* Use of <whole record> and Name source citations

[sbell95]

Hi all,

As a matter of course, I have always added source citations to an individiual's whole record and name. But now that I am starting to create some output from my project in the form of reports, I notice that this results in a 'messy' look because there are so many superscript numbers against an individual's name for the various sources. I see there is an option to exclude whole record source citations from such reports, but that feature is useless if I can't also exclude name source citations.

I'm wondering: (1) how do other people deal with this; (2) is it better to not record source citations against an individual's whole record and/or name; and (3) is there an option somewhere, or a custom report, that will exclude both whole record and name source citations? I admit that this is rather superficial/related to aesthetics, but I want to make sure my reports are as unambiguous as possible for any readers....

So I need to decide going forward if I want to continue with my current practice before I end up with too many to change. My ultimate goal is to produce written reports and a website based on my data, so if anyone has any experience with either in this regard, I would appreciate your advice!

(See below for an example, but some of my individuals have dozens of whole record/name source citations!)

[Gary_G]

Sarah;

Just my thoughts on the topic...

The level at which one cites would, I think, depend upon the assertion one is trying to support. If one is citing evidence that a person had a certain name, citing at the person level might be appropriate. However; if one is supporting a specific fact or event, then citing at that level seems appropriate. In short; I don't know that one can totally avoid the top-level citations you noted.

[sbell95]

Yes, I agree with your thoughts and the conceptual idea of citing a source against the fact which it supports. In a lot of cases, the source citations I'm adding to the whole record and name elements are to support that a person has a certain relationship (parental or otherwise) - perhaps I should be adding these somewhere else within FH...? Because like you say, most of the time a particular source citation is added as evidence for a fact or attribute like birth/death/marriage, occupation or census.

I suppose I'm more concerned at this point about producing useful output from my project, and if there is no ability to control which citations are shown in a report, then I may be forced to choose a workflow which is less than ideal with regards to whole record and name.

[Mark1834]

My instinct is that there is an element of tautology in citing names as well as facts. The only time I would anticipate citing against a name is Alternative Name, where the cited source explicitly links the two names together.

I can’t think of any circumstances where I would cite the top level record, but that’s just my style - other equally valid approaches are available!

[sbell95]

That's helpful - thanks, Mark.

I have just tested the report options in this regard and discovered something...

If "List 'Whole Record' Source Citations against Individual's Name" is not checked, and I have an individual with <whole record> but not Name source citations, no source citations are printed. In the reverse case, option still unchecked, if I have source citations only against Name but not <whole record>, the citations do print. It seems the wording of the option is a little confusing - it is indeed talking about source citations on the <whole record>, but having the words "against individual's Name" (meaning in superscript in the report, I presume?) suggests the report might be doing something with the source citations for a Name...

So I suppose going forward, if I only apply my top-level source citations to the <whole record> element and not Name, I will have the flexibility of turning the source citations on and off in reports, etc - is that right?

[ColeValleyGirl]

My instinct is that there is an element of tautology in citing names as well as facts. The only time I would anticipate citing against a name is Alternative Name, where the cited source explicitly links the two names together.

I can’t think of any circumstances where I would cite the top level record, but that’s just my style - other equally valid approaches are available!

As you say, there are many different approaches.

I always cite the top level record, as soon as I identify that the person exists in my tree (even if they don't have a name yet). For example, I would cite the birth certificate of an illegitimate child against their (unnamed) father, or the 1911 census against the (until then unknown) children that can be inferred from the 'children born to this marriage' data. I also cite it against people who do have names, because I'm asserting that 'this person in my tree' is the same as 'this person in this record'.

I also always cite against names -- I may not have any facts for a person and only 'know' their name. My elusive great-grandmother's father is allegedly James Harper. I've not tracked down her birth circa 1865, not anything else about him, but I got his name from her marriage certificate, so that marriage certificate is cited for his name as well as for his whole record. (His existence and his name are separate assertions, so need separate citations).

[Mark1834]

Yes, neither approach is right or wrong. I would maintain that name and fact are not in general independent variables, and you have already linked them with a fact citation. But my style is based on "does this citation add value?" and "do I have the necessary and sufficient citations to allow me and others to recreate my logic?" rather than adherence to the current version of any particular published style guide.

You pays your money and takes your choice!

[ColeValleyGirl]

Yes, neither approach is right or wrong. I would maintain that name and fact are not in general independent variables, and you have already linked them with a fact citation.

I tend to cite for 'existence' and 'name' before I enter any facts -- or indeed, if I have no facts for that individual. And I don't remove citations once I've created them (except for a case of mistaken identity)

But my style is based on "does this citation add value?" and "do I have the necessary and sufficient citations to allow me and others to recreate my logic?" rather than adherence to the current version of any particular published style guide.

Ditto, re the value added/necessary and sufficient, even if we make different judgements about what satisfies those conditions.

I will say, I've never come across a style guide that tells you when to cite, only how to cite. Even EE is vague on the 'when'.

[tatewise]

Considering: List 'Whole Record' Source Citations against Individual's Name.
Help says:

With Individual records, you can specify sources not just for items of data such as events and attributes, but also for the record as a whole. Check this option if you want 'Whole Record' source citations for an Individual to be listed against the Individual's name. If not shown against the name, 'Whole Record' source citations are not shown at all. This option has no effect on reports which are not about Individuals.

In a Report, most Source Citations can pin a superscript to their associated Name or Fact.
But there is nowhere obvious to pin a <whole record> Source Citation superscript.
So the option is provided to allow those superscripts to be pinned to the Name and listed under Sources.

There are several other Source Citations that do not have pinned superscripts in Reports.
See Wish List Ref 432 Source Citations for all items included in Reports.

[LornaCraig]

So I suppose going forward, if I only apply my top-level source citations to the <whole record> element and not Name, I will have the flexibility of turning the source citations on and off in reports, etc - is that right?

Yes that's right. You can choose to omit the <whole record> citations but you can't choose to omit the Name citations.

[AdrianBruce]

I cite the first source I find for someone's existence against the whole record but generally that's the only time I cite a source against that whole record.

I've always felt that there's an element of chicken and egg with too many citations against names. Suppose that you know someone is called John Doe and you find another record for this John Doe. What is the point of citing the new record against John Doe's name? Of course the new record supports John Doe's name - it does that because you used "John Doe" as part of your search criteria. To cite the new source against John Doe's name is both pointless and circular logic.

I'll cite the first source I find for someone's name against the name but generally that's the only time I cite a source against the name. Except... Despite what I said, I find myself increasingly citing the new sources that I find for relationships against the names. Otherwise, how do I identify the sources that show X to be the child of Y (for instance)? There are other methods to cite sources against relationships but to be honest, citing against the name seems easiest.

I kind of respectfully disagree with Helen's...

I would cite the birth certificate of an illegitimate child against their (unnamed) father

It seems to my pedantic mind that it's a statement of the bl**** obvious that the illegitimate child has a father, so why cite the BC if it adds nothing to that basic biological statement? On the other hand, if you have any clue about who the father is, that clue needs to be cited. Indeed the statement that "This person is unknown but is the father of XYZ" probably ought to be cited, not least to identify where any evidence about said putative father might be found.

[ColeValleyGirl]

It seems to my pedantic mind that it's a statement of the bl**** obvious that the illegitimate child has a father, so why cite the BC if it adds nothing to that basic biological statement?

It adds the information to the father's record that his identity is unknown, and that he had an illegitimate child. (Yes, I know, his name not being competed might be a clue that you don't know who he is).

When working to identify him, I find it helpful to be able to review all the sources with information about him (even negative information) from his individual record. The birth certificate gives a possible location clue (perhaps 9 months before the birth), for example, and feeds into a FAN club analysis.

[Gary_G]

Sarah;

I tend to only attach a citation when it directly supports a fact/event. Initially, I just treat the remainder as "clues". I still keep the remaining material in my notes, though. There might not be direct evidence and I may need to draw on them to write a proof argument. I then would cite that filed proof argument against the fact it supports. This practice keeps me from having to periodically do a mass cleanup, which is a task I detest.

Perhaps this is also why I'm hesitant to use "source-driven data-entry".
- I can see that practicing it can easily lead to a dearth of citations and is likely to generate several citations to the same fact/event. Some of those may have little evidentiary value.
- I've never seen anyone fully address how to review the mess that could result and, despite this possibility, that data-driven data-entry still results in a net savings in time.
- Failure to clean up ones references results in an extensive list and this does not necessarily prove that ones research is valid. I believe that E. Shown-Mills has often made the point that volume does not trump quality when it comes to references.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Perhaps this is also why I'm hesitant to use "source-driven data-entry".
- I can see that practicing it can easily lead to a dearth of citations and is likely to generate several citations to the same fact/event. Some of those may have little evidentiary value.
- I've never seen anyone fully address how to review the mess that could result and, despite this possibility, that data-driven data-entry still results in a net savings in time.

Don't we want multiple citations for the same assertion? If we only have a single source for an assertion, then that weakens the case that it's correct. I'll even cite conflicting sources (with a note to explain how I've resolved the conflict) rather than not cite a source that contains information (confirmatory or not) about a 'fact'. Plus, it makes it easier to go back and review a conclusion if if it's thrown into uncertainty by new information.

[Jean001]

Don't we want multiple citations for the same assertion? If we only have a single source for an assertion, then that weakens the case that it's correct. I'll even cite conflicting sources (with a note to explain how I've resolved the conflict) rather than not cite a source that contains information (confirmatory or not) about a 'fact'. Plus, it makes it easier to go back and review a conclusion if if it's thrown into uncertainty by new information.

I agree, this is how I work. The more 'pieces of evidence' the better.

[Gary_G]

Helen;

I'm rewriting my response, because the site is not consistently posting my answers.

As noted; I want to review all the evidence, but don't believe that complex evidentiary discussions should be presented in the narrative report. It can easily created a "can't see the forest for the trees" scenario and leave a reader confused and without a clear picture of what one was trying to say. This view is in line with the genealogical proof standards, which includes "proof arguments" as a vehicle for fully presenting discussing and resolving more complex issues in ones research.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen;

I'm rewriting my response, because the site is not consistently posting my answers.

As noted; I want to review all the evidence, but don't believe that complex evidentiary discussions should be presented in the narrative report. It can easily created a "can't see the forest for the trees" scenario and leave a reader confused and without a clear picture of what one was trying to say. This view is in line with the genealogical proof standards, which includes "proof arguments" as a vehicle for fully presenting discussing and resolving more complex issues in ones research.

Ah. I don't use narrative reports -- if I want to write somebody's life story, I'll write it as a blog entry. If I want to write a proof statement, I'll write it in Word (and save it as a PDF to to attach to the relevant person or assertion. The closest I come to publishing a report looks like this, and as it is intended to enable others to use my research, I include everything warts and all.

[AdrianBruce]

... It adds the information to the father's record that his identity is unknown, and that he had an illegitimate child. ...

Yes, I think I was starting to incline towards that being a logical approach.

...
... The birth certificate gives a possible location clue (perhaps 9 months before the birth), for example, and feeds into a FAN club analysis.

True... I've done that sort of analysis (albeit without the term) - though I write it out in a separate text and end up having to go back to the clues on the other parties to pick up any citations.

[Mark1834]

I base my structure on a consideration of the overall body of evidence for an individual, rather than each discrete fact being self-contained.

For example, I may record somebody as being born in say Eltisley, Cambridgeshire in about 1820, but without a single citation for that specific fact, if that is where they and all their siblings were baptised, and it's consistent with census entries and stated age at death or burial (all of which are fully sourced, as they are supported directly by the source). I prefer no specific citation, as none of the sources specially refer to that fact. Others may prefer to list many consistent sources, even if the evidential value of each single one for the birth fact is relatively weak. Others may prefer to omit completely facts without a specific citation.

[Mark1834]

Agree with Helen. I never use any family history software to write the story. For me, FH is the data source that underpins what I send around the family - narrative summaries kept up to date as significant new facts emerge. I include original images in the same way a book would do - they illustrate the story I am telling, not as formal citations. The most I would expect FH to do is generate simple reports and charts for those interested in the details.

After all, it's family interest stories, not an academic paper or thesis.

[Gary_G]

Helen;

Ah. I don't use narrative reports -- if I want to write somebody's life story, I'll write it as a blog entry. If I want to write a proof statement, I'll write it in Word (and save it as a PDF to to attach to the relevant person or assertion. The closest I come to publishing a report looks like this, and as it is intended to enable others to use my research, I include everything warts and all.

In such discussions there is something we all forget to mention (and that includes me); that is context. If one is using a genealogy program just for the purpose of recording data, then the issue of what one records and even (with regard to the original poster's question) where one attaches citations is largely irrelevant. If, however one is using the program to automatically produce a draft copy of a report, then what is entered is obviously relevant. That is not to say that either usage is correct, but only that one needs to know the usage context. For myself; I tend to leverage all the features of the software I use and so tend to be very strict in what I enter that might appear in the finished draft report.

---- Just a late add ---

One thing I wish FH did is to include hyperlinks between footnotes tags and footnotes themselves. I usually post-process my draft reports in Scrivener and that program can extract and maintain the hyperlinked citations, making revising the final work much less of a task.

[Gary_G]

Mark;

After all, it's family interest stories, not an academic paper or thesis.

We all use Family Historian for different purposes. Some of us may take a more academic approach than others.
In the end; neither approach precludes including interesting details.

[Mark1834]

Agree - but the point I was making is that while I may be interested in the fine details, others won't be, so what I give other people is a narrative story, not a thesis.

Other users will have different expectations and motives.

[BillH]

Don't we want multiple citations for the same assertion? If we only have a single source for an assertion, then that weakens the case that it's correct. I'll even cite conflicting sources (with a note to explain how I've resolved the conflict) rather than not cite a source that contains information (confirmatory or not) about a 'fact'. Plus, it makes it easier to go back and review a conclusion if if it's thrown into uncertainty by new information.

I agree, this is how I work. The more 'pieces of evidence' the better.

This is how I do it as well. I cite all sources for the name even if it is the same name. I do this for the primary name as well as all alternate names. I never add whole record citations. I don't mind having lots of superscripts next to the name in reports.

Bill

[Gary_G]

Helen and Bill;

Don't we want multiple citations for the same assertion? If we only have a single source for an assertion, then that weakens the case that it's correct. I'll even cite conflicting sources (with a note to explain how I've resolved the conflict) rather than not cite a source that contains information (confirmatory or not) about a 'fact'. Plus, it makes it easier to go back and review a conclusion if if it's thrown into uncertainty by new information.

I never said that I only have a single source for a fact or event. I said that I tend to cite sources that provide direct evidence of the fact/source. One can have two first-hand accounts of an event. Ones that are indirect, by definition, require additional sources to support the fact/event. When the support is not implicit, one needs some sort of analysis to make the case. It is for those cases that I "take it offline" and do a proof argument or similar and then reference that in my database.