Brian, I applaud your defense of "commemorative" records. In my opinion, the "worth" to the researcher of what are termed commemorative certificates, should be held at least as valuable as entries in a family Bible, or those held in "official" repositories, in that they are created by participants in the event at the time of that event.
In years when most of our research was conducted either in person at record repositories, or via the mail communicating with those repositories, I would have deemed such artifacts less valuable due to the very limited access by remote researchers to those commemorative documents. However today, when such documents may be easily scanned for dissemination to other researchers, and certainly when such scanned documents are accompanied by the written testimony of those whose life events they document, I see no reason why they should ever be doubted any more than, and in many cases less than, those records reposing in "official" vaults. How often have we seen errors in "official" records? I suggest that the likelihood of errors in documents created "on-the-spot", and in the presence of those to whom they pertain, is less than those created by "official" record-keepers, who often only transcribed records created by churches and the like. Although we rightly place great store in recording sources available to other researchers it is my opinion that our goal should be the accurate determination of names, dates, places and events, and the veracity of a record should count more than its place of repose, or its "official" nature. Certainly a marriage certificate "freely handed out by ministers" was sufficient proof of marriage to those being wed, and was certainly enough to allow them to register at a hotel, or to prove the legality of their matrimonial bond to others in their families or community. Sometimes I think we demean recording what we know to be true in favor of recording what is "acceptable" to remote researchers. The attitude that if our source isn't "official" it doesn't count smacks of the tail wagging the dog. Ironically today such commemorative documents are insufficient evidence to establish, for example, a Social Security Number. The bureaucracies only acknowledge the "legality" of documents issued by their fellow bureaucracies. The written testimony of those who performed the delivery of a baby, or the ceremony of marriage, counts for nothing. :-) John Zimmerman Mesa, AZ On 2/15/2013 12:15 PM, Brian L. Lightfoot wrote: > I absolutely agree with them being considered as "Artifacts, privately held". > The keys words to all of these documents are "commemorative" and "in my > possession". Otherwise, where would any other researcher now or in the future > go to see these documents. The answer is only to the original poster of the > question. > > And yes, I'll also be the first to admit that many people blur the lines > between "commemorative" and "official". I've seen many supposed birth > certificates from researchers that are in effect only the commemorative > certificate issued by the hospital and not the official record of birth > recorded by the local government agency. The same applies to those marriage > certificates that are freely handed out by ministers. But then as I grow > older and more forgiving, I have to ask myself, what is the difference? If a > person records one of these commemorative certificates as an official > document but adds notes something to the effect that it was issued by the > hospital, or minister, and is in their possession, that seems close enough > for me. At least the dates and locations are correct and those would be a > good pointer for looking for any official documents if so desired. Yeah, I > know --- I'll take a lot of heat for this. So what. One has to be thick > skinned to be on the LUG anyhow. :-) > > > Brian in CA > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gene Young [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 10:45 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Questions regarding Source Type > > On 2/15/2013 1:24 PM, Sentz wrote: >> Okay, I'll run the following up the flag pole again, since no one >> responded a while ago. >> How should one record the following in Legacy using the Source Writer. >> I was trying to understand how to classify types of documents/data and >> find the appropriate source type using the "What kind of source" data >> field. >> A child received "The Blessing of Little Children" rather than being >> Christened or baptized as an infant. The name of the child, parents, >> birthdate, church and date of blessing along with the names of the >> officiating ministers are recorded in a commemorative card/pamphlet >> that was given to the parents. Didn't see anything that was >> appropriate in the big list of source types. Would this be a generic source? >> The parents of a child received a certificate of birth from the >> hospital. This is supposedly a commemorative document and not >> considered the legal birth certificate from the state of residence. >> What type of document would this be considered? generic or birth >> record at the local/county level? >> The newlyweds received a Certificate of Marriage from the officiating >> minister. Again, this is not a marriage license, but a commemorative >> document/pamphlet. It cites the names of those married, the location >> (city & state, not the church, although the name of the church is >> known), date of the ceremony, witnesses and the officiating minister. >> It is not known whether the church recorded the marriage in 1945. >> Again, is this considered a generic document? I did not see anything >> that looked like a match in the type of source lists. >> What about the little funeral service card...would this be considered >> a funeral announcements, artifact-privately held? or would this also >> be considered generic? >> Since I am in possession of all of the above, would they be considered >> part of my personal repository, or would they be assigned to the >> organization the issued the document? > > Artifacts > privately held, then fill in the blanks, noting that you do NOT > have to fill in every blank > > 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
