> 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> Hi, Yaacov- 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

> > 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>