TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-08 > 1028221478


From: "Richard Damon" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Source standards -- was Mills Source for Memorial?
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:04:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <002901c23974$0effcd30$c735dd18@master>


If you only cite what can be verified by someone else in the future how do
you record information that is so verifiable. To not put any citation makes
it truly worthless, to record it outside the data base loses the power of
the tools. You may not want to report this, that is what sureties are for.
"Unproven" data can be vital for finding the sources to prove it.

I would also disagree that the only real proof is records which are publicly
available. Old bibles may be the only record of events. Letters can reveal
much valid information. Public records can also be wrong. Remember that most
of these records are recording of information by individuals slightly after
the fact, and in some cases, significantly after the fact.

A example of this is my mother. Her birth certificate has the wrong date.
The doctor filed a birth certificate stating she was born Aug 31, Her mother
says it was Aug 28, as shown in the family bible. She recorded that
information very shortly after the event, He filed out the forms several
weeks later when he caught up in his paper work and remembered "the end of
the month".

Yes, you have to evaluate the quality of the source and the data it
provides. Private family memories of events long past are suspect,
especially when the provider had no direct knowledge of the event but is
just a relay, but diaries, journal, letters, bibles and other items created
at the time can be gold mines of accurate data. Public records are not
immune to the need to evaluate the quality of the information. Even primary
records contain much secondary information.

In conclusion, while the best source would be a publicly available one,
don't throw out private sources out of hand.

Richard Damon
--
(Genealogy)
(Home)
(Work)


This thread: