Posts
I selected Dr. David Shepherd Jr. as my "test subject" in this series focusing on analyzing the records in the FamilySearch.org Family Tree because of a lack of sources and some obviously serious issues. By the way, finding such a situation in the Family Tree is extremely easy for me with my ancestors because even after many years of cleaning up the entries, there is still a huge amount of work to be done. One reason, as I mentioned previously, for selecting this person as an example is that the entry is apparently complete and detailed even with the lack of sources. The information must have come from somewhere.
A little bit of research in the form of reading about the family in my daughter's blog, TheAncestorFiles, disclosed that there is apparently a book about the family. Here is the citation.
Barnett, Eula Mae Garrett. 1983. Shepherd family history, 1605-1966. Salt Lake City, Utah: Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah.
The book is a typed manuscript that has been microfilmed and the only copy is in the Family History Library in Salt Lake City, Utah. I have not yet made a trip to Salt Lake to view the microfilm, but I am guessing that the information came from that book.
The first step in cleaning up and adding sources to this record is to look at the list of "Birth Names." As I explained, these names are merely an artifact of the numerous submissions over the years and unless there is a real dispute about the person's birth name, these duplicate entries can be deleted especially the one about "Dr." being a title of nobility.
Before:
After:
I could also delete the reference to the census as a source, but the date and place might be helpful, so I left that entry alone.
Next, there is a whole list of sources. Here is are the before and after screenshots.
Before:
I had already added one source that had a reference to both a birth and death date. The FindAGrave.com entry is technically not a "source" because the information is usually not supported by documentation other than a photo of the grave marker but in this case, adding the entry supports the information already in the Family Tree. Here is a screenshot of the original entry from FindAGrave.com.
There is a long list of Record Hints.
The question always comes up about whether or not to add the Record Hints if they appear to be duplicates. It is a really good idea to add all the Record Hints, whether or not they appear to be duplicates in order to notify the computer program that it has made a right selection. If it bothers you, you can detach the "duplicates" later, but be sure they really are duplicates and not just references to the same record. Duplicates come from the same source website etc.
Most of the sources were actually for children in the family. Here is the after screenshot of the sources added.
There were several copies of the same marriage record but the record was of a marriage license and would not necessarily change the date of the marriage. In addition, some of the records had been mistranscribed and had the date of 15 December
The entry was now "cleaned up" but the only record of his birth and death dates came from the FindAGrave.com record that had no further source for the information. Further research is certainly necessary, especially for the children.
Here is the first part of this series:
http://rejoiceandbeexceedingglad.blogspot.com/2017/10/how-to-analyze-record-in-familysearch.html
Your comment: "The FindAGrave.com entry is technically not a "source" because the information is usually not supported by documentation other than a photo of the grave marker..." caused me to think a bit more on the practical definition of sources. I think the grave marker is a good source for the death date and the place of burial because it was made at or near the time of the event by people, perhaps not having an official governmental duty, but certainly by people who would have no motive to fabricate those things. As to the date of birth, that would be another matter. Sources is like evidence in that some is better than others.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you seem to suggest that physical evidence like a photo or an item itself is not a source because there is no documentation that comes with it. But isn't there documentation in terms of the writing on the item itself. For instance, I have a money belt of my grandfather that has written on it a date and a place, which corroborates other information that he was in a certain place at a certain time. Although, by itself the belt would not prove that, but taken in conjunction with other evidence it certainly adds to the strength of other information. Should we consider this a source or not?
I would be interested in your thoughts on this to gain a better understanding of the proper definition of "Sources". Best regards
Your comment raises a lot of very interesting issues. To a large extent, the word "source" is used ambiguously by genealogists. The other words used by genealogists such as "evidence" and "documentation" are also ambiguous because of their multiple meanings. I will follow your suggestion and discuss these issues in a future post. Thanks for the comment.
DeleteA grave marker is only a good source when it's accurate. If you go look at FindAGrave for Jacob Hamblin, a notable Western American explorer, you will see that his gravestone says, "Jacob Vernon Hamblin." It turns out that the gravestone was made many decades after his death, and although I've challenged the family to come up with a single document created during his lifetime that shows a middle name or initial, no has come up with anything so far. He also had a previous gravestone, and that one said, "Jacob V. Hamblin," but it was also created some time after his death.
DeleteShould we believe he had a middle name or initial based on his gravestone? Sure, but only if someone can find even one supporting piece of evidence.
As far as the money belt: yes, that can be considered a source, as long as it has a clear chain of ownership, or "provenance." An item like that is part of the material culture, and can be a very important part of history, but one often overlooked in traditional history and biography.