1. Sources are extremely important for the viewer. Most details (names, dates, places) have sources, however, some do not. When I discover a missing source, then I attempt to rectify that shortfall, but if I cannot, then I either delete the name, or note to myself that the name is important enough to look further for the sources at a later time. If I forgot to source something, it's usually easily fixed. If a viewer has different information, and a supporting source for it, then contact and challenge me.
  2. What is an original source? When a researcher views an original document then that is an example of content obtained from the original source document, whereby it was originally entered as pertains to the person providing the details. For example, if I view an original census document, then the details I present from it are based up original source research. Some people will disagree with the following, but I don't care. An interview of a person who possesses the details, is an original source. However, humans can make an error, or even remember wrong, but the detail is still from an original source. Likewise, an original source provided either correct, or deliberately wrong information to the census taker <proveable too>, but no one seems to question census data unless it disagrees with their version of the truth. Birth certificates, death certificates, marriage licenses, marriage records, etc., all contain details provided by original sources, and all details are suspect, except we know with close to perfect assurance that a birth did take place, or a death did occur, or a marriage did take place, or else a public official was guilty of a punishable crime, but those officials also entered information that they could not guarantee as correct, only what was provided to them by the submitter of supporting details.
  3. Conflicting sources? Sometimes conflicting sources find their way into court. If a case has only one official source supporting a conclusion, then that source usually prevails, and it makes no difference if the source is personal testimony, or a birth certificate, or whatever. However, if there are conflicting sources, then the jury and/or judge makes a decision based on the analysis of all sources, then, that decision becomes fact, whether it's the real truth or not. What if you don't agree with my sources, or conclusions? That's your decision, but if you write me to just disagree for the sake of arguing, then don't contact me. If you believe that you have source information that proves that something on my web site is wrong, then write me, but bring your facts with the objective of presenting those facts in an attempt to persuade me to change my mind. If you're correct, then I've been persuaded and I'm better off from the exchange, but you'll have to prove me wrong.
  4. I personally translated the 1850 Census for Henry County, Virginia, from original source documents, thus my research is "original source". That is a true statement, but translations of original documents almost certainly contain errors that are either induced by the human translator, or even if translated correctly, the original details, provided by the person responsible to provide it, may have been intentionally wrong information. When I translated the 1850 census, I used photos of original documents, and read each and every line, and entered same into a spreadsheet. In doing so, I discovered that the page sequencing was all fouled up, and that accounts for why electronic page searching bounce all over that census. But the bottom-line is that viewers have to believe me when I say that my research was from an original source document, or should they? It's quite simple to view the 1850 census on a variety of web sites that contain images of original source documents, thus, if a viewer checks my translation against original documents, and finds that I spoke the truth, then that either provides a level of confidence to that viewer when reading what I present, or proves that I'm a liar (barring the occasional human mistake that wasn't intentional). The bottom-line is that viewers of my translation of the 1850 census are not original source researchers, their copying of my translated details for their own purposes is considered 2d source, and initiates the "game of gossip".
  5. What if I don't identify my source? If a source isn't identified, or a source trail isn't identified, then it may be that I either made up the details <it can and does happen>, or I accepted information as fact that has no traceable origin. Such acceptance of information is akin to playing the game of gossip; you know, the game where someone whispers a short fact to someone, and then that person whispers what they heard to someone else <in the group> and so on and so forth, until the last person <usually about 10 or so> reveals what they were told. I have yet to hear of any game of gossip whereby the end result was even remotely close to the starting details. So it is with a great amount of web based family member postings that individuals present for all to see. I've been researching for about about 45 years, and experience grew. Some of my data has no source whatsoever, so why not? I haven't always sourced things as I should, and that's intermingled with about 85,000 names. I don't intend to fix everything at once, so I methodically review focused groups of detail to either add-in missing sources, or otherwise validate details, and in many cases I simply delete individuals whereby I cannot satisfactorily provide a source that's reasonable. Sometimes, depending upon the person involved, I'll even post something with the intention of deliberately drawing scrutiny from viewers to aid in refining a source or collection of sources, whether conflicting or not.
  6. Without an official source, then it's fiction! I hear that statement occasionally and it's always nauseating. I come from a military background, and in planning for a mission we collect intellegence. An overall description of that process is called "All Source Analysis". That means that the commander reviews intelligence from every possible source. No one source is more important than another, although some sources seem to have the obvious answers, but seldom is that the case. The commander makes battle decisions, and there are times when little things, from sources that seem trivial or questionable, are the most important source of all. In genealogy, unless you were famous, maybe there are no official sources anywhere, but that doesn't mean that's someone's life is fiction. Any source, verbal, legend, or whatever, has merit, and official sources don't trump other facts, except maybe in a court of law. It is up to the researcher to gather the facts from all sources, whenever they surface, analyze their collective content, and then present those facts based upon their assessment. Prudent assessments usually generate correct or at least adequate conclusions, but there is always someone who insists that the sky is really pink, and they can prove it. If you ever want to cause me to stop communicating with you, then simply tell me that my data is fiction unless I produce an official source that's acceptable to you! Isn't it grand how one can mostly block just about any electronic correspondence, and even exclude specific Internet Protocol (IP) addresses from being able to access a particular web site.
  7. Accuracy considerations in various official sources:
- On Birth Certificates: Original birth certificates will always be correct, for the date and time, except maybe in one human failure area, to wit: if birth at 12 a.m., is that midnight or noon. I've seen a few where the family says birth on the day just finished, and the hospital as the following day, and vice-versa. But, by convention, 12 a.m., on Jan. 1, xxxx, is midnight on Jan. 1, BUT if birth was 12:01 a.m., then that's very early morning, Jan. 2d. Conversely, 12 p.m., is Noon on that day, and 12:01 p.m. is also on that same day. See the confusion?!

- On Death Certificates: The birth date is the only area on the DC that can't be relied on, but it might be correct. The problem is that the birth date is provided by the "informant". Unfortunately, no matter who the informant is, they might not know the true birth date or place. Always confirm birth dates from DCs with other original sources, particular official sources in their younger lives. Death dates and times on a DC will always be correct, barring human failure on the phycican's part, because physicians are required by law to be absolutely correct on official records or risk losing their license to practive medicine.

- On Marriage Certificates: If a complete birth date is given on the MC then it might just be close. Typically, the male birth will be correct, but the female might be overstated (underaged), particularly if away from their residence state and/or county. Locations suffer the same problem, except that male birth locations seem to be more frequently wrong for the same reason.

- On Draft or similar Military Registrations: If during war time, particularly WWI, then a young man, underaged, might readily give an earlier date. And, no so likely, an older man might give an earlier date to just miss the draft age. The prior wants to go to war, and the latter doesn't want to go. Advancing one's age happens more frequently, but they don't represent a high percentage, and the same for older men, but it's worthy of consideration, and if there's a disconnect, all-source evaluation might indicate an intentional error here.

- Tombstones: If a tombstone has an original appearance, then it's probably correct, but remember that tombstone cutters can make mistakes. Unless the perponderance of evidence leads to a cutter's error, then it's probably best to go with the tombstone date and year. But, if the tombstone has a new appearance, then it's likely that the original grave had either a stone marker only (no dates), or the original tombstone was destroyed somehow. In such cases, well meaning descendants have purchased a tombstone and they provide the birth, date, & name information. Such updates are frequently wrong, and might be proven wrong via unimpeachable official written sources.

- Church Records: Original recordings will certainly be correct, because the recorder is working for a "higher" power. But if in question, collectively evaluate all official sources.