>> > I have recently received a well documented and researched GEDCOM >> > family tree, complete with source citations. I want to merge it in >> > my own family tree, but have some doubts on how to deal to some of >> > its own sources. I can think of two ways: >> > >> > (1) Source all the information as "Family Tree XXX by nn", with his >> > own sources moved to the notes section. >> > >> > (2) Source the information according to the level it can be >> > independently verified: For example, a Census record is verifiable, >> > thus I can keep the original source, disregarding the fact it came >> > from a third party family tree. On the other hand, an email or an >> > oral testimony to my friend is not verifiable (unless I have a copy >> > of it), in which case I could source the data as "Family Tree XXX by >> > nn" with the rest of the information detail in the notes. >> > >> > What are our preferred methods to deal with situations like this? I >> > will appreciate your comments on this matter. >> > >> > Yaacov Slizak <yslizak@yahoo.com> >> >> If YOU have verified the evidence by checking an original record >> referenced in the GEDCOM, the original record or source document >> has then become your source. If you only have the GEDCOM creator's >> word for the evidence then his GEDCOM is your source. >> >> So, option TWO is better. For the information you have verified you >> don't really even need to indicate where you learned of the evidence >> -- the GEDCOM. That became irrelevant after you checked the >> original source and verified the information for yourself. It is a >> courtesy, though, to include in your notes that this was how you >> found the evidence to begin with--but it isn't absolutely >> necessary. It might also help you to keep your research in order to >> make note of it. >> >> Joan <JYoung6180@aol.com> > > >Well, since it's Joan sayin' that this time, I'll complain a bit >about it. > >I'm a little puzzled about the concurrent desires of genealogists to >make sure their resarch results outlives them AND to verify >personally every thing they're given. > >Let's dwell on the very untidy results of various wars throughout >Western Civ -- even after The Holy Catholic Church decreed that >priests would record baptisms, marriages and burials, it took a >while for the word to circulate. And once the parish was in >compliance, even the Pope could not control the damages of war, the >weather-related damage to buildings, or the simple senility of >priests who managed to lose a 25-lb 18x24 book. > >Some things cannot be verified and often some can't even be refound >(I agonized with a researcher who was and working to double-check >her source citations prior to publication ... one simply was not >where it should have been. It had been recorded twice, fortunately, >so we found the duplicate entry, but the one she'd seen (and printed >off) the first time just wasn't there). > >Seems to me, in a way, if there's even ONE item in there that cannot >be checked (say, a family Bible which burnt in a house-fire 4 years >ago, or the infamous Virginia Burned Counties), you've got to take >that one on faith; and having done that, may as well swallow the >rest of it whole, since there's no telling whether that one >uncheckable item is the key that locks/unlocks the rest of the >chain. > >Cheryl Singhals <singhals@erols.com> Just for the sake of discussion, seems to me like you are discussing absolute verification. I have never thought of it that way. The census is a good example. If a person uses a census as a source I use him as the source until I see the census - then I eliminate him as the source. Since the census name is often misspelled or illegble I rarely attempt to verify what the original record SHOULD have said (but I record a note) Same for tombstones... Side by side stones have a couples last name spelled Sullivant and Sullivan. Worse, in Alabama they still pronounce it with a "t" at the end regardless of spelling. I agree with your idea of beyond a doubt verification when possible but I think the average bear often sees verification as "Well, you read/interpreted that correctly." Isn't this even more true when many our "Facts" are being upset with DNA testing? Or did I not parlez vous avec la LA Lady? Hugh ------- End of Forwarded Message Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan)