* Civil Partnership

For existing requests please see The Wish List
User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1759
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 24 Apr 2017 12:32

Good points, Adrian, and in particular I agree re problematic stickiness in anything except relatively straightforward cases.

I do wonder how many users understand that 'Status' is supposed to be the last recorded status for the relationship, if we follow FH's documentation. (And does that matter if their personal use of Status meets their needs?)

I think that if I had a couple who contracted a Civil Union and then Separated (or is Divorced the right terminology here if the separation is given legal effect -- I'd need to check) I'd be torn between updating the Status (so I could record the Source Citation for the separation before I had detailed data for a termination event, but only if I'd been able to record a definitive Civil Union event) or leaving the Status as Civil Union supplemented by a note and recording the Termination event and updating the Status once I had enough info...

It would be lovely to be able to put a date range on a relationship status or to add an accompanying note. But there's only so far you can stretch Gedcom compliancy...

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 18930
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by tatewise » 24 Apr 2017 12:39

If Calico Pie were to implement it, there is nothing in Gedcom compliancy to stop it adding a Date to Status and allowing multiple instances of Status, and what about adding a Place & Address and oh yes a Note ;)

I reiterate, you cannot add a Source Citation to the Status field, so you don't have that dilemma.

But that is my point about semantics. Status is a legacy mistake and should be deprecated not extended.
Just use Events & Attributes that allow all those fields and Source Citations, and are recognised by most other products.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1759
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 24 Apr 2017 14:33

Whether details are known or not, creating a Civil Partnership Event is all that is needed, and the Status is unnecessary. It is not clear to me why both are required.
Mike, you're assuming everyone works the same way as you. Both Status and an Event are not required but Status is the minumum (not an Event). I (and other researchers) won't create an event without at least a useful modicum of information: a realistic and useful timeframe, plus the ability to source our assertion. We all need to be wary of assuming that others work the same way as us (which is why I hope I'm advocating for new users and a simple user inferface for routine situations).

Consider an obituary written by a daughter as the only source for the existence of a civil partnership:
Freda Winter was survived by her civil partner June Summer
If I analyse the source, and am comfortable that the person writing it was conversant with the (reported) facts (until proven otherwise, which is always a possibility, for example in this case if their surviving parent massaged the truth) that's enough for me to update a relationship status (provisonally) to 'Civil Union'. But it tells me nothing about the event: when, where, even if it really happened (haven't we all see individuals on a census record as married when there's no supporting marriage record?) I could I suppose create a Civil Partnership event that spans from the relevant age of majority to death but (forgive me) that's nonsense as well as not being helpful; there's no value in it that the Status doesn't provide in conjunction with the family relationship and other relevant events (prior marriages/divorces/separations for example).

I'd hope to supplement the obituary with details of any legal ceremony if I could track them down, but that might not happen. So how should I record the possible Civil Union status in those circumstances. (I note Mike's suggestion that I should create a Civil Parnership Event. His working methods are different from mine; reference to a relationship is not a source for a ceremony, and I won't enter an asserion into my database until I have a source for the item entered that I'm comfortable stands up to scrutiny to support the assertoon.)
If there is a genuine need for a Status value of Civil Partnership, then why not also a Status value for Engagement, Marriage, Annulment, etc, etc, for all the same reasons?
We have events that can track the trajectory through those statuses towards a legal Marriage status, if we have evidence those steps were involved -- if they never result in a legal marriage, the initial and final staus is Unmarried Couple and the events reflect the trajectory; if there's no citable evidence to support the events on the trajectory, I'd use Notes. Annulment perhaps may be (?) be a separate termination event, as could Voided and Voidable (or should they be handled by variations in the relevant termination event status, which might necessitate a catch-all 'end of relationship' event). ( I have a recent bigamous marriage by my grandfather -- I've recorded the final status as Unmarried Couple, even though there's a (void ) Marriage event; I've added a note to the relevant marriage to say it was bigamous and thus void -- is anything else useful in this scenario?)

Most importantly, the possible need for more statuses (if a good case is made) is a red herring: it doesn't negate the need for the Civil Union status.
I don't believe it is possible to associate a Source Citation with the Status value, but only with the whole Family Record.
I seem to have managed it.. but you may know better once you experiment; aways willing to be corrected. I can achieve a source citation for status that isn't reflected in the marriage fact; it might be associated with the whole Family, but so is Status.
If the couple are later Separated or Divorced and recorded in the Status, then the Civil Partnership value is lost.
My fundamental concern is with the semantics of this Status approach to recording what are actually Events.
Status = Divorced is NOT an Event but a Diagram line control.
As I said: you can't rely on the last status to condition all events accurately. The Civil Partnership staus will be lost in the circumstances you describe -- unless the Civil Partnership event exists as a record of prior status, or a suitable comment is added to the relationship (which a careful researcher will add if there is no event). Events are mostly preferable to statuses, but not everyone (as noted above) will create an event if insufficent evidence exist for it to be useful/accurate. (In an ideal world, we'd have multiple statuses with timeframes supported by source citations and notes, but that's unrealistic to expect from where we are; we all have to compromse).
The Descriptor (TYPE) tag does apply to all standard Events and Attributes and a Wish List request would apply generically to add Descriptor as a Facts tab field with {descriptor} as a Template Code and Report Options. For some particular cases such as Marriage Events the default Templates, Report Options and Text Schemes would support such Descriptor values, and drop-list values provided for such as Civil Partnership. (This is used elsewhere to offer drop-list values, but any value can be entered by hand.)
Good re generic support for Descriptor, but I'l be interested to see which particular cases you propose to support.

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1759
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 24 Apr 2017 15:30

Status is a legacy mistake and should be deprecated not extended.
Just use Events & Attributes that allow all those fields and Source Citations, and are recognised by most other products.
A pity that doesn't support good practice (as I understand it). How would you record a relationship for which you don't have an event except by creating a unsourced event?
I reiterate, you cannot add a Source Citation to the Status field, so you don't have that dilemma.
What am I doing wrong here?

Create a new couple from scratch with no events.

Starting with no source associated with a Status value:

Update the relationship Status (I used Unmarried Couple) and add a citation to that value.

Navigate eleswhere and back to one of the members of the couple, and check Citation for the Status. The source you chose apprears.

So... perhaps it's a source on the Marriage Event reflected onto the Status, rather than a source on the Status. But there is no Marriage event, and clicking on the Marriage field in the main tab does not show any sources.

Doesn't mean it's not a source atttributed to the family record. I could live with that -- it's better than not sourcing something at all.

If I go the Family Record on all the All tab, and Click on the relevant Spouse family, I don't see the Source against the family record. I don't see it at all unless and until I select the Status field, although the Source is shown as subordinate to the Spouse family.

Looks like adding a Source Citation to the Status field to me....

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1759
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 24 Apr 2017 15:32

Mike, as an addendum, I don't think we're going to agree on this, so I'll raise a wish list request for the Civil Union/Event option in the next couple of days, and I suggest you raise on for the Descriptor capability.

However, I suspect both are esoteric enough not to get a lot of votes.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 18930
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by tatewise » 24 Apr 2017 15:59

Helen, I honestly am not assuming everyone works my way, but trying to get my head round your proposal, and its wider connotations beyond just Civil Partnership. I also love a good discussion.

Using the same strategy, I am mystified how you would record an obituary such as :-
"Fred Summer was survived by his wife June Summer. The same minister conducted the burial as their marriage."
or any other ceremony for which no details exist other than you are comfortable it did actually happen.

I just fail to see how entering a Status, that cannot directly have a Source Citation, is better than entering an Event/Attribute (with no details except perhaps a Note on its provisional nature), that can have a Source Citation, and avoids all the 'problematic stickiness' agreed with Adrian.

The direct corollary would be a Status for Individual records for similar uncorroborated facts.

I am simply trying to explore the extent of the Wish List proposal, and to what degree the Status values need extending.

Is the concept of a Status value of Civil Partnership customising the Marriage Event still on the cards for the Wish List or has that been discarded in favour of a Civil Partner Event in the Extended Set?

BTW: I have started a Knowledge Base > Recording a Marriage/Civil Partnership page.

Regarding the Source Citation for the Status it is definitely on the <whole record> for the Family record.
In the Family record Property Box on the All tab, the Source item is at same level as Status item.
If you click on either the record name on first line or the Status item, the Sources For pane says <whole record>.
How would you record a relationship for which you don't have an event except by creating a unsourced event?
I can't see how that situation arises. If it is unsourced then how do I know the relationship. There must be some source that identifies the relationship. Anyway, I would either create an Event with no details except a Note and whatever Source was available, or create a record level Note that could have a direct Source. It is just the same as I would create an Individual fact in similar circumstances, because there is no Status field for Individual records.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1759
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 24 Apr 2017 17:36

Mike,

I'm glad we're not at odds, and agree that good discussions are great -- I've already learned a lot in this one and hope to go on doing so.
Using the same strategy, I am mystified how you would record an obituary such as :-
"Fred Summer was survived by his wife June Summer. The same minister conducted the burial as their marriage."
or any other ceremony for which no details exist other than you are comfortable it did actually happen.
I'd create a source for the obituary (with text from the source, or a media image if it existed). I'd cite that source for the Status of a Marriage (default) relationship (more on citing the source later) either as the first piece or an additional piece of evidence. I'm not a fan of Assessments on a source -- I'd rather follow the Evidence Analysis Process Map (as per https://www.evidenceexplained.com/conte ... rocess-map) -- but if I had to choose one in the absence of the ability to add a note to the Status, I'd choose Questionable until and unless I could corroborate the evidence from the obituary for the marriage having taken place with evidence from other sources -- a marriage record, a newspaper report on the wedding, etc. to convince me (as far as possible) that the marriage really did happen (rather than being simply 'reported' to keep family and neighbours or the census enumerator happy, so to speak.) I wouldn't create a marriage event until I could identify a timeframe (better than birth to death :) ) by calculation, estimation or exact specification (I could live without place in those cirumstances).

Of course the same obituary would also be a source for death and burial/cremation/whatever; and an obituary date gives better clues about the date of death/burial (even if it isn't explicit) than it does about any marriage ceremony (unless it says something like "Fred was survived by his wife of 44 years, Mary.") So much depends on what the source actually says... if the obituary doesn't help determine when the individual died (undated newspaper clipping that refers to a funeral 'last Wednesday') and I don't have any other evidence, I wouldn't enter a death event -- it doesn't add a whole lot of value to record that somebody is 'deceased' without extra information or evidence, even if you know they're most probably deceased because of time elapsed; and it wouldn't help me to conform with with my own Privacy Policy:
"I do not publish the names or any other details of living individuals on this site, except to show their places (without names) in the family tree; this includes individuals born within the last 100 years whom I do not know to be dead. In addition, I do not publish any details of individuals born from 1930 onwards, including myself."
A custom Obituary event might be the way to go, but I'd need to think about that some more (and would rather try tracking down corroboration of death/disposal first).
I just fail to see how entering a Status, that cannot directly have a Source Citation, is better than entering an Event/Attribute (with no details except perhaps a Note on its provisional nature), that can have a Source Citation, and avoids all the 'problematic stickiness' agreed with Adrian.
See later (again) on citations on statuses.

I prefer not to enter an event until I have a reasonable degree of confidence that it did happen. Creating a Marriage event without confirming that the marriage occurred doesn't seem right.... and if you've searched for a marriage event without success and concluded that there was no such event, how do you record that except as a status ("Unmarried Couple") with a source, which would probably be your own notes about the unsuccessful search, unless you were lucky enough to be able to quote a scholarly article explaining why the marriage is a historical figment. Not that any of my ancestors are important enough to warrant a scholarly article, although I do know of a published article which supports the argument that my great-great-grandmother was named incorrectly in the Parish Register at her marriage, so she really isn't Eleanor Hassall but some unknown other Eleanor.
The direct corollary would be a Status for Individual records for similar uncorroborated facts
Not sure I follow you here. I only document an individual attribute or event (or indeed a family attribute or event) if the evidence from sources support it, for example multiple sources corroborate the fact or there's a single 'strong' source to support it; and I've done a reasonably exhaustive search to eliminate other possibilties; and I've considered conflicting evidence and can explain why I've 'disregarded' that conflicting evidence. (As an aside, a custom attrtibute for a family might do the same job as Status, but would have all the same drawbacks in terms of customisations as other approaches that don't use the Status fields).
Regarding the Source Citation for the Status it is definitely on the <whole record> for the Family record. In the Family record Property Box on the All tab, the Source item is at same level as Status item. If you click on either the record name on first line or the Status item, the Sources For pane says <whole record>.
I see something diffeent... If I click on the record name, I see Sources for Whole record and the source I've cited for the Status doesn't appear. If I click on the Status I see Sources for Marr. (Name 1 _ Name 2) and the source I've cited for the Status appears, even though the Source is shown subordinate to the Family records not the Status. Weird.
How would you record a relationship for which you don't have an event except by creating a unsourced event?
I can't see how that situation arises. If it is unsourced then how do I know the relationship. There must be some source that identifies the relationship. Anyway, I would either create an Event with no details except a Note and whatever Source was available, or create a record level Note that could have a direct Source. It is just the same as I would create an Individual fact in similar circumstances, because there is no Status field for Individual records.
I'm thinking of the situation when a source supports the relationship ("married") but not the marriage event -- you may believe that the Marriage probably took place, but all you can record is the relationship status until you find more information about the marriage. If you didn't use status, you would have to create a dummy Marriage event or a record level Note, as you say -- but neither of those (IMO) are satisfactory in terms of data entry, reporting or analysis.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 18930
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by tatewise » 24 Apr 2017 19:08

Helen, you dealt with the specific Marriage case but overlooked "or any other ceremony for which no details exist other than you are comfortable it did actually happen." How do you deal with all those other events such as Engagement, Annulment, Marriage Settlement, etc?

BTW: There is no Status field value for Marriage. The <default> option clears the Status field so the _STAT tag does not exist, so most definitely cannot have a Source Citation. That is similar to the Sex field value <clear sex> that removes the SEX tag completely.

Regarding the Source Citation, you are looking in the Individual record Property Box, but the Status is a Family record field. So you must look in the Family record Property Box to see the true position of the Source Citation is <whole record> on the Family record. That is what is indicated by the Marr. (husband _spouse) entry in the Individual Source For box. It refers to the Family record, whereas Marr. (spouse): Marriage refers to the Family record Marriage Event, and Marr. (spouse): Note refers to the Family record Note, so by analogy Marr. (spouse): Status would refer to the Family record Status but as I say that is not allowed.

So your method for Marriage is actually adding a Source Citation to the Family record, and there is no Status at all, which is why it appears blank and nothing is reported in the ISR.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1759
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 25 Apr 2017 08:25

Helen, you dealt with the specific Marriage case but overlooked "or any other ceremony for which no details exist other than you are comfortable it did actually happen." How do you deal with all those other events such as Engagement, Annulment, Marriage Settlement, etc?
They're a bit different from a 'relationship' Status which is often referred to in subsequent records that provide indirect evidence for the occurrence of the marriage; with the others, you're more likely to get either direct evidence or no evidence. If I don't have any evidence that they occurred, I don't record them; if I have good direct evidence, I can create an event. If I only get indirect evidence, I'll annotate the family record.
BTW: There is no Status field value for Marriage. The <default> option clears the Status field so the _STAT tag does not exist, so most definitely cannot have a Source Citation. That is similar to the Sex field value <clear sex> that removes the SEX tag completely.
Yes, I know Status is a family field.

Try this. Set a Status field to Unknown. Add a citation to that Status field. View it in (1) the Individual Property box -- as already discussed, the citation *only* appears when you click on the Status field. (2) in the Family property box. The citation is again only shown when you click on the Status field. but is shown for <whole record>* .

Now try this. On the same family record, change the Status from Unknown to <default> i.e. an empty Status field. Check the All tab; there's an empty Status field. The display of the citation associated with that status is unchanged.

Shut the project and restart it. The empty Status field vanishes, as you'd expect... but if you click on the status field in either property box, you still see the citation. (You can also get the same effect if you never change the Status field -- i.e. accept the default but add a citation.)

If you add another source citation to the whole family record (using the All tab) that citation is also visible in the Property Box but only if you click on the Status field.

So it seems that FH is treating a source for the whole family record *as if* it is a source for the Status (or using the Status as a proxy to add and display those source citations). Which makes some kind of sense to me -- every Family record has to have a Status, after all, even if it's the default; and the Status is what documents how the family was 'glued together' by the end of its existence. I also can't *think* of a situation in which I'd want to associate any other citation with a whole family record (rather than with a family fact). I might have made a different UI decision, but can live with the way this works.

Except there's always a fly in the ointment -- you can add loads of citations to the family record and display them as described... but there doesn't seem to be any way of reporting on them! Another FH gotcha.

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 18930
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by tatewise » 25 Apr 2017 09:40

Regarding the Status field Source Citation you are missing a crucial side-effect of the Sources For pane.
When you left-click on any field in the Property Box the Sources For pane only shows where a Source Citation can exist for that field if it is allowed by the Gedcom specification, otherwise FH helpfully shows where a Source Citation can exist on the nearest parent field.

So when you left-click on Status that cannot have a Source Citation (especially if blank & doesn't exist), then FH shows the nearest parent Source Citation which is on the Family <whole record>.

Try the following:
Left-click on the Sex field (even if it is blank & doesn't exist) and Sources For shows the Individual <whole record> Citation.
Left-click on any Date or Address field (even if blank) and Sources For pane shows the parent Fact Citation.
On the All tab, right-click on any of the above Status, Sex, Date or Address fields and there is NO Add Source option.
Whereas, if you right-click on the parent fields where Source Citations are allowed, then there is an Add Source option.

So it may appear as if the Source Citation is associated with the Status but it is actually associated with the Family record, which must be the case when the Status field is blank & doesn't exist, as there is no Gedcom Tag to attach the Citation to.

Regarding Source Citations in Reports there is Wish List Ref 432 Source for notes included in reports that I will update to cover all Sources.

I also raised ticket #303469 Reports Omit Some Source Citations on 25/07/2014 saying:
This problem is raised in General Usage thread Sourcing the parent-child relationship (11304) for ASSO, etc.
See also Wish List Ref 432 Source for notes included in reports .
GEDCOM 5.5 allows Source Citations to be linked to many fields, especially all Note fields.
FH supports all these, albeit sometimes via the All tab or the Records Window.
They correctly appear in the Property Box yellow Sources pane.
Almost any fields can be customised into most Reports BUT their Source Citations are omitted.
(Except of course the ones associated with Facts, etc, that are include by default.)
The reply was:
Thanks Mike. I've logged it and we'll look into it.
but heard nothing since.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1759
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 25 Apr 2017 09:51

Mike, I'm not disagreeing that the Source Citation is on the whole Family Record, just explaining why that's good enough for me as a way of documenting why the Status is recorded as it it (if I can get the citation reported.)

(And I voted for the WishList item a while back)

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 18930
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by tatewise » 25 Apr 2017 10:08

Sorry Helen, I got the impression that you thought the Citation was somehow coupled to the Status field, and I did not want any other people following this thread to get that impression.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1759
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 26 Apr 2017 13:52

A wish list item has been added for a Civil Partnership status and associated event : https://www.fhug.org.uk/wishlist/wldisp ... lwlref=558

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 18930
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by tatewise » 05 May 2017 16:53

I have added Knowledge Base > Family Historian > Beginners Guide > Recording Facts and Sources > Recording a Marriage/Civil Partnership, but have not yet created a Wish List entry for the Fact Descriptor.

I've tried to be unbiased and cover all reasonable options.
Could any interested parties review its advice and offer constructive feedback.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 18930
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Civil Partnership

Post by tatewise » 12 May 2017 11:46

I have added Wish List item Ref 559 Fact Descriptor for Civil Union, two Place Travel, Preferred Occupation, etc.

A little experimentation has revealed the following.

In the Override Template for Facts tab Listings for the Marriage Event I have used:
{=CombineText( "", %FACT.TYPE%, "", "Marriage" )}
On the Facts tab in both the Fact column at the top, and the details pane at the bottom, the Fact name either defaults to Marriage or shows the Descriptor value such as Civil Partnership.

I tried the same experiment with the Emigration Event using:
{=CombineText( "", %FACT.TYPE%, "", "Emigrated" )}
It shows the default of Emigrated or the Descriptor value in the Fact column at the top, but always shows Emigration in the details pane at the bottom. I had hoped that this may be a way of customising the Emigration/Immigration two Place events for other events such as Deportation or Journey.

It seems that Family facts such as Marriage and Divorce behave differently from Individual facts in the Facts tab. Those Family facts show the Override Template for Facts tab Listings in both positions, whereas Individual facts only use it in the top pane and just the Label in the lower pane. The same happens to Family facts in the Family Property Box.

However, the Wish List item asks for the Descriptor value to replace the usual fact Name/Label wherever it appears in Property Box, Records Window, Diagrams, Reports, etc. Then it would be easy to have a Deportation or Journey event with two Place fields by setting the Descriptor value, and still have the standard Emigration/Immigration events available.

The Wish List item also asks for the Descriptor to identify the Preferred instance of multi-instance facts such as Occupation, which has been discussed elsewhere.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

Post Reply