Thanks, Diane. That's what I was trying to say. -- Harold >Agreed, the point is that whether we are using a book, a digitized or hard bound copy, a family group sheet, CD-ROM, web page, scanned image of whatever, we should analyze the information (and the attached footnotes if in some published form), verify it, and if it meets all criteria for reliable information, incorporate it into our collections. The digitized books, reliable info or not, do provide easier access, and a *starting point* that might help those brick walls come tumbling down. Its what we do with that info that makes all the difference in how credible our own research becomes. > Not cited? Then the information provided *must* be verified one way or another to lend any credibility to the fact - the best direct evidence being a document created at or near the time of the event by someone present at that event. (Conclusions based on indirect evidence can get really involved). Cited, but references a highly digested or vague body of work? ( ex: John Brown's genealogy, worker of wonders in the genie field for 20 years and noted genealogist) -- better try to get the documentation that backs up the 'fact' . Cited to a civil marriage record at 'x' courthouse/repository/archives? Great! - easy to track and get a copy to boot (just to make sure no typos occured if nothing else). Standing down from my soapbox now : ] Diane Harold Henderson, researching HENDERSON, DAVIDSON, ANDERSSON, STENBERG, THRALL, FLINT, SCHRIBER, JOSS, SCHOLES, MOZLEY, BOREN, LINHART, BASSETT, BLISS, BURDICK, CRANDALL and many more http://wc.rootsweb.com/~hendersonscholes http://justonestory.com