Can secondary sources be used as a source in family tree?

Summerhays Todd

I believe that there are two (maybe more) types of sources: Primary and Secondary. A Primary source is created at the time of the event or very shortly after. Example: A Marriage Certificate. Primary source to the Marriage. A Secondary Source is one created well after the event. Example: If the Marriage Certificate has a birthdate, then the Marriage Certificate is a Secondary source to the birthdate while still being a Primary source to the Marriage. Thus Pedigree Charts and Family Group Sheets would be Secondary sources even if the information on them came from a Primary source. Sometimes the only type of source that can be found is a Secondary source. So the question is: Can a Pedigree Chart and/or a Family Group Sheet (or any other Secondary source) be connected to a person in Family Tree as a source even though they are considered to be a Secondary source? If not, why not?

Thanks, Todd Summerhays

RobertLeighPritchett

I located this > https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Primary_sources

The AI Search function in FamilySearch.org/en/Labs found this for Secondary Sources >

FamilySearch Helper

A secondary source is a record created later by someone who did not experience the time period or events being studied. It provides information about the primary sources and can take the form of books, articles, or other publications [1].
In genealogy research, secondary sources can include regional
histories, local histories, church histories, family histories, and
articles in newspapers and magazines [2]. which led to this >

https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/New_Brunswick_Secondary_Sources_-_International_Institute

And to answer your question directly, I would suggest printing out the Family Group sheet with the sources > Tools > Print Options > Family Group Record With Sources, assuming sources are attached to the form and then looking closely at those sources.

This looks like Polish Notation - by bringing you back to the profile in question doesn't it?

lindastowemiller

I believe the definition of primary source given first is accurate. (I disagree somewhat with the AI version above.) Both primary and secondary sources are valuable; and as noted, a source can be both primary for one event (marriage or death) and secondary for other events indicated in the document (birth).

It is good to attach as many sources as possible, so both primary and secondary are appropriate and important. Sources are attached to individuals in FamilySearch and could be included in printed reports such as pedigree charts and family group sheets.

As a practical matter, there are not primary sources for many life events for people, especially further back. So we take what we can find and are grateful, evaluate the information, compare and identify any conflicts or differences, and go from there. That's my opinion, anyway.

RobertLeighPritchett

There's ball-parkish - and hitting it out of the park. I've been part of primary sources in my life that were inaccurate for myself - but fixable - for a fee. Ditto with my parents and grandparents. Everything needs to be weighed and questioned and not everything can be taken at face value. Just when we think we have a handle on stuff, it changes in front of our eyes. And sometimes good enough is just that. Good enough. Secondary acts as a 2nd witness to primary stuff - which is first witness. Some has value. Not everything does. Then again we could be like much of the world where everything is either memorized or vocalized and nothing is written down or cast in stone. I echo lindasoremiller - in that we take what we can find and are grateful. Sometimes we can be spoiled with "too much information" on given profiles, so we have to maintain a balance of data as we piece together the tapestry of humanity.

Summerhays Todd

Thank you for your comments. I agree with your statements about the data. All records can contain errors. Records need to be evaluated for accuracy and relevance. We believe the data as far as it is true and accurate. In other words, Trust but verify. It is my view that any document, even a note written on a napkin, can be a source once the data has been verified. It just may not be the most reliable source. But like you say more information is better and we take what we can get. That less reliable source just might lead us to a better source. Even documents with errors can be of value in searching for other documents. For this discussion I make the assumption that the data is 100% correct. It is the actual document that is in question. So let me restate the question. Can and/or should pedigree charts and/or family group sheets be attached to a person in Family Tree as a source (even though they are considered to be a secondary source) with or without listing where the information came from originally? Is there some rule (written or not) that would prohibit this?

Ashlee C.

There is an article in the FamilySearch Wiki that might answer your question. In the article it says:

"There are many other sources that can be added to document your Family History research.
Examples include birth, marriage, & death certificates, tombstone photos and inscriptions, family
Bibles and other documents or items that are not available through FamilySearch or even online."

Although it does not specifically mention pedigree charts and family group records, it does mention tombstone photos and inscriptions, which can also be considered secondary sources. It teaches how to attach them as sources in FamilySearch. If you want to read the article go to this link: https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Training_for_FamilySearch_Family_Tree. Look for the article called "Attaching Sources from other Websites to Family Tree."