Suggestion ! Attach Records to Prove Family Connections
Have you ever heard the old adage, "Genealogy without sources is mythology?" It is certainly true. Unless we source our family trees, the information there is often just an educated guess. Today I came across Charlotte Carter in my tree, she was my fourth great grandfather's second wife. Charlotte had four sources, 1 duplicate, no vital events and 6 unattached sources. So I began to work on her record. I cleared up the duplicate and began attaching sources. As a result, I found a death date for Charlotte, proved her marriage date, along with the fact that her husband had been widowed, as well as proof of one of her children's birth dates. The sources proved events and also family relationships for Charlotte. There is more work to do, but It is a wonderful thing to prove our family trees with sources!
Best Answer
-
Hello @betsy123,
I've heard the same "old adage" as: There's no truth without proof.
Well done with Charlotte Carter.
1
Answers
-
Naturally I cannot disagree with you on the importance of attaching all available records as Sources. However, I do believe that the "Genealogy without sources is mythology?" adage does not make sense without qualification.
For many of our ancestors / relatives (and others), extant records are simply not available, so one has to rely on personal (often first-hand) knowledge of evidence / facts that one then records against their Family Tree profiles and elsewhere.
Regarding actual "sources", finding a profile with a large amount of items in the Sources section often leads to a misleading conclusion, as on close examination, I often find they have no connection whatsoever to the individual to whom they have been attached. Some users even add multiple sources for the same event (usually census, but sometimes vitals-related). I believe they are so anxious to provide the recommended source detail that they do not check the relevance to the individual in question, and even "hedge their bets" with some items.
My alternative to the lack of sources - I commonly find to be the case with individuals I have added to the tree - is to provide detailed reason statements (against their Vitals) and Notes and Discussions items under the Collaboration section.
Unfortunately, I obtained a lot of my information ( some around thirty years ago), before I realised the importance of recording source references in detail. (Incidentally, some of the CMB entries found back then have still not been indexed, let alone have images of the entry available online.) But I am confident from my original, handwritten notes that I did directly encounter evidence of these events (from reading original parish registers, etc. at record repositories), so certainly refuse to regard the details I add to Family Tree as "myth", just because I cannot provide source links / specific references as evidence.
3 -
@Paul W I think we agree…. your tree is absolutely sourced. We have to use the sources we can find, sometimes those are online sources and sometimes they are family sources that can not be indexed and attached in the same way. You are still taking the time to explain how you came to your conclusions and that is wonderful! I'm sorry if I implied in any way that indexed, attached sources are the only way to substantiate a tree. I was really just wanting to encourage people to use the available sources in FamilySearch. Best of luck with your research!
2 -
Here is an adage I just created:
Genealogy without citation is often fabrication.
5
