How document the research "trail" within the current Style Guidelines?

Question

The style guide for profile [http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Biographies] recommends the telling of the person's life in the narrative section of a profile. It suggests some headers, and basically recommends a chronological telling of the person's story. John Smith was born... He went to college and became a radiologist... He married Miriam... They moved to California and had four children... In his retirement, he became an avid abstract painter... etc. etc.

And of course, cite your sources for any fact you claim...

It also suggests radical cleanup of [http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/GEDCOM-created_biographies GEDCOM-created narratives].

But there are many profiles where the narrative is not obvious, or where there are conflicting facts. And perhaps the narrative-- or some part of it-- needs to better describe the research process for each of the various facts about John Smith. Did he get his MD before or after the war? Was their first house in Long Beach or Laguna Beach? Did he spell his name Smith, Smythe, or Schmidt? The records are varied.

What are some of the different ways we can convey, say, when there are three different claims for where he was born? Or the maiden name of his wife?

Some people-- myself included-- build this into the narrative; you've certainly seen me recommend "== Disputed Origins ==" sections that summarize the research done when there's conflicting information about a profile person's origins.

Others prefer to retain the "list" format that often comes with GEDCOM uploads, where you might have:

:Married 22 June 1946 in Buffalo, New York.<ref>cite source #1 here...</ref>

:Married 22 June 1947 in Ft. Sill, Oklahoma.<ref>cite source #2 here...</ref>

etc...

What do you think?

Is there a happy medium we can reach for both "camps"?

Answer 1

I often use the "list" format with the plan of going back to flesh it out later. The advantage to this way is that the information is there and even if I do not get back to the profile for a long time I and others have an outline to work from with the basic facts in place in a chronological order. This way also makes inserting newly uncovered facts in the correct place easier for me.

Comments

I should also add that when researching for the profiles we sometimes do not have enough information to do a good narritive but do have some facts that could work in the list form.

Answer 2

I think it depends on whether you are dealing with a skeleton or a fresh corpse. The more you have to work with the more biographical you can be. If you only know they were born, they married and they died then a point form is fine.

Unfortunately, not everyone has an interest in writing a lengthy biography and even if they do if it isn't done well then the reader, speaking for myself, gets annoyed and moves on. The longer the biography the more chance it will be ignored, that's why headings are good - I can easily find what I want and skip the rest.

I do like the "== Disputed Origins =="

I think it would be a great idea for the Style Folks to come up with a 'pick list' of section titles. For example if you want to post census info it should be under the heading" === Census Returns ===" which falls under the "== Biography ==" Maybe others would be "=== Military Background ===" or "=== Web Resources ===" which would be links to other websites that have info on the individual.

Whether you add a paragraph or point form is up to the individual however I have seen some instances where a nice paragraph was turned into point form and it just felt wrong.

There, that's about two cents worth - must go shovel some more snow.

Comments

Eugene

You said what I think better than I did. That just proves your point that some of us are better writers and the rest would be OK with sticking to an outline.

And I too have a lot of snow to shovel but I am going to wait until the sun comes up.

Answer 3

I normally try and write bios instead of using 'list format'. How I choose to deal with conflicting facts/sources very much depends on the amount, types, and reliability of the sources and also the scope of the 'conflict' (do the sources disagree by a month, a year, a decade, a generation?) and if there is a 'logical' explanation. It also depends how 'widely accepted' a particular version of a fact seems to be (in family trees on other websites). I might discuss in the narrative, in an explanatory, footnote, make an annotation to a citation.

Making up a fictional example

BIOGRAPHY

A. Person was born on date.[1]

A. Person married A. Bride (aka A. Spouse, or A. Wife).[2]  Many modern sources give their marriage date as X, however these sources all appear to draw from the discredited genealogies of Anjou, earlier researchers gave no date. The most recent research suggests a date of Y.[3]

Two different death records have been associated with A. Person. Record A indicates they died at First Place on date D.[4]  Record B at nearby Second Place however gives the date E, which is equally plausible.[5] It is likely that one of the records is for A. Person's cousin who bore the same name and lived across the street  - further research should focus on finding obituaries for either death in hopes of disambugating the two records.

SOURCES

1. A. Author, Genealogy of Person, (No Place: Publishers Inc., 2015), 41. [B Author instead gives fact as _____ ]

2. The vital records of their children are inconsistent on the mother's maiden name. A. Bride is the earliest usage appearing on the birth record of the eldest child, with other similar variations being common on later records.

3. A. Author argues that the interpretation is Y, and is supported by B Author and others. C author however argues the interpretation should be Z because interpretation Y is based on accepting N.

4. First Place, Death Record of A. Person.

5. Second Place, Death Record of A. Person.

See Also

* B. Author, The Complete Person, (Some Place: Roco Co., 2014), 49, 72-80.

* C. Author, A Revised History of Person, (Any Place: Ink-o printers, 2015), 123-128.