You are still wrong, Joan. If I sent you have a certified copy of a birth certificate, that would be documentation. It would be rude of you not to note where you got it, but that would just mean I probably wouldn't send you anything else. No big deal. If I sent you an uncertified copy, how do you know I didn't doctor it? It can be done pretty easily. How do you know I got it where I said I did? I could do that easily, too. I could take a will and add a couple kids to it. Easy enough to do in the digital age. If I sent you a tombstone photo, your source would be my photo, not the tombstone itself, and you would want to name me as the source. Maybe I accidentally wrote down the wrong cemetery when I sent it to you. Maybe I changed the dates on the photo. You write me as the source, and then I'm the idiot. You claim yourself as the source, it's all on you. If I had a translation done of some old German church records I had retrieved from an LDS film, and I sent you photocopies, which you were unable to read on your own, plus the translation, and you used the translation, you would, for the sake of courtesy and accuracy, cite the church record, the film, me, and the translator. Richard Pence has some deed abstracts that were taken, with permission, from some of Amelia Gilreath's books. If I used the abstracts, my source would be Richard Pence citing Amelia Gilreath. That gives Richard credit for his efforts and any typos he may have made and Amelia Gilreath credit for hers and any mistakes she may have made. If I used the abstracts directly from Gilreath's books, her book alone would be the source. If I used the deeds themselves, I would use the deeds alone. Even a scholarly website such as the Library of Virginia has some mistakes in identification of documents. You cite the document and not the Library of Virginia, you're not going to know where the mistake came from when someone emails you and tells you you made a mistake. You won't even be able to argue your data if you don't know the proper source. When you use an LDS film of wills from a court house, do you cite the Will Book or do you cite the LDS film number AND the Will Book? If I copied the will from the film and sent it to you, you would use all three. If not, you are rude and inaccurate. Would you like me to send you a book about how to cite sources? I could probably find a web site or two. Your citations are no good if you aren't telling the truth about where you got them. I'm not claiming it HAS to be both. I'm stating the FACT that properly it should be both. If you want to discredit yourself, knock yourself out. Faulty sources lead to inaccurate research. Debbie Richard- I think you and I are in agreement on this issue--what I'm arguing with is Debbie's statement that even if she sends me a photocopy of a Birth Certificate SHE is still my source of knowing when Mary Smith was born and not the certificate itself (or she claims it has to be BOTH). That is what I've been arguing about in this thread. If I have a birth certificate who sent me the photocopy is irrelevant (other than pure courtesy of maybe thanking the person for doing so). I never stated that if the ONLY means I have of knowing something is because Susie told me that this isn't my source. But I refuse to accept Susie as my source when I've got a BC--no matter WHO sent it to me or how I acquired it. Joan