On 21/06/2012 12:00, Barbara wrote: > When you receive information from a well-documented source for a whole > family line, should you use that source or should you use the original > source? I know Jeff always says when you site a FHL census source, that > it is really from the Nat. Archives. Thus, if I follow that, I should > use the original source, even though I may not have seen it.
You should not cite a Source you have not actually seen yourself. How do you know it's true? The best you can says is "Joe Bloggs says ..." and add what information you can to indicate how reliable Joe Bloggs's information is liable to be. For example, you might cite an e-mail where Joe Bloggs tells you he visited a Record Office the day before and looked at a Parish Register or you might have Joe Bloggs's diary where he said he attended Fanny Adams's 100th birthday on 2 September 1977. Or you might have Joe Bloggs's Family Tree with all his Sources fully documented. In each of those cases, your source is the e-mail, the diary or the Tree because that is what you have seen. You know they are real and hopefully your recording of them is accurate. You don't know for sure the information in them is true until you have gone back to the original Sources or some other proof yourself. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
