Recent comments

 
 
 
  • Reply to: Citing Documents attached to FamilySearch's Family Tree   1 week 22 hours ago

    Raymond, thank you for explaining these two valuable record sets at FamilySearch—and for helping EE users work through the essential identification elements.

  • Reply to: Citing Documents attached to FamilySearch's Family Tree   1 week 22 hours ago

    Sarah, you've done a superb job of thinking through the issues. I'd make one "correction" in your accompanying comment. You say "I know it is very long." Actually, if we make the distinction between citation and analysis, the citation itself is 52 words:

    Handwritten will of Peter Greenlee, 1798, Anderson County, South Carolina, Estate Packet 235, contributed 26 January 2015 by Jim Ison; "Memories," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/12971130 : accessed 4 December 2017); attached to Peter Greenlee (c. 1740-by 1802), Family Tree ID 2CYM-HJ6, "Family Tree," database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/2CYM-HJ6 : accessed 4 December 2017).

    That isn't all that long—considering that you are identifying three different things: the will, the database where the image can be found, and the database for the tree in which we can find a profile of the person.

    The rest of your citation (93 words) is analysis. Critical analysis.

  • Reply to: Citing Documents attached to FamilySearch's Family Tree   1 week 1 day ago

    Dear Sarah, 

    While I have nothing more to add that you don't already know, I'm on a roll, so let me mention a couple of thoughts concerning the Family Tree layer.

    1. Your arrangement of elements in the Family Tree layer makes sense to me, since the Memory attaches to the person record rather than the Family Tree database in general. Were it not for this linkage, I could cite a person in Family Tree like this:

    2. In your situation, I view the Family Tree layer as extraneous. It is not necessary for evaluating the quality of the cited source. It is not necessary for locating it. I would leave it out. Instead, I would add a 2nd access method to the Memories database layer.

    --- Robert

  • Reply to: Citing Documents attached to FamilySearch's Family Tree   1 week 1 day ago

    Since Memories and Family Tree are two separate databases,  I guess it would need to look something like this:

    Handwritten will of Peter Greenlee, 1798, Anderson County, South Carolina, Estate Packet 235, contributed 26 January 2015 by Jim Ison; "Memories," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/12971130 : accessed 4 December 2017); attached to Peter Greenlee (c. 1740-by 1802), Family Tree ID 2CYM-HJ6, "Family Tree," database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/2CYM-HJ6 : accessed 4 December 2017). The document does not include any information about where and when the contributor acquired it. The estate packets for Anderson County and its predecessor Pendleton District are located at the South Carolina Department of Archives and History (SCDAH) in Columbia, SC, and have been microfilmed by both SCDAH (1790-1878) and the Genealogical Society of Utah (1879-1915). The text of this will does match the recorded copy in Anderson County Will Book A: 17, Peter Greenlee will dated 28 June 1798, proved 3 September 1802; digital images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939L-FX96-1D?cc=1919417&wc=M6NW-5Z9%3A210903301%2C211077401 : accessed 2 Dec 2017).

    I know it is very long, but I thought it was important to include the correlation between the imaged will and the recorded will. I was making a point in the text about the differing handwriting in the body and signature of the loose will (which was the only reason I was using it at all).

    Thanks for helping with this. I always seem to hit the head-scratchers, and then I spend way too much time obsessing over them. I just really hate it when I look at a citation and I can't figure out where to find it myself. Although that's better than reading an article or thesis and finding some tidbit that would help my research and the author DIDN'T cite the source.

    Sarah Nesnow

  • Reply to: Citing Documents attached to FamilySearch's Family Tree   1 week 1 day ago

    Sarah, Here are additional thoughts concerning the Memories database. Elizabeth has taught that citations are like layers. (See https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-19-layered-citations-work-layered-clothing.) As given, your citation to the handwritten will could be broken into three layers.

    1. The original will:
      Handwritten will of Peter Greenlee, 1798, Anderson County, South Carolina, Estate Packet 235,
    2. An image in the FamilySearch Memories database:
      contributed 26 January 2015 by Jim Ison (https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/12971130 : accessed 4 December 2017);
    3. A person in the FamilySearch Family Tree database:
      attached to Peter Greenlee (c. 1740-by 1802), Family Tree ID 2CYM-HJ6, "Family Tree," database and images, FamilySearch.

    One approach to the Memories layer would emphasize the database, providing two access methods: URL and information that could be used with the database Find:

    Another approach (although I don't think I've ever seen Elizabeth do this) would be to cite the image as the lead element of the citation, emphasizing the role of the contributor in creating this artifact. That's a key in evaluating the strength of this evidence. You obviously recognize the issue, since you point out the correspondence of the text in the will book. 

    • Jim Ison, "Handwritten Will of Peter Greenlee, 1798," scanned image, 26 January 2015, FamilySearch [Memories] (https://www.familysearch.org/photos : accessed 4 December 2017), no source cited;

    Since many people don't recognize that Memories is a separately searchable database, I've provided the URL to the database page. This access method does not require another researcher to have a FamilySearch account or to sign in. But it provides only one access method. There's probably some hybrid that would work, giving two access methods while still emphasizing the contributor. Perhaps

    Citation really is an art and you have choices.