Date   

Help: how do I know both my fathers and mothers trees have merged?

danellenbach@...
 

I see them but I don't see a connection line to my dad's side. In the diagram my dad's name block is grayed out?
I have no idea what I'm doing!


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Jan Murphy
 

Forgive me for adding to the off-topic chatter, but can we please stop calling EE an 800-page collection of citation templates?  

It is NOT that.

EE is a guide to US records and how to evaluate them. It is essentially the US equivalent to Mark D. Herber's Ancestral Trails, but no one thinks of it that way because they are told over and over again it is nothing but templates.

Michael Hait's two blog posts sum it up better than I can. 



This screenshot is from EE 2nd ed. page 10; if I remember correctly, it's on page 8 of the 3rd rev. edition.

EE.PNG
We identify our sources—and their strengths and weaknesses—so we can reach the most reliable conclusions.

If you don't want to reach reliable conclusions, fine, but don't blame Mills when you shoot yourself in the foot because you were unwilling to examine your sources. 

Jan Murphy

Moderator Pro Tempore



On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 10:31 AM Jeff La Marca <jlamarca@...> wrote:
Ah, I normally just lurk but any reference to “Evidence Explained” raises my hackles and causes me to seek therapy! Personally, I find the gabagigamegazillions of templates of EE and the manner in which Mills deals with “facts” to be an abomination. . . . there, now I feel a bit better! 😉

BTW, in order to be fully transparent, I created Simple Citations in direct response to EE: 

I’ve now created three templates that will cover essentially all events/facts for FH. I created them for RootsMagic many years ago but the ones for FH take advantage of data entry features available in FH but not RM. I’ve now used them with my own data for the last few months. I’d like to release the templates (free, of course) and need to know how best to do that. 

Jeff



On Aug 2, 2022, at 12:26 PM, colevalleygirl@... wrote:



Just in case we need another piece of jargon 😊:

 

“Society speaks loosely of historical facts as though the events of history are chiseled in stone. In reality, most details we accumulate in our research will be assertions or claims, not facts. We may know ‘for a fact’ that we were involved in a particular event on a specific day. Beyond our personal experiences, however, we deal with assertions and opinions—each of which we are obliged to test for validity.”

          Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace

 

 

I have always argued that the most useful part of that book is the first two chapters – not the gazillions of templates that follow them.


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Jeff La Marca
 

Thanks! I’ve just started the process of uploading them (hopefully,  I’m doing it correctly). I’m waiting for an e-mail link so I can upload them now. Once they’re up, I’ll post a little more information on their use as they’re slightly different than the original ones I created for RM. They function almost exactly the same way except that FH interfaces places on the templates with the places (or locations) table associated with other data (I gave up trying to get RM to permit that), the same is also true with Repositories in FH (which is wonderful), and one other item that’s associated with Repositories.

 

Anyway, I hope they’ll be available soon and I’ll welcome any feedback on them.

 

Thanks,

 

Jeff

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of colevalleygirl@...
Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2022 1:45 PM
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Transferring custom birth tag

 

I'd suggest adding them to the FHUG knowledge base. 

 

I spent some time applying the EE templates or a workable variation on them

The jury is out on whether I'll use them in FH 7  or adopt the Strathclyde ones

 

 

 

 

 


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Lorna Craig
 

As fascinating as this discussion is, it has strayed far from the original question and I fear that Wendy who asked it will have given up hope of getting a solution to her problem.  I don’t want Wendy to give up on FH at the first hurdle.

To recap, she had used the Change any Fact Tag plugin to convert her imported TMG custom birth facts to standard birth facts, saw the changes made, said they appeared in the Facts tab, but the birth date was still not showing in the Main tab:

"I downloaded the Plugin, ran it and changed the custom birth tag to Birth, and saw 156 changes as expected. The changes appear in the Facts tab. I’m missing something obvious. What do I do next to have the 156 changed birth tags appear in the Main tab window so each individual shows their birth date after Born:?"
She later said
"In this project, the TMG tags Birth and Birth-Custom tags have identical content."

And 

For plugin options I chose:
Source Tag Set: TMG import
Source Tag Name: Birth-Cust
Target Tag Set: Standard
Target Tag Name: Birth

So she has converted the TMG Birth-Cust facts to Standard birth facts but I am unclear as to whether there are still some TMG Birth facts (as opposed to TMG Birth-Cust facts) which are different from Standard birth facts, and whether some individuals had both types of TMG birth fact. 

Wendy, if you see this can you post some screenshots of the Facts tab and Main tab of an individual showing the problem?  (Either here or on FHUG)


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

I'd suggest adding them to the FHUG knowledge base. 

I spent some time applying the EE templates or a workable variation on them
The jury is out on whether I'll use them in FH 7  or adopt the Strathclyde ones






Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Jeff La Marca
 

Ah, I normally just lurk but any reference to “Evidence Explained” raises my hackles and causes me to seek therapy! Personally, I find the gabagigamegazillions of templates of EE and the manner in which Mills deals with “facts” to be an abomination. . . . there, now I feel a bit better! 😉

BTW, in order to be fully transparent, I created Simple Citations in direct response to EE: 

I’ve now created three templates that will cover essentially all events/facts for FH. I created them for RootsMagic many years ago but the ones for FH take advantage of data entry features available in FH but not RM. I’ve now used them with my own data for the last few months. I’d like to release the templates (free, of course) and need to know how best to do that. 

Jeff



On Aug 2, 2022, at 12:26 PM, colevalleygirl@... wrote:



Just in case we need another piece of jargon 😊:

 

“Society speaks loosely of historical facts as though the events of history are chiseled in stone. In reality, most details we accumulate in our research will be assertions or claims, not facts. We may know ‘for a fact’ that we were involved in a particular event on a specific day. Beyond our personal experiences, however, we deal with assertions and opinions—each of which we are obliged to test for validity.”

          Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace

 

 

I have always argued that the most useful part of that book is the first two chapters – not the gazillions of templates that follow them.


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Mike Tate
 

As I have said many times, don’t take the names of entities in FH/GEDCOM too literally.

IMO they are simply a convenient way of identifying the database components and may not have the associated dictionary meaning.

GEDCOM says: “The individual record is a compilation of facts, known or discovered, about an individual.  Sometimes these facts are from different sources.  This form allows documentation of the source where each of the facts were discovered.”

 

Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce
Sent: 02 August 2022 17:32
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Transferring custom birth tag

 

Well, yes. (False-memories excepted, of course! Groan...)

 

Frankly I'd rather the combined data item of Event and Attribute was NOT called Fact, as it gives way too many people palpitations. But it is and I haven't got a short replacement either.

 

Adrian

 


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Phil Stokes
 

I think in that case we largely agree then 😉

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce
Sent: 02 August 2022 15:47
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Transferring custom birth tag

 

You may be disagreeing with me but I find myself agreeing with most of what you said, and our only significant difference might be around how to handle your 5G-GF. Might be... I might also agree with you on further thought, I don't know.

 

If I understand you correctly, then my major "error" is in referring to the alternative birth (or whatever) facts as evidence, when they should strictly be referred to as conclusions, also. Yes, point taken, they are indeed conclusions, (hopefully) supported by evidence in sources. I guess I was looking for terminology that expressed my view that the alternative facts were likely to represent the evidence through only a mechanical transformation, and therefore those alternative facts represented the evidence. But yes, on reflection, the terminology isn't right if I refer to those "minimal transform conclusions" as "evidence".

 

Adrian

 


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Phil Stokes
 

But I would argue that neither of those items is a “fact” in the meaning of being used to record an event by FH. The document issued by the hospital is a source, as is the birth certificate. Presumably they agree on the date he was born, although the document from the hospital may be more precise. So why enter two facts in FH? Both documents are evidence of the same birth, so I would argue for one birth fact in FH. The two sources, both cited against it, provide the evidence that was indeed the case, and give the date (corroborated by both sources) and the time (corroborated by just one). The hospital document source could also be cited against a Physical Description fact, confirming his weight at birth, or his weight could just be left as a mention in a text from source transcription of the document.

 

The same is true for multiple census documents giving different ages on the census date and hence different years of birth. Uhkh3… asks how we can be sure that the census relates to the person we are concerned with. Well, that’s part of assessing the document and giving it a citation-level assessment. If we can be more certain that it is the same individual, e.g. because he appears with his parents, brothers and sisters etc., and we perhaps have other information to corroborate that the information on that census is compatible with what we already know about him and his family, we can give it a higher degree of certainty in the citation level assessment than we might if there were doubts. It is the assessment of all sources available to us that in one way or another corroborate or otherwise tend to disprove the fact; and our assessment of their truthfulness, reliability, being primary or secondary sources, etc., that influence our decision as to whether we have evidence to support the fact, and to what degree.

 

We all know that dates can be unreliable on historic documents for a variety of reasons, and that certain documents are likely to be more accurate than others. Taking that into account informs and influences our decision about the year or date a person was born. Pre UK census and BMD registration, there may only be a baptism event for an individual as evidence of his birth. That is in itself evidence that he was born, but only tells us that he was born before the date of the baptism. Someone’s apparent year of birth may differ according to consecutive censuses because their maths was poor, or because they were touchy about their age, or they just didn’t know for certain. If we believe on balance that those censuses relate to the same person though, why create a separate birth fact for each document. Each document is a separate source, but together they all provide evidence of a single birth event. It’s just that we may not be certain of the year of birth from the information available to us, so my approach is a single birth fact with a date range encompassing the possible dates of that event as we believe them to be at that time.

 

We may later find additional sources that narrow down that date range. An appearance in the 1939 register may provide an “exact” date, but to what degree of reliability? I have found several that state the wrong year, or are just completely incorrect, some apparently adjusted by the NHS. It is useful, but I would give it a lower assessment of reliability as a source to corroborate a date of birth than say an original copy of a birth certificate. But either of those sources and others can be cited against the single birth fact if or when they become available, and the birth date range narrowed or adjusted accordingly.

 

To my mind, I just fail to see what splitting each of those documents into multiple birth “facts” against the individual actually achieves?

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Victor Markham via groups.io
Sent: 02 August 2022 16:34
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Transferring custom birth tag

 

For my nephew I have 2 birth facts. The first is issued by the hospital where he was born. This gave the date, time of birth and weight. The second is his registration certificate.

Not every gets hoild of these. I have no idea if every hospital isues notices like thid (my sons hospital didn't)

Victor


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Adrian Bruce
 

Well, yes. (False-memories excepted, of course! Groan...)

Frankly I'd rather the combined data item of Event and Attribute was NOT called Fact, as it gives way too many people palpitations. But it is and I haven't got a short replacement either.

Adrian


On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 16:50, colevalleygirl@... <colevalleygirl@...> wrote:

Just in case we need another piece of jargon 😊:

 

“Society speaks loosely of historical facts as though the events of history are chiseled in stone. In reality, most details we accumulate in our research will be assertions or claims, not facts. We may know ‘for a fact’ that we were involved in a particular event on a specific day. Beyond our personal experiences, however, we deal with assertions and opinions—each of which we are obliged to test for validity.”

          Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace

 

 

I have always argued that the most useful part of that book is the first two chapters – not the gazillions of templates that follow them.


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

Just in case we need another piece of jargon 😊:

 

“Society speaks loosely of historical facts as though the events of history are chiseled in stone. In reality, most details we accumulate in our research will be assertions or claims, not facts. We may know ‘for a fact’ that we were involved in a particular event on a specific day. Beyond our personal experiences, however, we deal with assertions and opinions—each of which we are obliged to test for validity.”

          Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace

 

 

I have always argued that the most useful part of that book is the first two chapters – not the gazillions of templates that follow them.


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

uhkh3tsccmz9@beconfidential.com
 

If I understand you correctly, then my major "error" is in referring to the alternative birth (or whatever) facts as evidence, when they should strictly be referred to as conclusions, also. Yes, point taken, they are indeed conclusions, (hopefully) supported by evidence in sources. I guess I was looking for terminology that expressed my view that the alternative facts were likely to represent the evidence through only a mechanical transformation, and therefore those alternative facts represented the evidence. But yes, on reflection, the terminology isn't right if I refer to those "minimal transform conclusions" as "evidence".
Well, yes and no?

I would tend to agree that in the courts if you present a "fact" you are presenting something supported by evidence and in that respect it is a conclusion.
But I think we have to be wary about what we are concluding. Seeing a 10 year old in the 1881 Census (evidence) supports the "fact" that that person was born in 1871 +/-1yr. But does it support the conclusion that your ancestor was that 10 year old and that therefore your ancestor was born in 1871+/-1yr?

"Facts" in FH are called that because of history of GEDCOM? They are "in fact" (sorry) "data items" that have been entered either directly from a data source or (as in the census case above) derived from a data source.  In database and information technology terms, data and information are two distinctly different things - and conclusions are surely drawn from information - that is data (plural) that has been put in context and critically evaluated for consistency coherence comprehensiveness etc.

I think FH users divide between those who
  1. see FH as a useful data repository that they can consult when wishing to "do family history" - taking that data and putting it in context, critically evaluating it and then drawing conclusions - which are typically recorded elsewhere (a blog post, a report, a "monograph", or possibly a documented family tree), and
  2. see FH as a tool that can create that output - which either means that you trust FH to do the evaluation and setting in context (either "automatically" or through user setting of items like "preferred flags") - or you are very careful as to what you put in (remembering "garbage in garbage out").
Either approach is valid and has benefits - but within a project it is probably a good idea to be consistent!

If working collaboratively and "sharing data" you need to be very clear which of the above camps you are in. Too many of us are familiar with on-line "family trees" which are dubious based on minimal data, minimal evaluation and possibly a lot of wishful thinking.

Perhaps we have not moved very far from the days when if something was printed on green and white stripy paper "it had to be true" because it "came from the computer"?


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Victor Markham
 

For my nephew I have 2 birth facts. The first is issued by the hospital where he was born. This gave the date, time of birth and weight. The second is his registration certificate.

Not every gets hoild of these. I have no idea if every hospital isues notices like thid (my sons hospital didn't)

Victor

On 02/08/2022 13:12, Adrian Bruce wrote:

Re multiple birth facts (or multiple death facts). Slightly summing up, my supposition is that most people will only have one birth fact and accommodate any lack of clarity by using things like date ranges or higher levels of place (e.g. a country instead of a town), plus lots of notes against the fact or the citation.

There are those who will use multiple birth facts (or death facts, etc) - those people will, I guess, make extensive use of multiple birth etc.

I would suggest that the first group - whether they realise it or not - are using FH to record conclusions - albeit conclusions that can be modified by notes such as "Frankly, I don't believe a word of it...."

The second group are probably much more aware that they are using FH to record evidence, rather than conclusions.

Quite how good FH is at recording evidence, especially contradictory evidence, I'm not sure - slightly better now stuff can be flagged - but I'd want to see better treatment of alternative relationships.

I think I only have one multiple birth individual - the infamous Edith Roya whose names and birthplaces are legion, so it became simpler to record multiple births (as the encompassing birthplace would be "Planet Earth")
 
My tongue is in my cheek over this but it appears to me that the first group (those who have a single birth fact) are fact-lumpers, while those with multiple birth facts are fact-splitters... And it appears that I'm a source-splitter and a fact-lumper. Wonder what that means?  :-)

Adrian


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Adrian Bruce
 

On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 14:21, Phil Stokes <phil@...> wrote:

As someone who spent a considerable part of my career investigating and assessing evidence, and preparing conclusions based on that evidence, I would disagree with that.

 

Aren’t all facts conclusions? They are not evidence in themselves. The evidence is the source or sources cited against the fact which has allowed the investigator or researcher to reach a conclusion. Whether there is a single fact for an event, or multiple facts, the sources cited against each of them are the evidence, and the facts themselves must be conclusions supported by and assessed on the weight of the evidence proposed.

 

You may be disagreeing with me but I find myself agreeing with most of what you said, and our only significant difference might be around how to handle your 5G-GF. Might be... I might also agree with you on further thought, I don't know.

If I understand you correctly, then my major "error" is in referring to the alternative birth (or whatever) facts as evidence, when they should strictly be referred to as conclusions, also. Yes, point taken, they are indeed conclusions, (hopefully) supported by evidence in sources. I guess I was looking for terminology that expressed my view that the alternative facts were likely to represent the evidence through only a mechanical transformation, and therefore those alternative facts represented the evidence. But yes, on reflection, the terminology isn't right if I refer to those "minimal transform conclusions" as "evidence".

Adrian


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Janis Rodriguez
 

Gee, Wendy, should have known your first post would create a firestorm of comments!  

Thanks, all, for this demonstration of the healthy, robust, FH user community!

Jan

On Jul 29, 2022, at 9:56 PM, Wendy McGuire <wjneuman@...> wrote:

This is my first post to the list. After downloading the FH trial and reading the guidance for TMG users, I transferred a database. The standard birth tag transferred successfully. My custom birth tag is transferring as “even” rather than “birt” so those birth dates don't appear in the "born:" space on the individual's Main tab. Is there a way to transfer the customized birth tag to FH so the birth date appears? Thanks.


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Vyger
 

I did want to weigh in here, I am not a trained genealogist but have never felt it proper to use multiple Birth or Death facts, what I do is use date approximates such as About, Between, After and refine those as more detail is uncovered.

Therefore I don't have lots of qualifying notes, privatized or otherwise, and no custom Birth facts, I'm not suggesting this is better, just that it always worked for me.

The path to the truth, so to speak, and the explanations and Sources have for the last years been documented in Research Logs attached to the individual so therefore the individual record in more clear of additional information not directly related to their life, I think of these Research Notes/Logs as the Postit notes in my file and a valuable record of past efforts.

CP has now dipped their toe into this area and I welcome that, some would say there is much refinement to be applied but this is already a useful feature. I have found over many years that user methods often stemmed from the possibilities and often restrictions in their chosen software package and sometimes these methods need to be re-evaluated and possibly changed for the better. At present links to Individuals, Places, Repositories, Families inline Source links and Hash Tags can all be added to explain the research journey towards the truth or the current work in progress, I only wanted to say I find this preferable to cluttering the individual record with such data, your mileage will vary.



Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Phil Stokes
 

As someone who spent a considerable part of my career investigating and assessing evidence, and preparing conclusions based on that evidence, I would disagree with that.

 

Aren’t all facts conclusions? They are not evidence in themselves. The evidence is the source or sources cited against the fact which has allowed the investigator or researcher to reach a conclusion. Whether there is a single fact for an event, or multiple facts, the sources cited against each of them are the evidence, and the facts themselves must be conclusions supported by and assessed on the weight of the evidence proposed.

 

If I attempted to put a statement before a court as a fact, without any evidence to support it, it would not be given the time of day. Only by referring to the evidence that supports or disproves that fact, and submitting a conclusion based on the nature, amount and weight of that evidence, can a fact be supported or disproved (excepting those which cannot be disputed, such as the assertion that night follows day, for example – “substantive truths”).

 

I realise I am describing legal evidence, rather than family history research, but I personally approach both in a similar way. Any fact must be a conclusion that only exists because there is evidence to support it. How strong or reliable that evidence is, in support of proving or disproving the fact, is what we (should) record in the citation. So the person recording three birth facts for a single individual to my mind still has three conclusions, which are all hopefully evidenced by a source or sources, each assessed individually in their citations.

 

My preferred approach is to have a single fact (conclusion), with every piece of evidence that tends to support or disprove it, cited against it as sources; each with their own assessment of strength and reliability. If there are conflicting sources of evidence, then I attach a note to the fact which explains the conflicts and the reason that I have reached a particular conclusion. That way, everything is in one place (as the individual can only have been born once after all) and easily retrievable in its entirety at a future date. So for conflicting birth dates that obviously relate to a single individual, I will only have a single fact, but the date of that event will either be an approximation/calculation/estimate, or a range covering the period intimated by the sources that I am aware of.

 

The only time I create multiple facts for the same birth or death event (excepting the one fairly unique situation I have already mentioned, relating to my GF) is if I have evidence relating to two or more possibly identical individuals, for example born at around the same time and in the same or a nearby location. For two births say, each piece of evidence will have a high probability of being true for the person it relates to, but not for the other. In those circumstances I do create two facts, flagging the one I assess to be correct as preferred, and the other as rejected. I do that so that, in the event that I have cause to query or look at the rejected individual at some time in the future, I can easily spot that I have already looked at him or her, and discover why I discounted him/her as the person in my tree. I could of course cite the evidence for the “wrong” individual against the correct one, and note the reasons why I have rejected it, but I find having the additional rejected facts makes their existence much clearer if I need to revisit the information in the future. The best example I can think of for that approach is three William HODGES, all born in the same parish within two years of each other. Only one can be my Gx5 GF, and identifying him as such, and therefore his parents, is critical to continuing that branch of my tree. So I have three birth facts for William, each fact is a conclusion of the birth of an individual, citing evidence that supports or proves their existence. Only one of them can be my direct ancestor, so the other two birth facts are flagged as rejected, and each has a note attached explaining what led me to reach that conclusion.

 

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce
Sent: 02 August 2022 13:12
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Transferring custom birth tag

 

Re multiple birth facts (or multiple death facts). Slightly summing up, my supposition is that most people will only have one birth fact and accommodate any lack of clarity by using things like date ranges or higher levels of place (e.g. a country instead of a town), plus lots of notes against the fact or the citation.

 

There are those who will use multiple birth facts (or death facts, etc) - those people will, I guess, make extensive use of multiple birth etc.

 

I would suggest that the first group - whether they realise it or not - are using FH to record conclusions - albeit conclusions that can be modified by notes such as "Frankly, I don't believe a word of it...."

 

The second group are probably much more aware that they are using FH to record evidence, rather than conclusions.


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Adrian Bruce
 

Re multiple birth facts (or multiple death facts). Slightly summing up, my supposition is that most people will only have one birth fact and accommodate any lack of clarity by using things like date ranges or higher levels of place (e.g. a country instead of a town), plus lots of notes against the fact or the citation.

There are those who will use multiple birth facts (or death facts, etc) - those people will, I guess, make extensive use of multiple birth etc.

I would suggest that the first group - whether they realise it or not - are using FH to record conclusions - albeit conclusions that can be modified by notes such as "Frankly, I don't believe a word of it...."

The second group are probably much more aware that they are using FH to record evidence, rather than conclusions.

Quite how good FH is at recording evidence, especially contradictory evidence, I'm not sure - slightly better now stuff can be flagged - but I'd want to see better treatment of alternative relationships.

I think I only have one multiple birth individual - the infamous Edith Roya whose names and birthplaces are legion, so it became simpler to record multiple births (as the encompassing birthplace would be "Planet Earth")
 
My tongue is in my cheek over this but it appears to me that the first group (those who have a single birth fact) are fact-lumpers, while those with multiple birth facts are fact-splitters... And it appears that I'm a source-splitter and a fact-lumper. Wonder what that means?  :-)

Adrian


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

Phil Stokes
 

I do the same, a single birth fact with an estimated or range of dates, which I narrow down as more evidence becomes available, citing the additional sources against the single fact .

I have one exception however; my grandfather, who was orphaned at three years of age and knew nothing about his family. The birth date he used throughout his life was the one stated on his Royal Navy service record, which may have been slightly "adjusted" to ensure that he was old enough to enlist. He was attributed a different date of birth on his earlier record of induction to the Training Shop Exmouth by West Ham Union.

Only after many months of research, poring over various record, did I come up with a possible origin, since confirmed by DNA Matches, and a copy of his birth certificate showing what I would say is most likely to be his correct date of birth.

So I have three birth facts for him, each citing the relevant sources, and the one for his RN birth date being preferred, as although not correct it was the one he used, and the only one he was aware of.

The other two birth facts are flagged as private, with their fact sentences suppressed, and a custom fact sentence attached to the preferred birth fact, explaining the three different dates and how they originated.

________________________________________
From: family-historian@groups.io [family-historian@groups.io] on behalf of colevalleygirl@... [colevalleygirl@...]
Sent: 02 August 2022 12:07
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Transferring custom birth tag

That's close to what I do, Paul. I do however cite multiple sources for a birth event if they agree on some detail of it (e.g. year or place) as it help identify where there's commonality.
_._,_._,_


Re: Transferring custom birth tag

colevalleygirl@colevalleygirl.co.uk
 

That's close to what I do, Paul. I do however cite multiple sources for a birth event if they agree on some detail of it (e.g. year or place) as it help identify where there's commonality.

1181 - 1200 of 6490