Elizabeth, Elizabeth, Elizabeth, Been waiting for you to bring your
expertise and vast knowledge to the discussion.
Thank you for sharing these 5 points which are can be viewed as the basics
of research toolkit.

Hopefully everyone will read all the case studies published in the National
Genealogical Society Quarterly.
These case studies utilize the standards you have mentioned and espoused in
your many lectures and publications.

Another topic: Do you have any news regarding Paul Drake? Nel and  I have
been searching for him and fear the worse.....
Nel and I would appreciate any news you may have for him.

Poldi Tonin .









On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Elizabeth Shown Mills
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Steve wrote:
> >Reliable Sources....great topic.  Anyone know of any?
> >No need to go on about primary or secondary sources, . . .
> >So I do get a little un-nerved when someone expresses their perfection in
> genealogy research, because it just ain't so.  You can do your best, but
> that is just it, YOUR best.
>
>
> Steve,
>
> You are correct. No source is perfect. Fortunately, there are guidelines
> that help immensely in our effort to sort chaff from wheat, so that 'our
> best' becomes far more reliable. Unfortunately, those who do not bother to
> learn those guidelines are the ones who create all the problems this thread
> has bemoaned for several days.
>
> How to reach them and teach them is the real issue, IMO. We all know
> 'family
> trees' to which we'd like to take Bunyan's axe, chopping them into
> smithereens, and setting fire to the sawdust. But like a phoenix, they keep
> arising from the ashes.
>
> The solution, IMO, is not to bash Ancestry, FamilySearch, or similar sites
> who---beyond those trees---offer us a wonderful world of real records. My
> own experience aligns with that of Nel and Clay. The best way to change the
> dynamics is to teach the newcomers by example: making sure that *we* follow
> sound genealogical practices and then putting our work out there, online,
> so
> that others can see what quality work looks like.
>
>
> You pointed out a litany of real problems that exist with records we would
> love to 'rely on.'  I would add that no type of source is generically
> "reliable" or "unreliable." Virtually all are a mixed bag of assertions of
> various quality.
>
> Equally important, those terms "primary source" and "secondary source" are
> outdated and unworkable for genealogists. Genealogical research today is
> far
> more reliable when we separate the physical form of a source from the
> information within the source and evaluate each by its own kind of
> criteria.
>
> In pursuit of that illusive state called 'our best,' most genealogists I
> have known across the decades find that their 'best' becomes far better
> when
> they follow five basic practices:
>
> 1.
> Learn the principles of textual analysis and evidence analysis; then apply
> them to each piece of information we add to our files.
>
> 2.
> Use derivative sources for the wonderful clues they can provide, but then
> seek out the original records to verify the accuracy of what the derivative
> sources assert.
>
> 3.
> Dissect every source into individual assertions. Then, evaluate ***each
> individual assertion,*** applying all the relevant criteria, such as
>
> ---whether the informant had firsthand or secondhand knowledge of the
> information asserted (that is, primary or secondary ***information***).
> ---whether the informant had cause for bias or a reason to fudge the facts.
> ---whether the informant recorded the information at the time the event
> occurred, or many years later after memories dimmed.
> ---whether the source itself is an original document or a derivative such
> as
> transcripts, abstracts, and compilations/histories.
> ---&c &c &c!
>
> 4.
> Do reasonably exhaustive research for each person to better ensure the
> soundness of our interpretations and conclusions. As Nel said (using
> different words), any document left unconsulted is a ticking time bomb just
> waiting to explode all our premature theories.
>
> ... and, of course ....
>
> 5. Document every single assertion that we make--and if we can't cite a
> specific document that contains direct evidence to support our assertion,
> then support it with a proof argument that assembles all the indirect
> evidence leading to our conclusion.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html
>



-- 

"She is insane, of course. The family history has become a mania for her."
Hercule Poirot

http://www.FrontPorchRockerNews.blogspot.com

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/Langford
This project includes Lankford spelling also.

"Truth and reason are eternal. They have prevailed. And they will
eternally prevail; however, in times and places they may be overborne
for a while by violence, military, civil, or ecclesiastical."
--Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson, 1810

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html