Forums
I could not find reference to this question in EE ....
Is it acceptable/accurate to cite a source, a census for example, without reference to an individual, then citing that source to more than one individual:
Source:
1900 U.S. census, Allen County, Kansas, population schedule, Moran City, digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 19 February 2105), citing National Archives microfilm publication T623, roll 469
Citations:
1. Winfield Samuel household, Enumeration District 0012, p. 1B (stamped), family no. 22, line 84.
2. Eva G. Samuel, Enumeration District 0012, p. 1B (stampled), family no. 22, line 85.
3. Beula Samuel, daughter in parents household (Winfield Samuel), Enumeration District 0012, p. 1B (stamped), family no. 22, line 86
and so on....
other examples would be Findagrave, WWI Registration cards (same locale), Military pension records that cite several people, etc.
Thanks
blsamuel, sources are not
blsamuel, sources are not tied to individuals. They are attached to "facts" or assertions. The first time we make an assesrtion that came from a source, we cite that source in full, down to the specific page/entry/whatever that supports the assertion to which it is attached.
Thereafter, in that same piece of writing (which would include an individual's narrative within our database), we can use a short form of the census. However, three points should be kept in mind:
EE's Chapter 6 "Censuses," demonstrates how to handle the creation of short forms for a variety of censuses.
EE-thank you for the
EE-thank you for the clarification. I will alter accordingly!
I very much appreciate this website - great assistance for genealogy researchers striving to "do it right!"
Bonnie
Glad to help, Bonnie. I've
Glad to help, Bonnie. I've battled my own frustrations—for decades!—with sources and their analysis. Just when we get comfortable with using one type of record that was created a certain way, we find ourselves snared by others!