Debbie -- I think you're on the right track in trying to make it clear to the client that these sources may provide useful clues but are not authoritative. (Bear in mind that clients can also be sophisticated and not be very impressed with these books when we trot them out.) My preference would be to mention this in appropriate ways in the opening summary, in the text itself, and in the suggestions for future research. Be specific: "Book XX says he died in 1790, but it does not give a source and in the time available this claim has not been confirmed." Even if the client doesn't get the message, s/he may get it later, and you are setting a great example for them (and any other readers of your report) by being conscious of source quality and always questioning what has been published. Some books may provide signals as to their potential accuracy: what is said in the introduction, whether there *is* an introduction, whether some claims have been verified (or falsified), whether they blithely assume connections to famous people because of having the same last name, how even-handed their historical portions are, etc. When obtainable, this information would also be good to mention. It was fashionable in the late 1800s and early 1900s for genealogists to cloak themselves in authoritative tones, and the "mug books" -- county histories with biographies usually provided by the profiled individual, who paid for it -- were rarely even written by genealogists. These may be more reliable about recent ancestors than distant ones, but I don't know whether anyone has tried to make a survey. You didn't ask about this, but I will add one other thought. "Primary source" and "secondary source" are terms that may work well for historians, but they are imprecise and clumsy tools for genealogists. (Just try to determine whether a death certificate is a primary source or secondary source!) Elizabeth Shown Mills gives a quick rundown of the genealogy field's improved standard terminology in her evidence process map at https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-17-evidence-analysis-process-map. Good luck! Harold Harold Henderson, CG midwestroots.net *Finding Ancestors in Fort Wayne: The Genealogist's Unofficial One-Stop Guide to the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center * http://www.midwestroots.net/ <http://www.midwestroots.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ACPLGC-April-2013.pdf> Certified Genealogist (SM) No. 1029 Certified Genealogist and CG are proprietary service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists® used by the Board to identify its program of genealogical competency evaluation and used under license by the Board’s associates. On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Deborah Harvey via < [email protected]> wrote: > I am working on a report for a client to trace the family lines back as far > as I can. This effort has a time limit and a set fee. On several lines, > I've located books written in the late 1800s, early 1900s on some of the > lines that provide information on the family line for several generations. > I'm unable to find primary source information for some of the > relationships. I'd like to include this in my report, but I want to > indicate that the information has not all been verified by me. My thoughts > are to cite the books and where I have primary sources cite those rather > than the book; however, I'm afraid the client will not fully appreciate > that the book citations are less certain. I've thought to provide in the > report overview/summary a statement explaining this, but am interested how > others have handled this type of situation and the best way to not ignore > information but report it appropriately. > > Thanks for your help, > Debbie Harvey > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

To Harold and Melanie's advice I would add a reminder that whenever we ask ourselves "what do others do" we can look to the standards to see what it is standard to do. Just as when we are driving and wonder "how far should I park from a fire hydrant" we will find the answer in the driver's education standards, we can find many answers in _Genealogy Standards_. To this case's point is genealogy standard 2, Specificity. "Genealogists' citations connect one or more sources or information items with: Each statement the genealogist makes that is someone else's observation, deduction, or opinion.... The specificity of these connections leaves no question about the basis or source of each statement, fact, image, or conclusion." So as Harold suggests, if you make a statement then be sure to cite that it came from the undocumented book. In the footnote you can state that you deem this to be an unreliable source (along with its citation). You never know where your report will end up or when. 100 years from now people will still want to know where you found that information. -- Elissa Elissa Scalise Powell, CG , CGL www.PowellGenealogy.com www.GRIPitt.org 28 June-3 July 2015 and 19-24 July 2015 in Pittsburgh, PA CG, Certified Genealogist, CGL, and Certified Genealogical Lecturer are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic evaluations. The board name is a trademark registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Harold Henderson via Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 9:05 AM Debbie -- I think you're on the right track in trying to make it clear to the client that these sources may provide useful clues but are not authoritative. (Bear in mind that clients can also be sophisticated and not be very impressed with these books when we trot them out.) My preference would be to mention this in appropriate ways in the opening summary, in the text itself, and in the suggestions for future research. Be specific: "Book XX says he died in 1790, but it does not give a source and in the time available this claim has not been confirmed." Even if the client doesn't get the message, s/he may get it later, and you are setting a great example for them (and any other readers of your report) by being conscious of source quality and always questioning what has been published. Some books may provide signals as to their potential accuracy: what is said in the introduction, whether there *is* an introduction, whether some claims have been verified (or falsified), whether they blithely assume connections to famous people because of having the same last name, how even-handed their historical portions are, etc. When obtainable, this information would also be good to mention. It was fashionable in the late 1800s and early 1900s for genealogists to cloak themselves in authoritative tones, and the "mug books" -- county histories with biographies usually provided by the profiled individual, who paid for it -- were rarely even written by genealogists. These may be more reliable about recent ancestors than distant ones, but I don't know whether anyone has tried to make a survey. You didn't ask about this, but I will add one other thought. "Primary source" and "secondary source" are terms that may work well for historians, but they are imprecise and clumsy tools for genealogists. (Just try to determine whether a death certificate is a primary source or secondary source!) Elizabeth Shown Mills gives a quick rundown of the genealogy field's improved standard terminology in her evidence process map at https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-17-evidence-analysis-process-map. Good luck! Harold Harold Henderson, CG midwestroots.net *Finding Ancestors in Fort Wayne: The Genealogist's Unofficial One-Stop Guide to the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center * http://www.midwestroots.net/ <http://www.midwestroots.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ACPLGC-April-2013.pdf> Certified Genealogist (SM) No. 1029 Certified Genealogist and CG are proprietary service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists® used by the Board to identify its program of genealogical competency evaluation and used under license by the Board’s associates. On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Deborah Harvey via < [email protected]> wrote: > I am working on a report for a client to trace the family lines back > as far as I can. This effort has a time limit and a set fee. On > several lines, I've located books written in the late 1800s, early > 1900s on some of the lines that provide information on the family line for several generations. > I'm unable to find primary source information for some of the > relationships. I'd like to include this in my report, but I want to > indicate that the information has not all been verified by me. My > thoughts are to cite the books and where I have primary sources cite > those rather than the book; however, I'm afraid the client will not > fully appreciate that the book citations are less certain. I've > thought to provide in the report overview/summary a statement > explaining this, but am interested how others have handled this type > of situation and the best way to not ignore information but report it appropriately. > > Thanks for your help, > Debbie Harvey