Forums
Don't we all just love Ancestry.com and using their stuff in our research? I have found a family tree there that I am referring to in a client report. Trouble is, no matter many times I hint that I would like the submitter's name, it is not given. Sooo... I have the following citation that I constructed using the template for Documented family tree data in the "Citing Ancestry.com Databases and Images" Quicksheet:
“Public Member Trees,” database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 29 July 2014), “Jones Family Tree,” entry for Richard Robinson (b. May 1816); submitted [date unknown] by dxjones36 [identity not known], citing “1870 United States Census,” with link to database entry and image.
You'll also note that there was no indication of the submission date for this tree. Is this a sufficient citation? It seems to be to me, but I would like an expert opinion, and where better to get one? :-)
In the same vein, I have had an ongoing conversation with the submitter over the past couple of weeks via the messaging module on Ancestry, discussing differences in our interpretation of evidence. How would I characterize that series of messages? I'm thinking it would be along the lines of privately held artifact/email/correspondence. But given the lack of a specific name and address (not even an email address), how would I go about constructing a proper citation?
As always, thanks for any guidance...
Greg,
Greg,
If the evidence consists of just the 1870 U.S. census, why do you need to cite someone's tree? You obviously adhere to the principle that assertions must be documented—and so, you have noted that the tree has an image attached.
"Reading between the lines" (as the old cliché goes), it seems to me that:
If these two speculations are correct, then it would seem that your issue is not just "how to cite a tree" (which you've done nicely) but how to present and document a proof argument, perhaps for identity or parentage. If so, then the narrative of your client report would discuss the competing interpretations and then, for each assertion by the other person, you would cite the individual message(s) in which that assertion appears. For a message citation, yes, you could adapt a standard e-mail citation.
Is there another issue I'm not seeing here?
Thanks, EE, for the input :-
Thanks, EE, for the input :-)
The issue is one of conflicting conclusions. I disagree with the submitter’s linking of a certain individual as the son of another certain individual. The examination of this tree actually led to a document that supports my assertion that the son is actually a different person not included in the tree. I want to include this possibility in the confilicting evidence section of the client report with a citation to the specific entry in the tree.
The submitter’s link to the father rests on the 1870 census entry AND a Freedman’s Bank record. Of course, the two possible sons have the same first name and different middle initials, and the bank record does not include a middle initial. According to city directories, they all lived within a few doors of each other on the west side of the peninsula in Charleston, SC after the Civil War. So I have constructed my proof argument, which rests on multiple census records and the bank record. The 1900 census and the bank record agree on the month of the birth for my candidate for the son but differ by a year. Other census records for my candidate are consistent with either the 1900 year or the bank record year, while the records of the submitter's candidate are not consistent in the year. This is the basis of my argument.
So if I read your advice correctly, I should forego the citation to the tree entirely, and just concentrate on the exchange of messages, citing each message separately as needed according to an email template adapted accordingly. Am I correct? If so, how can I do that when the submitter is known only by her submitter handle on Ancestry?
Greg,
Greg,
To cite (or not) a source with conflicting assertions is a judgment call. Certainly, when another researcher has presented a serious argument for an identity or relationship, and we feel the argument has flaws, then our own proof argument should include a pro and con discussion of the opposing view. We would lose credibility if we ignored a credible, contrary argument. However, most serious arguments for identity or relationship are made in some venue other than an online "tree."
The major problem with citing online "trees" is that the effort to acknowledging differing assertions could result in endless citations to things that do not earn serious consideration. Typically with "trees," there could be many different citations to the same contrary assertion because so many compilers of these "trees" just copy each other without a thoughtful analysis of the evidence. In such cases, when preparing a research report for a client, one approach would be to acknowledge the contrary assertion, say that it is made by numerous "trees," cite one as an example—and then lay out the evidence why we feel the assertion lacks credibility.
A middle ground in cases where we feel a tree's compiler is a serious researcher would be for your proof argument to (a) acknowledge the "tree" that states a counter view, with a proper citation to it, (b) point out that it attaches a document relating to someone of the same name but that "name's the same" doesn't mean the person is, (c) note that you have discussed the issue with the compiler of the "tree" who also offers thus-and-such reasoning, while you feel his additional argument is not valid because of XYZ, and (d) support each private statement that he made to you with a citation to the specific message in which it is made.
To return to your initial query, you well understand the technicalities of how-to-cite. The tougher issue, of course, is how much credibility to assign—and how much effort to invest—in a "tree" stitched together out of documents for same-name people.
EE,
EE,
Thanks for the guidance. That's the strategy I was leaning toward after your first response. I'll take it to heart and go ahead with my report. I appreciate the help.