When a fact has source that doesn't agree with that fact
I have been running into the following warning:
"John (W) Burtsfield in household of Jno Burtsfield, "United States Census, 1860" has a date of 1860 for residence, which is different from 1870."
I have seen it on other profiles and other periods. This happens when two different census records for different census years are attached. Obviously that isn't right.
But trying to parse this wording for this conflict is nearly impossible - it really doesn't say anything other than there is a conflict. Wouldn't better wording be along the lines of:
"There is a conflict of supporting source(s) attached to the fact. Please make sure the source(s) attached are in agreement with the fact." or some such.
In the case of John W. Burtsfield, LH97-Q86, there are two census sources (1860 and 1870) attached to one fact. There should only be the source the one linked to the 1860 census.
Comentarios
-
We were seeing that for a while on the 1940 census which also recorded the person's location in 1935. I know that one was eventually resolved.
I saw one a few weeks ago with the same message regarding a 1920 census and a 1930 date, but that one was a simple typo on the part of a contributor.
1 -
It can happen when a source is misattached. And it would be helpful, if the wording were not so awkward. So I am hoping that when they get the time they can come up with better wording to guide people more efficiently.
1 -
@monnettohio you are correct. A tag to the 1860 census was attached to the 1870 residence. And yes the wording is awkward. Took a bit of poking around to find the mistake and remove the tag. Thank you for the heads up on the bad wording. Passing this issue along :)
2 -
Thanks!!!
0 -
If a person didn't move, it makes absolutely perfect sense to me to enter the residence just the once and tag it to all of the censuses. Why on Earth is this a problem???
0
