Citing Documents attached to FamilySearch's Family Tree

By Anonymous on Mon, 12/04/2017 - 10:38

Forums

I am hoping you all in this wonderful community can help with a quandary. How does one cite FamilySearch's Family Tree? Is there a specific name for it? It is not the IGI, Ancestral File, or Pedigree Resource File, all of which have citation examples in EE. I actually want to cite a source document attached to a person in the tree, but I need to know how to cite where I found it (since it wasn't through the expected channels).

I am working on a project involving a man named Peter Greenlee, who died before 3 September 1802 when his will was probated in Pendleton District (now Anderson County), SC. He is listed in FamilySearch's Family Tree (ID no. 2CYM-HJ6) and there are several original source records that have been uploaded to his entry ( https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/memories/2CYM-HJ6 ) by another researcher. One item was a handwritten will, which seems to have come from the estate packet for Peter (which has been microfilmed and is in the FHL library, but hasn't been digitized yet). The contributor included the cover page of the estate file and there is a citation note on it, which appears to have been included by the state archives when they microfilmed it. Or, possibly the note was added when copies were made from the microfilm, say, to fulfill a patron request.

This is my take on the citation:

Handwritten will of Peter Greenlee, 1798, Anderson County, South Carolina, Estate Packet 235, contributed 26 January 2015 by Jim Ison (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 and images, FamilySearch. 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 have seen the index to estate packets for Anderson county and the packet number is the one given in the index, although the cover page also has other information about previous filing methods. But that is not how I found the image, and not how it is catalogued today.

My questions:

1. Does the Family Tree have any other name or identifying info I need to add?

2. Do I need to include the URL to get to Peter's person page as well as the URL to the artifact?

3. Do I need to include more data about the uploader?

4. Is there anything I have missed? I am sure there is! Did I put in too much?

 

Sarah Nesnow

Charleston, SC

Submitted byEEon Tue, 12/05/2017 - 14:33

Hello, Sarah:

Your citation is long enough to scare a beginning researcher, but very thorough. Some elements might have to be rearranged by others in order to fit this-or-that software template; but you've done a good job of identifying the essentials, placing them in a logical sequence, and clearly explaining the details needed to understand the strengths and weaknesses of what you're using.

With regard to your questions:

1. I'll ask FamilySearch contacts to weigh in on this.

2. Yes, placing that URL for Peter's page would be very helpful. After the word FamilySearch would be the logical place to place it in parens.  (Too many times, with those "tree" sites, once we are sitting on a URL that contains a document of interest, there seems to be no way to get from there to the profile of the person to whom the document is attached. Including the person's URL beside their name would alleviate this frustration.)

3-4. See my first paragraph above.

 

Submitted byrraymondon Fri, 12/08/2017 - 17:31

Sarah,

My apologies for my slow response. Below are some points to consider.

  1. The name of FamilySearch's database of user uploaded photos, stories, and documents is Memories. The name of FamilySearch's shared, global tree database is Family Tree. Memories and Family Tree are independent databases.
  2. Memories can be accessed without signing in. Family Tree requires signing in.
  3. A Memories document can be linked to multiple Tree persons. A Tree person can be linked to multiple Memories documents. However, anyone who is signed in can remove any of these links at any time.
  4. FamilySearch has commited to keeping URLs working for the foreseeable future if the URL has "ark:" in the URL. FamilySearch has made no such commitment for any other URL or identifier, including URLs and identifiers for Memories and for Family Tree persons. In my opinion, FamilySearch will support Family Tree person identifiers (PIDs) for the next decade or longer, but I don't have as much confidence in URLs.
  5. Information about Family Tree persons can be changed by anyone at anytime, to the extent that a PID can refer to a different real person today than it did yesterday.
  6. FamilySearch does not research the authenticity of images users upload.

Wow! Does that make it challenging to cite the document you are citing?! I will try to give further thoughts at a later time.

---Robert Raymond, FamilySearch

 

Submitted byrraymondon Sat, 12/09/2017 - 09:03

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:

  • "Memories," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/12971130 : accessed 4 December 2017), search for "Handwritten Will of Peter Greenlee, 1798," contributed 26 January 2015 by Jim Ison, no source cited;

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

  • Jim Ison, "Handwritten Will of Peter Greenlee, 1798," scanned image, 26 January 2015, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/12971130 : accessed 4 December 2017), click Memories and search for title; no source is cited;

Citation really is an art and you have choices.

 

Submitted bysnesnowon Sat, 12/09/2017 - 11:54

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

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.

Submitted byrraymondon Sat, 12/09/2017 - 13:54

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:

  • "Family Tree," database, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/2CYM-HJ6 : accessed 4 December 2017), Peter Greenlee (2CYM-HJ6), multiple contributors.

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

Submitted byEEon Sun, 12/10/2017 - 10:07

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