create the
> cemtery records, the cemetery did.

My point was that I have no idea from looking at the online database and images 
who created the records, nor that Mt. Hope Cemetery actually has an "office."  
I can assume they do, but the website itself does not tell me (unless I missed 
it).  For all I know, there's a church nearby and it was someone at the church 
who created the record, and a local historical society who received the grant 
and created the CD from which the online images were copied.  I would be clear 
in my citation that the images appear to be a register of interments (some of 
the volumes actually have this title), but I don't know who created them, nor 
when they were created.

> 4.  As with the census, the "index" (or database if you prefer) is
> only the means to the original interrment records.  It
> is the original interment records from which I am gathering my
> information.  There is nothing transcribed, nothing copied.  They are a
> digital image of the actual record...It's
> really only step away from perusing the actual books
> themselves.

I was referring to the images themselves as an "index."  I'm sorry, but there 
is no way all of those images are the original interment records.  Many of them 
may be, but if you check the older records, back in 1837, the handwriting is a 
modern handwriting, so at least some of them are indeed copies/transcriptions.  
Without taking a lot of time, I can't tell when the registers began to be 
contemporaneous with the burials (I'm not sure I could figure it out even if I 
took the time).  Therefore, I would make a comment in my citation that I'm not 
certain the register was made at the time of the burial.

> So, perhaps we must assume a title? 

We don't need to assume a title of the website item; it is clearly "Mt. Hope & 
Riverside Cemetery Records."  We do need to make an assumption as to what the 
images are.  Given that the ones from the 1890s are stamped at the top of each 
page "Register of Interments, Mt. Hope Cemetery" that is what I would call it, 
but I would not put it in quotes because it is my personal description of the 
volume we're looking at, not the actual title.

Now that I've studied the source more closely, I would change my citation to 
read (I'll put asterisks around what I would italicize):

"Mt Hope & Riverside Cemetery Records," digital images, *University of 
Rochester, River Campus Libraries, Rare Books and Special Collections 
Databases,* (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=3310  : accessed 5 May 
2010), entry for George B. Oswold (1935), p. 525 (stamped) of what appears to 
be a Mt. Hope Cemetery register of interments; it is not clear from the 
handwriting whether the entry was made at the time of the burial or is a later 
transcription.

> I have not yet gleaned from Mills' book when it is appropriate to
> include the item of interest upfront, ala the censuses, and
> when to put at the back.

I think (but am not certain) it is mostly a matter of personal preference, but 
we should be consistent if the source allows it.  She also publishes some 
laminated 'Quick Sheets' for online sources, and I do know that, for material 
gleaned from websites, the typical format for the citation itself (first 
footnote) is:

AUTHOR OR CREATOR (if known)
ITEM TITLE (in quotes)
ITEM TYPE (e.g. database or images)
WEBSITE TITLE (italicized)
URL and DATE (in parentheses)
SPECIFIC ITEM OF INTEREST (i.e. Mr. Oswold)
CREDIT LINE (source of the source)

Thanks for sharing this example; I've learned a lot working with it!

Connie

















Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

That's the ticket. You have found what yo needed. Sometimes thinking outside 
the box gets you in the correct box. ;-)
Rich in LA CA

--- On Wed, 5/26/10, Scott Hall  wrote:

> From: Scott Hall 
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 9:46 AM
> A few comments back:
>
> 1.  The title of the website is in italics, which you
> can't see here
> because of the Plain Text e-mail format.
> 2.  Including the stamped page number is a good
> idea.  I'll have to
> experiment with the templates to see which provide the best
> way to do
> this.  I suppose the easiest is simply to add it to
> the "Item of
> interest" line.  I, of course, would manually have to
> add the commas,
> etc. (unlike the census template which does this for you).
> 3.  The Mount Hope Cemetery Office (essentially
> anything I put after
> that semi-colon) is my attempt to properly credit the
> original source,
> as recommended by Mills (also demonstrated in the census
> template
> which cites a NARA microfilm roll).  The U of R didn't
> create the
> cemtery records, the cemetery did.
> 4.  As with the census, the "index" (or database if
> you prefer) is
> only the means to the original interrment records.  It
> is the original
> interrment records from which I am gathering my
> information.  There is
> nothing transcribed, nothing copied.  They are a
> digital image of the
> actual record.  The "index" is really more like a
> table of contents --
> enter "Or 1947" to go straight to the digial image of the
> "Or" page
> within the particular book that covers 1947 (well sort
> of).  It's
> really only step away from perusing the actual books
> themselves.
>
> I think I found the answer in Mills' book, under the Local
> & State
> Records chapter (p. 439):
> "When you cite a digital image of a record, you are citing
> the
> record—albeit in surrogate form.  With [cemetery]
> records, you may
> cite that digital image in the same manner you would the
> original.
> Then, in place of the repository's name, you append the
> identification
> of the web publication, including the details outlined at
> 2.33.
>
> §2.34 (p.58) adds clarity to the database v. image
> debate:  "Web
> providers ... offer digital material in three forms: (a)
> images of
> orignal records [my scenario], (b) databases that compile
> historical
> data from the original images ... .  The three types
> do not carry the
> same wieth on any scale by which evidence is
> appraised.  Thus our
> citations to websties should specifically state the type of
> digial
> file we are using, ... .
>
> If I follow this guideline, it may eliminate the source of
> a source of
> a source (original records of the cemetery microfilmed and
> placed on a
> CD and made available online by the library).  This
> would also seem to
> align with the citation examples for censuses viewed via a
> website.
> The only challenge is that there is no official name for
> the original
> record.  Through manipulation of the URL, I can
> navigate to the first
> page of the book, which is stock book simply titled
> "Schlicht's
> Standard Index" which was nothing more than a book of blank
> pages the
> cemetery used to record interrments.  So, perhaps we
> must assume a
> title?  Perhaps something like this:
>
> Bibliography:
> Mount Hope Cemetery. "Mount Hope Cemetery Interrment
> Index." Digital
> images. University of Rochester River Campus Libraries,
> Mt. Hope &
> Riverside Cemetery Records.
> http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=3559 :
> 2010.
>
> Reference Note:
> "Mount Hope Cemetery Interrment Index".  p. 534,
> George B. Oswold
> (interred 10 August 1935); digital images, University of
> Rochester
> River Campus Libraries, Mt. Hope & Riverside
> Cemetery Records
> (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/IN/RBSCP/Databases/IMAGES/MtHope/disc2/0658.pdf
> : accessed 5 May 2010).
>
> I could also append the reference note detailing the source
> of the
> source (ala the census' "citing NARA microfilm ...") but
> I'm not sure
> what to cite...the site doesn't actually cite anything,
> although a
> paragraph does provide some the provenance of the
> records.  Perhaps in
> conflict with the census citation recommendation, the
> citation under
> Local & State Records does not include a subsequent
> "citing" note.
>
> The one problem I see with this is that I do not think
> there is a way
> to have

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Scott Hall]

tle of the website item, "Mt. Hope and Riverside Cemetery Records" 
> should be in quotes, IMO.
>
> Why did you not include the stamped page number on which Mr. Oswold's name 
> appears?
>
> What does Mount Hope Cemetery Office refer to?  I may have missed it, but I 
> see no reference to the cemetery office on the website? [I never cite 
> something I don't know for certain from the source I'm looking at, unless 
> it's as an explanatory comment].
>
> As mentioned in my previous post on this thread, I would include a 
> description of the images, i.e. that they appear to be a multi-volume index, 
> that the handwriting suggests the index may not have been prepared at the 
> time of the burial, and that it is not clear which volume of the index has 
> been imaged.
>
> My citation might look something like this:
>
> "Mt Hope & Riverside Cemetery Records," database and digital images, River 
> Campus Libraries, University of Rochester 
> (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=3310 : accessed 5 May 2010), 
> entry for George B. Oswold (1935), p. 525 (stamped) of handwritten index, 
> volume name not provided.  The consistency of the handwriting suggests the 
> index was not prepared at the time of the burials.
>
> Although I wrote this citation "from scratch," I can replicate it with the 
> Internet > Database and images template.
>
> Connie
>
> --- On Tue, 5/25/10, Scott Hall  wrote:
>
>> From: Scott Hall 
>> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question
>> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
>> Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 1:19 PM
>> Hey all... thanks for the dialog.
>>
>> Here's what I currently built, using the Cemetery Records
>> template.
>>
>> University of Rochester River Campus Libraries—Department
>> of Rare
>> Books, Special Collections and Preservation, Mt. Hope &
>> Riverside
>> Cemetery Records  Database and images
>> (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=3310 :
>> accessed 5 May
>> 2010), George B. Oswold (interred 10 August 1935); Mount
>> Hope Cemetery
>> Office.
>>
>> Italics are removed, of course, due to the Plain Text
>> formatting.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
>
>   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
>
> Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
>
>   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
>
> Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
>
>   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/
>
> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
>
> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
>
>
>
>



Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

Like I said, semantics. I would use the same setups as a census type, which is 
a database with photos? Whatever works for you.
Rich in LA CA

--- On Tue, 5/25/10, Connie Sheets  wrote:

> From: Connie Sheets 
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 12:44 PM
> I'm reasonably certain (since she has
> written about it many times on other mail lists to which I
> subscribe) that Mrs. Mills would say that we are dealing
> primarily with a "digital image," not a "database."  She
> typically reserves the term "database" for, well, databases
> where someone has extracted info from another source.
>
> This particular example is complicated by the fact it
> appears to be a "digital image" of a handwritten *index*
> made at some unknown point in time, probably not at the time
> of the burial.  (Certainly, the earlier entries from
> the 1800s were not made at the time of the burials).  I
> would want to make this clear in my citation (typically I'd
> do so by adding a comment to that effect in the Comments
> screen of the citation, and ticking it to print in reports.
>
> In an ideal world, I would also contact the cemetery to
> make sure that the index is all that remains; i.e. that
> there are no original records made at the time of the
> burial.
>
> For those who wonder why this "nit-pick" might be
> important:  the purpose of source citations is not merely
> to document where we found the information so we (or someone
> else) can find it again, it is to allow us to make judgments
> about the quality and reliability of the evidence. 
>
> If I see a citation that says only "database," I know that
> the conclusions are more prone to error than if the citation
> refers to a "digital image" of an original record.  It's
> analogous to the difference between citing a printed book of
> abstracted marriage records, and citing a microfilm of the
> original marriage register.
>
> Connie
> Arizona
>
> --- On Tue, 5/25/10, RICHARD SCHULTHIES 
> wrote:
>
> > I believe it is a database, of
> > 'photocopies'. Each one has a coded name which is
> > search-able, as the census is. The indexing is done on
> the
> > name file with the attachments (photos) following
> along. It
> > doesn't matter if we disagree, I would still handle it
> in
> > Mills as a DB. This may be an instance of semantics. I
> wish
> > my family had a similar tool where they were at.
> > Congratulations on findng this helpful tool.
> > Rich in LA CA
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
>
>    http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
>
> Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
>
>    http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
>
> Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21
> 2009:
>
>    http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/
>
> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
>
> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
>
>
>
>



Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Connie Sheets]

Scott,

I think you've done well with a complicated situation!  Some of my comments and 
questions would be:

The title of the website item, "Mt. Hope and Riverside Cemetery Records" should 
be in quotes, IMO.

Why did you not include the stamped page number on which Mr. Oswold's name 
appears?

What does Mount Hope Cemetery Office refer to?  I may have missed it, but I see 
no reference to the cemetery office on the website? [I never cite something I 
don't know for certain from the source I'm looking at, unless it's as an 
explanatory comment].

As mentioned in my previous post on this thread, I would include a description 
of the images, i.e. that they appear to be a multi-volume index, that the 
handwriting suggests the index may not have been prepared at the time of the 
burial, and that it is not clear which volume of the index has been imaged. 

My citation might look something like this:

"Mt Hope & Riverside Cemetery Records," database and digital images, River 
Campus Libraries, University of Rochester 
(http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=3310 : accessed 5 May 2010), entry 
for George B. Oswold (1935), p. 525 (stamped) of handwritten index, volume name 
not provided.  The consistency of the handwriting suggests the index was not 
prepared at the time of the burials.

Although I wrote this citation "from scratch," I can replicate it with the 
Internet > Database and images template. 

Connie

--- On Tue, 5/25/10, Scott Hall  wrote:

> From: Scott Hall 
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 1:19 PM
> Hey all... thanks for the dialog.
>
> Here's what I currently built, using the Cemetery Records
> template.
>
> University of Rochester River Campus Libraries—Department
> of Rare
> Books, Special Collections and Preservation, Mt. Hope &
> Riverside
> Cemetery Records  Database and images
> (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=3310 :
> accessed 5 May
> 2010), George B. Oswold (interred 10 August 1935); Mount
> Hope Cemetery
> Office.
>
> Italics are removed, of course, due to the Plain Text
> formatting.
>









Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Connie Sheets]

I'm reasonably certain (since she has written about it many times on other mail 
lists to which I subscribe) that Mrs. Mills would say that we are dealing 
primarily with a "digital image," not a "database."  She typically reserves the 
term "database" for, well, databases where someone has extracted info from 
another source.

This particular example is complicated by the fact it appears to be a "digital 
image" of a handwritten *index* made at some unknown point in time, probably 
not at the time of the burial.  (Certainly, the earlier entries from the 1800s 
were not made at the time of the burials).  I would want to make this clear in 
my citation (typically I'd do so by adding a comment to that effect in the 
Comments screen of the citation, and ticking it to print in reports.

In an ideal world, I would also contact the cemetery to make sure that the 
index is all that remains; i.e. that there are no original records made at the 
time of the burial.

For those who wonder why this "nit-pick" might be important:  the purpose of 
source citations is not merely to document where we found the information so we 
(or someone else) can find it again, it is to allow us to make judgments about 
the quality and reliability of the evidence. 

If I see a citation that says only "database," I know that the conclusions are 
more prone to error than if the citation refers to a "digital image" of an 
original record.  It's analogous to the difference between citing a printed 
book of abstracted marriage records, and citing a microfilm of the original 
marriage register.

Connie
Arizona

--- On Tue, 5/25/10, RICHARD SCHULTHIES  wrote:

> I believe it is a database, of
> 'photocopies'. Each one has a coded name which is
> search-able, as the census is. The indexing is done on the
> name file with the attachments (photos) following along. It
> doesn't matter if we disagree, I would still handle it in
> Mills as a DB. This may be an instance of semantics. I wish
> my family had a similar tool where they were at.
> Congratulations on findng this helpful tool.
> Rich in LA CA
>








Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

I believe it is a database, of 'photocopies'. Each one has a coded name which 
is search-able, as the census is. The indexing is done on the name file with 
the attachments (photos) following along. It doesn't matter if we disagree, I 
would still handle it in Mills as a DB. This may be an instance of semantics. I 
wish my family had a similar tool where they were at. Congratulations on findng 
this helpful tool.
Rich in LA CA

--- On Tue, 5/25/10, Scott Hall  wrote:

> From: Scott Hall 
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2010, 6:19 AM
> Hey all... thanks for the dialog.
>
> Here's what I currently built, using the Cemetery Records
> template.
>
> University of Rochester River Campus Libraries—Department
> of Rare
> Books, Special Collections and Preservation, Mt. Hope &
> Riverside
> Cemetery Records  Database and images
> (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=3310 :
> accessed 5 May
> 2010), George B. Oswold (interred 10 August 1935); Mount
> Hope Cemetery
> Office.
>
> Italics are removed, of course, due to the Plain Text
> formatting.
>
> Some of the replies made an assumption that my source is a
> database—it
> is not.  They are online images of the interrment
> books of each
> cemetery.  The books were first scanned onto
> microfilm, and the
> microfilm rolls were made available online.  The
> online images are
> hosted at the University of Rochester's River Campus
> Libraries.  So,
> in essence, its an online image provided by the U of R of a
> microfilm
> created by who knows of the official records of each
> cemetery.  The
> index combines both of the cemeteries, although when you
> click on any
> particular link, you'll go to the image of a particular
> page of a
> particular microfilm sheet which is a particular page of a
> particular
> book of a particular cemetery.  Whew!
>
> It's basically like HeritageQuest's images of the censuses,
> and thus
> probably should be cited similar to those censues (an
> example is
> below), but I'm not sure the best way to do this.  Is
> my citation
> above adequate or would Ms. Mills shake her head and say
> "nice try,
> but ..."?
>
> 1900 U.S. census, Monroe County, New York population
> schedule,
> Rochester, enumeration district (ED) 44, sheet 2B, p. 12
> (stamped),
> dwelling 29, family 32, George B. Oswald [Oswold]; digital
> images,
> HeritageQuest Online (http://www.heritagequestonline.com : accessed 8
> May 2010); citing National Archives and Records
> Administration
> microfilm T623, roll 1074.
>
> Continued thanks...
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Kirsten Bowman 
> wrote:
> > Scott:
> >
> > Do consider what you want the lead element in the
> citation to be.  Personally I'd like it to be the name of
> the cemetery.  Using one of the cemetery templates it's
> then easy enough to state that the transcription comes from
> an online database and any of the other pertinent details.
>  Another researcher might use the URL that you would
> include (assuming it would still be valid), or possibly go
> to the university to find the original cemetery records, or
> even go to the cemetery itself to search out the marker.
> >
> > Kirsten
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Scott Hall [mailto:seh0...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:36 PM
> > To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> > Subject: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question
> >
> >
> > Hey Sourcing experts ... I'm stumped.
> >
> > How do I cite this source?
> >
> > The City of Rochester, NY owns two cemeteries, Mount
> Hope Cemetery and
> > Riverside Cemeteries.  The cemetery records for each
> cemetery, from
> > their opening through 2002 have been scanned and are
> available online
> > at a site hosted by the Department of Rare Books &
> Special Collections
> > of the River Campus Libraries of the University of
> Rochester.
> >
> > To comply with the rules, I won't post the link, but
> you can find it
> > by simply Googling "Mount Hope Cemetery Records".  To
> comply with the
> > source of a source rules and the guidelines set out by
> Elizabeth Shown
> > Mills, how would you properly cite this in Legacy with
> SourceWriter?
> > I can't really find a good example in Mills' book, nor
> can I find a
> > good template to use.  Could someone put together a
> citation for me?
> >
> > Many thanks!
> >
> >
> > Scott
> 

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Scott Hall]

Hey all... thanks for the dialog.

Here's what I currently built, using the Cemetery Records template.

University of Rochester River Campus Libraries—Department of Rare
Books, Special Collections and Preservation, Mt. Hope & Riverside
Cemetery Records  Database and images
(http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?page=3310 : accessed 5 May
2010), George B. Oswold (interred 10 August 1935); Mount Hope Cemetery
Office.

Italics are removed, of course, due to the Plain Text formatting.

Some of the replies made an assumption that my source is a database—it
is not.  They are online images of the interrment books of each
cemetery.  The books were first scanned onto microfilm, and the
microfilm rolls were made available online.  The online images are
hosted at the University of Rochester's River Campus Libraries.  So,
in essence, its an online image provided by the U of R of a microfilm
created by who knows of the official records of each cemetery.  The
index combines both of the cemeteries, although when you click on any
particular link, you'll go to the image of a particular page of a
particular microfilm sheet which is a particular page of a particular
book of a particular cemetery.  Whew!

It's basically like HeritageQuest's images of the censuses, and thus
probably should be cited similar to those censues (an example is
below), but I'm not sure the best way to do this.  Is my citation
above adequate or would Ms. Mills shake her head and say "nice try,
but ..."?

1900 U.S. census, Monroe County, New York population schedule,
Rochester, enumeration district (ED) 44, sheet 2B, p. 12 (stamped),
dwelling 29, family 32, George B. Oswald [Oswold]; digital images,
HeritageQuest Online (http://www.heritagequestonline.com : accessed 8
May 2010); citing National Archives and Records Administration
microfilm T623, roll 1074.

Continued thanks...

Scott



On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Kirsten Bowman  wrote:
> Scott:
>
> Do consider what you want the lead element in the citation to be.  Personally 
> I'd like it to be the name of the cemetery.  Using one of the cemetery 
> templates it's then easy enough to state that the transcription comes from an 
> online database and any of the other pertinent details.  Another researcher 
> might use the URL that you would include (assuming it would still be valid), 
> or possibly go to the university to find the original cemetery records, or 
> even go to the cemetery itself to search out the marker.
>
> Kirsten
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Hall [mailto:seh0...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:36 PM
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question
>
>
> Hey Sourcing experts ... I'm stumped.
>
> How do I cite this source?
>
> The City of Rochester, NY owns two cemeteries, Mount Hope Cemetery and
> Riverside Cemeteries.  The cemetery records for each cemetery, from
> their opening through 2002 have been scanned and are available online
> at a site hosted by the Department of Rare Books & Special Collections
> of the River Campus Libraries of the University of Rochester.
>
> To comply with the rules, I won't post the link, but you can find it
> by simply Googling "Mount Hope Cemetery Records".  To comply with the
> source of a source rules and the guidelines set out by Elizabeth Shown
> Mills, how would you properly cite this in Legacy with SourceWriter?
> I can't really find a good example in Mills' book, nor can I find a
> good template to use.  Could someone put together a citation for me?
>
> Many thanks!
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
>
>   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
>
> Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
>
>   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
>
> Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:
>
>   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/
>
> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
>
> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
>
>
>
>



Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Kirsten Bowman]

Scott:

Do consider what you want the lead element in the citation to be.  Personally 
I'd like it to be the name of the cemetery.  Using one of the cemetery 
templates it's then easy enough to state that the transcription comes from an 
online database and any of the other pertinent details.  Another researcher 
might use the URL that you would include (assuming it would still be valid), or 
possibly go to the university to find the original cemetery records, or even go 
to the cemetery itself to search out the marker.

Kirsten

-Original Message-
From: Scott Hall [mailto:seh0...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 1:36 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question


Hey Sourcing experts ... I'm stumped.

How do I cite this source?

The City of Rochester, NY owns two cemeteries, Mount Hope Cemetery and
Riverside Cemeteries.  The cemetery records for each cemetery, from
their opening through 2002 have been scanned and are available online
at a site hosted by the Department of Rare Books & Special Collections
of the River Campus Libraries of the University of Rochester.

To comply with the rules, I won't post the link, but you can find it
by simply Googling "Mount Hope Cemetery Records".  To comply with the
source of a source rules and the guidelines set out by Elizabeth Shown
Mills, how would you properly cite this in Legacy with SourceWriter?
I can't really find a good example in Mills' book, nor can I find a
good template to use.  Could someone put together a citation for me?

Many thanks!


Scott






Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[smithmp]

Steve,
"(and if you want, you can also take a screen shot and attach that to the
source.)  That way, even if the original database disappears or moves,
you've still got a record of what it did say (and when it said it), so
others can make judgment as they see fit."

Where ever possible I try to scan or take a picture of any source I find,
except for the internet research.  Usually because most of the time this is
a secondary source that points me (hopefully) to the original source. I scan
the Title copyright page and add the scan or photo into the picture tab of
the source.  Then in the detail section of the citation I add a scan or
picture of the page that I am transcribing from.  This works well with
printed material, databases, microfilm, etc.

But I thought I would mention that websites do not disappear as easily as
you might think.  I have been able to access material from websites that are
now defunct by using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (as long as you
have the website address).  This only is available though if the website
material had remained active for at least a few months and goes back (I
believe to 1996).  Unfortunately you can not search using keywords yet
(hence the need for the actual website name and if possible website page
otherwise you might be 'browsing for a while').  More and more, many
libraries, repositories, universities, governments and companies are
archiving their historical data on the internet in places such as the
wayback machine.  If the servers are down there, you can also access the
Internet archive at the New Library of Alexandria, Egypt, which mirrors the
Wayback Machine.  So as technology advances, so does the available ways in
which to preserve internet sources.

Paulette Smith



-Original Message-
From: Steve Voght [mailto:stevevo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 6:39 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

But surely you might have this problem in almost any scenario, short of
providing a copy of the original source material with your family file --
countless records have burned over the years as courthouses have gone up in
flame; oral histories disappear when the ancestor dies; a microfilm reader
devours an 1800s-era newspaper film; a rare worm-eaten book turns to dust
and the original is lost forever.
Admittedly the issue is now more frequently encountered in the context of
the internet, but this is precisely why we need to transcribe relevant
details and date of entry, rather than just a source name.

I agree with you that it's important to chase the rabbit down the hole as
far as it goes and find the most original source of any supplied data
because errors can and do crop up with every copy and transcription
(especially with indexes of hand-written records!), but more and more these
days an online database or transcription is the original work, especially
when it comes to modern court and cemetery records.  Ideally you would use a
source like this as a foundation to then go to the cemetery and either
obtain the original records or verify the tombstone in person (at which
point this can be discarded as a source since it was merely a means to
finding the real source), but practically speaking that's not always
possible and thus it's most important to provide sufficient detail about
when you obtained the record, along with a faithful transcription of the
relevant portion of the database (and if you want, you can also take a
screen shot and attach that to the source.)  That way, even if the original
database disappears or moves, you've still got a record of what it did say
(and when it said it), so others can make judgment as they see fit.

-Steve

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot
 wrote:
> I wanted to throw in my two cents about this type of online source and
many other online databases. The whole purpose of a source citation is to
explain where you got the data and hopefully allow future viewers of your
family file to go back to that source and check the authenticity and
validity of the information. So right there we have a problem with all
"online databases". While the link may work today, chances are that in one
year or longer, the link will be dead. And at that point, the source of your
information as you show it in your citation becomes hidden from the world.
There really is no way around this as that is the very nature of the
Internet "beast". Like politicians, links come and go.
>
> Now if you could check the information about the online database itself
and determine from where the database info came from, then in reality, that
is the real source of the information. I'm just making this up here as an
example, but let's pretend the online database of the cemetery is based on a
book or official records from the "Mount Hope Cemetery Association".  Then
isn't the actual 

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Jenny M Benson]

Brian L. Lightfoot wrote
>The whole purpose of a source citation is to explain where you got the
>data and hopefully allow future viewers of your family file to go back
>to that source and check the authenticity and validity of the
>information. So right there we have a problem with all "online
>databases". While the link may work today, chances are that in one year
>or longer, the link will be dead. And at that point, the source of your
>information as you show it in your citation becomes hidden from the
>world. There really is no way around this as that is the very nature of
>the Internet "beast". Like politicians, links come and go.
>
>Now if you could check the information about the online database itself
>and determine from where the database info came from, then in reality,
>that is the real source of the information.

I cite all sorts of online databases and the SW templates usually
provide a field in which to enter "citing ..." which gives the original
source of the data.

I would not say that where the database info came from is the "real
source" - it is the source used by the compiler(s) of the database, but
not the source *I* used.  Ideally, of course, one should go back to the
original info (when possible) as the database may not be an accurate
representation of the data.
--
Jenny M Benson



Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

Exactly. As I asked, who created the list, the online server, the cemetery, or 
the people who read the cemetery. That way, in the future, a person can track 
down the 'creator' of the DB, to see if that entity is still around with a new 
server address.
Rich in LA CA

--- On Mon, 5/24/10, Dennis M. Kowallek  wrote:

> From: Dennis M. Kowallek 
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 3:30 PM
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:21:26 -0700,
> "Brian L. Lightfoot"
> 
> wrote:
>
> >Then isn't the actual source those records and not the
> online database?
>
> I would make note of both pieces of info.
>
> --
>
> Dennis Kowallek (LTools)
> http://zippersoftware.com/ltools
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ltools
>
>
>
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
>
>    http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
>
> Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
>
>    http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
>
> Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21
> 2009:
>
>    http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/
>
> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
>
> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
>
>
>
>



Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Steve Voght]

But surely you might have this problem in almost any scenario, short
of providing a copy of the original source material with your family
file -- countless records have burned over the years as courthouses
have gone up in flame; oral histories disappear when the ancestor
dies; a microfilm reader devours an 1800s-era newspaper film; a rare
worm-eaten book turns to dust and the original is lost forever.
Admittedly the issue is now more frequently encountered in the context
of the internet, but this is precisely why we need to transcribe
relevant details and date of entry, rather than just a source name.

I agree with you that it's important to chase the rabbit down the hole
as far as it goes and find the most original source of any supplied
data because errors can and do crop up with every copy and
transcription (especially with indexes of hand-written records!), but
more and more these days an online database or transcription is the
original work, especially when it comes to modern court and cemetery
records.  Ideally you would use a source like this as a foundation to
then go to the cemetery and either obtain the original records or
verify the tombstone in person (at which point this can be discarded
as a source since it was merely a means to finding the real source),
but practically speaking that's not always possible and thus it's most
important to provide sufficient detail about when you obtained the
record, along with a faithful transcription of the relevant portion of
the database (and if you want, you can also take a screen shot and
attach that to the source.)  That way, even if the original database
disappears or moves, you've still got a record of what it did say (and
when it said it), so others can make judgment as they see fit.

-Steve

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot
 wrote:
> I wanted to throw in my two cents about this type of online source and 
> many other online databases. The whole purpose of a source citation is to 
> explain where you got the data and hopefully allow future viewers of your 
> family file to go back to that source and check the authenticity and validity 
> of the information. So right there we have a problem with all "online 
> databases". While the link may work today, chances are that in one year or 
> longer, the link will be dead. And at that point, the source of your 
> information as you show it in your citation becomes hidden from the world. 
> There really is no way around this as that is the very nature of the Internet 
> "beast". Like politicians, links come and go.
>
> Now if you could check the information about the online database itself and 
> determine from where the database info came from, then in reality, that is 
> the real source of the information. I'm just making this up here as an 
> example, but let's pretend the online database of the cemetery is based on a 
> book or official records from the "Mount Hope Cemetery Association".  Then 
> isn't the actual source those records and not the online database? Those 
> official records tend to stay around and be archived by either a government 
> agency or a local historical society for a much longer period than any web 
> site. Many such online databases will explain the source of the data and the 
> actual repository. I guess the problem is in digging deep enough in order to 
> make that determination.
>
> Just thinking out loud here.
>
>
> Brian in CA



Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Dennis M . Kowallek]

On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:21:26 -0700, "Brian L. Lightfoot"
 wrote:

>Then isn't the actual source those records and not the online database?

I would make note of both pieces of info.

--

Dennis Kowallek (LTools)
http://zippersoftware.com/ltools
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ltools



Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

RE: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Brian L. Lightfoot]

I wanted to throw in my two cents about this type of online source and many 
other online databases. The whole purpose of a source citation is to explain 
where you got the data and hopefully allow future viewers of your family file 
to go back to that source and check the authenticity and validity of the 
information. So right there we have a problem with all "online databases". 
While the link may work today, chances are that in one year or longer, the link 
will be dead. And at that point, the source of your information as you show it 
in your citation becomes hidden from the world. There really is no way around 
this as that is the very nature of the Internet "beast". Like politicians, 
links come and go.

Now if you could check the information about the online database itself and 
determine from where the database info came from, then in reality, that is the 
real source of the information. I'm just making this up here as an example, but 
let's pretend the online database of the cemetery is based on a book or 
official records from the "Mount Hope Cemetery Association".  Then isn't the 
actual source those records and not the online database? Those official records 
tend to stay around and be archived by either a government agency or a local 
historical society for a much longer period than any web site. Many such online 
databases will explain the source of the data and the actual repository. I 
guess the problem is in digging deep enough in order to make that determination.

Just thinking out loud here.


Brian in CA



-Original Message-
From: RICHARD SCHULTHIES [mailto:fourpa...@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 2:09 PM
To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

First question. Does the DB tell which cemetery for each person, or lump both? 
Since I always make most of my Sources location based, I would use,  USA, NY, 
Monroe County, fill in correct cemetery. Which ever of the three choices of 
cemetery names. (left-righr-both). Treating a website as if a book, the title 
is the name on the page, the author/compiler is the Libraries of the University 
of Rochester unless the cemetery gave transcriptions to the libray, and the 
repository is 'Department of Rare Books & Special Collections of the River 
Campus Libraries of the University of Rochester'.
Do the notes for the database say how it was compiled? Cemetery's DB or 
volunteers reading the stones? These facts may make it clearer how to fill in 
the fields.
Rich in LA CA

--- On Mon, 5/24/10, Scott Hall  wrote:

> From: Scott Hall 
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 1:35 PM
> Hey Sourcing experts ... I'm
> stumped.
>
> How do I cite this source?
>
> The City of Rochester, NY owns two cemeteries, Mount Hope
> Cemetery and
> Riverside Cemeteries.  The cemetery records for each
> cemetery, from
> their opening through 2002 have been scanned and are
> available online
> at a site hosted by the Department of Rare Books &
> Special Collections
> of the River Campus Libraries of the University of
> Rochester.
>
> To comply with the rules, I won't post the link, but you
> can find it
> by simply Googling "Mount Hope Cemetery Records".  To
> comply with the
> source of a source rules and the guidelines set out by
> Elizabeth Shown
> Mills, how would you properly cite this in Legacy with
> SourceWriter?
> I can't really find a good example in Mills' book, nor can
> I find a
> good template to use.  Could someone put together a
> citation for me?
>
> Many thanks!
>
>
> Scott
>
>




Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

Re: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[RICHARD SCHULTHIES]

First question. Does the DB tell which cemetery for each person, or lump both? 
Since I always make most of my Sources location based, I would use,  USA, NY, 
Monroe County, fill in correct cemetery. Which ever of the three choices of 
cemetery names. (left-righr-both). Treating a website as if a book, the title 
is the name on the page, the author/compiler is the Libraries of the University 
of Rochester unless the cemetery gave transcriptions to the libray, and the 
repository is 'Department of Rare Books & Special Collections of the River 
Campus Libraries of the University of Rochester'.
Do the notes for the database say how it was compiled? Cemetery's DB or 
volunteers reading the stones? These facts may make it clearer how to fill in 
the fields.
Rich in LA CA

--- On Mon, 5/24/10, Scott Hall  wrote:

> From: Scott Hall 
> Subject: [LegacyUG] Sourcing question
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyUsers.com
> Date: Monday, May 24, 2010, 1:35 PM
> Hey Sourcing experts ... I'm
> stumped.
>
> How do I cite this source?
>
> The City of Rochester, NY owns two cemeteries, Mount Hope
> Cemetery and
> Riverside Cemeteries.  The cemetery records for each
> cemetery, from
> their opening through 2002 have been scanned and are
> available online
> at a site hosted by the Department of Rare Books &
> Special Collections
> of the River Campus Libraries of the University of
> Rochester.
>
> To comply with the rules, I won't post the link, but you
> can find it
> by simply Googling "Mount Hope Cemetery Records".  To
> comply with the
> source of a source rules and the guidelines set out by
> Elizabeth Shown
> Mills, how would you properly cite this in Legacy with
> SourceWriter?
> I can't really find a good example in Mills' book, nor can
> I find a
> good template to use.  Could someone put together a
> citation for me?
>
> Many thanks!
>
>
> Scott
>
>
>
> Legacy User Group guidelines:
>
>    http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
>
> Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:
>
>    http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/
>
> Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21
> 2009:
>
>    http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/
>
> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
>
> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
>
>
>
>



Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp

[LegacyUG] Sourcing question

[Scott Hall]

Hey Sourcing experts ... I'm stumped.

How do I cite this source?

The City of Rochester, NY owns two cemeteries, Mount Hope Cemetery and
Riverside Cemeteries.  The cemetery records for each cemetery, from
their opening through 2002 have been scanned and are available online
at a site hosted by the Department of Rare Books & Special Collections
of the River Campus Libraries of the University of Rochester.

To comply with the rules, I won't post the link, but you can find it
by simply Googling "Mount Hope Cemetery Records".  To comply with the
source of a source rules and the guidelines set out by Elizabeth Shown
Mills, how would you properly cite this in Legacy with SourceWriter?
I can't really find a good example in Mills' book, nor can I find a
good template to use.  Could someone put together a citation for me?

Many thanks!


Scott



Legacy User Group guidelines:

   http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp

Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyusers.com/

Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009:

   http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergr...@legacyfamilytree.com/

Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp

To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp