* Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Got general Family History research questions - this is the place
Post Reply
avatar
David Potter
Megastar
Posts: 1006
Joined: 22 Jun 2016 15:54
Family Historian: V7
Location: United Kingdom

Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Post by David Potter »

Hi Forum

Sometime ago I asked a question about post 1837 GRO Indexes and the related Full Birth Certificate - in that are they supportive of a single Birth Source or should they be separate Source records? The response was very good - thanks once again; and I went down the path of having one Birth Source based on the Certificate details but including the GRO index reference and with both images attached to that one Source. I'm now thinking this was a wrong move as the Certificate is a Primary Source and the Index could be argued is a Secondary Source.

Best practice question - and looking once again for your views:

Should I leave it as it is or change to two separate Source records?
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Post by tatewise »

It is something of a personal choice and how pedantic you wish to be.
However, as stated in research:getting_started#source_citations|> Source Citations, it is my belief that the Assessment pertains to the Citation rather than the Source document itself.
i.e.
In the case of a Birth event Citation, how creditable are the Birth Name, Date & Place details gleaned from Source.
Since the GRO Birth Index is compiled within a few months of the Birth event being registered, that is more creditable than say a persons Age & Birth Place in a much later Census or on their Death Certificate.

Also, since the Birth Certificate Source document is the main focus then focus the Assessment on that. The GRO Index is simply a reference identity needed by others to procure the Certificate from the GRO.

BTW: If being too pedantic, you will argue that the GRO Index is not a Birth Event related Source at all, but a custom fact Birth Registration Event related Source.

Others may well have a different point of view.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 5465
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Post by ColeValleyGirl »

Personally, I don't use the Primary and Secondary source classifications, because it's much more complicated than that.

If you read about Elizabeth Shown Mills Evidence Analysis Process Map, you'll realise that the birth certificate provides a mixture of different information types -- primary, secondary and undetermined -- but the GRO reference gives you very little except a pointer to the certificate (and the quarter and place in which the event was registered).

If you have the Birth Certificate, the only added value in giving the index details is to enable others to find and order the same certificate, and it doesn't need to be identified as a source in its own right.

If all you have is the index details, then that's giving you Undetermined information (you can't tell who provided the info so you can't call it primary or secondary). You don't even know when or where the birth took place, so I don't think it's worth citing as a source -- in these cases, I just add a note to the event.
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Post by tatewise »

To explain Helen's assertion that from the GRO Index "You don't even know when or where the birth took place", the registration can occur weeks (if not months) after and far away from the Birth event. Although in the vast majority of cases it occurs soon afterwards and in the same district.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Post by AdrianBruce »

tatewise wrote:... since the Birth Certificate Source document is the main focus then focus the Assessment on that. The GRO Index is simply a reference identity needed by others to procure the Certificate from the GRO.
...
I'd agree with Mike here. To me, the important source document is the Birth Certificate - the index was simply a means to an end. If you think about it, it gives nothing of genealogical significance to the person that isn't on the BC itself. (Yes, it gives the reference necessary to place a GRO order for the BC but that's just a step on the way to somebody's biography).

So don't allow yourself to be driven by the index - just concentrate on the BC, while making a note of the index details for anyone else who follows and wants their own copy of the BC.
Adrian
avatar
David Potter
Megastar
Posts: 1006
Joined: 22 Jun 2016 15:54
Family Historian: V7
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Post by David Potter »

Thanks everyone - especially for such a quick response.
Clearly you all agree... Therefore I will not separate these two documents into separate Sources. Although I will continue to include both Certificate and Index as images where I have the Birth Certificate created as a Source. Like you say personal choice I guess.

Thank you all once again. It's fantastic to know you can call on expertise such as yours and have an answer in a matter of hours.
User avatar
Mark1834
Megastar
Posts: 2458
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:33
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire, UK

Re: Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Post by Mark1834 »

A related thought - for direct ancestors a certificate is essential, but for more distant relationships I do cite the index entry to support an Event, particularly if there are other corroborating data.

My problem is how to record the Event date. For marriages, there is no issue as the event is recorded immediately. However, as pointed out by others, birth registration can be weeks after the actual birth. If the registration was in Jan-Mar 1920, for example, recording the birth as Q1 1920 is likely to be wrong on a significant number of occasions.

"About Q1 1920" would be ideal, but not many applications seem to support this style. My convention is to note it as the first month of the quarter, qualified with "about", unless I have any evidence of a more precise date (e.g. 5 months old at a census). My reasoning is that this is around the middle of the likely range for the true date.

It's not ideal, but any better conventions out there? I just don't like writing things that I know could be wrong!
Mark Draper
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Post by tatewise »

Firstly, the Marriage Event and Registration is only coincident in England & Wales.
As mentioned in File Naming Convention (15330) that is not necessarily the case in Scotland (or elsewhere).

Also a similar problem arises with Baptism and Burial records where Birth and Death date are not explicitly given.

FH honours all the standard GEDCOM 5.5 Date formats and no others.
All the options are available by clicking the [...] button to right of any Date field to obtain the Date Entry Assistant.
So using your example, you could specify Approx Jan 1920 or Between Dec 1919 and Mar 1920 or Before 31 Mar 1920.
Quarter Dates are a form of Date Range governed by Tools > Preferences > General > Use quarter date display format.
i.e. Q1 1920 is actually Between Jan 1920 to Mar 1920
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
Mark1834
Megastar
Posts: 2458
Joined: 27 Oct 2017 19:33
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire, UK

Re: Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Post by Mark1834 »

Indeed - in the absence of more precise data, my entered birth date is usually just a "best guess", and always qualified by "about". Death is generally the month of burial (unless very early in the month), and again always qualified with "about". I started out leaving both of these blank if I didn't have the data, but that gave problems in both sorting and automated report generation.
Mark Draper
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Rethink of Sources and how to use them.

Post by AdrianBruce »

Mark1834 wrote:... birth registration can be weeks after the actual birth. If the registration was in Jan-Mar 1920, for example, recording the birth as Q1 1920 is likely to be wrong on a significant number of occasions. ...
Quite true - I confess that whenever I see a date reading Q1 1920 or "btw Jan 1920 and Mar 1920" (say), I just have a mental note in my head that says, "That's probably the registration date actually...." And that's all I bother doing. I did try to be a little more accurate with my descriptions but it ended up being hard work with little certainty that it was any more accurate.
Adrian
Post Reply