Does a reliable source on a pre-1700 profile need to relate to specific information on the profile?

Question

We are asked to cite a reliable source or sources when we create a new pre-1700 profile. I take that to mean that we are citing a specific source for a baptism, marriage, burial or will (for example), with details about the information obtained from that source included in the biography.

Is it ok to provide a source which is probably reliable, in principle, but not necessarily accessible to other members and with no details included on the profile about what information that source contains which is relevant to the specific profile?

I checked under the help index, but wasn't able to find any guidance in there to assist me. Technically, as I read it, at the moment, someone can create a pre-1700 profile with just a name, a year of birth and add a 'reliable source' which others may not be able to access, and meet the pre-1700 guidelines. This doesn't seem to be in accordance with the spirit of the guidelines. It is particularly difficult if there may be no project to direct the person to coordinate with, or no location has been added to be able to identify a relevant project.

Can anyone guide me to a topic which is relevant in this situation that I might have missed? If not, do we need to make a minor change to the pre-1700 guidelines?

I hope I've explained myself clearly enough! Thanks a lot, Gillian

Answer 1

Hello Gillian,

I do not think any profiles are supposed to be created without a primary or reliable secondary source, but I have not read the pre-1700 guidelines lately.

I believe if a primary source is not available and there are acceptable secondary sources at our disposal, then we should use them. If the source has been published and it mentions the person and gives some kind of pertinent information, then it could be used. 

Should we not include any and all information mentioned in books? Yes, we should! Any tidbit of a persons life is important.

Inaccessible sources are still good. You just include all source information in the Sources section of the bio or in an inline citation. Include all information someone would need to find that information.

A primary source is one that was recorded either at the time of the event or shortly afterwards. Although these sources are generally reliable, they can have errors and you will learn how to evaluate the information contained in them, especially when one source contradicts another. Here are examples of original sources where the information gathered from them is generally considered reliable:

• Birth records.
• Death records.
• Marriage records.
• Family bibles with birth/marriage/death dates.
• Books that cite primary sources. This would Include books that transcribe birth/marriage/death records as well as authored family histories or trees that cite birth/marriage/death records.
• Military records.
• Will and estate records.
• Court records.
• Burial records.
• History books that would have collected information from the subjects themselves.
• Newspaper articles with the publication name, date, and location.
• A proof summary of multiple sources of supporting evidence used to draw a reasonable conclusion.

I hope this helps.

Missy 

Comments

Here is the page for a refresher: Creating Pre-1700_Profiles

---

Taken from the pre-1700 page:

“Derivative or second-hand information such as a family tree that was handed down to you or a tree found on another website may be used to create a profile of a modern person (but even with modern family members, it should be a priority to find and cite original sources.) We have a higher standard for deep genealogy. You must never create a pre-1700 profile without citing a reliable source.”

---

Great summary Missy. Thank you for that. Yes, I definitely agree that books are also valuable sources for those early profiles, although some are better than others! Generally the different projects can help clarify which books, or types of books, are reliable sources for profiles covered by their project.

---

Most projects do have a page with books that are exceptable sources.

Are you looking for any list in particular?

Edit: grammar

Answer 2

It shouldn't be necessary to have to say it but a reliable source needs to relate to the person profiled.

There are unfortunately profiles and even worse whole pedigrees that appear to have one or more  reliable sources but the source(s) have nothing to do with the person profiled. An example I saw recently:  man said to live 1630-89 in London. No biography .The 'sources' when checked  were for a 13 year old buried 100 miles away,  an apprenticeship dated 1756 and an infant baptised elsewhere in 1801. The only thing these had in common was the name of father  and son. All had 'full references' (thankfully) but a subscription and some knowledge of English records was necessary to find them (it was the geographical spread in the references that set up red flags) Someone without a subscription wouldn't have been able to check

However, I would hate it if wikitree became any less welcoming of source material which is not easily available on a free to view site. ( here's one of 'my' profiles.  https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Bond-4264&public=1There are many references to records  not available online, with or without payment. You have to trust the author (me) or we  severely restrict what's allowed to be published. )

I think that the sections in the England Reliable Sources headed  'usage guidelines' which deals with transcription  and links to info on sites behind paywalls together with the section on  Sources v Evidence are useful, though  necessarily not that brief.

 https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:England_Project_Reliable_Sources This part of the text is mostly generic and could perhaps be adapted and added to the general guidelines.

 But I get the impression that few  people read guidelines before adding pre 1700 profiles. Maybe our pre 1700 test should be taken after the member has read them. Some of the questions could be based upon them.

Comments

Thank you Helen! Maybe what is needed in the pre-1700 guidelines is a couple of sentences explicitly stating that the source needs to relate to the person profiled, with sufficient information explaining/demonstrating how it relates. I agree that sometimes the only source available might be a record behind a paywall, or a book which isn’t digitised, but in that case, the person creating the profile needs to include the relevant information from that source on the profile.

Answer 3

Gillian, I think you're asking, aren't you, not whether the reliable sources simply relate to the profile (which as Helen noted should be self-evident), but whether sufficient information has been provided for the reader to understand which specific facts on the profile are supported by the source, especially if it is not accessible to everyone?  (Sorry for such a long sentence.)

The England Project guidelines Helen linked to seem to clearly explain that in addition to citing sources, we should transcribe them.  That would provide the reader enough information to understand which facts are supported by the sources.

My own preference would be for WT to require in-line sourcing, which would go a long way to making it easier for the reader to connect each fact with its source, but of course that isn't going to happen.  An alternative that I've seen some people use is that each source listed begins with a reference to the fact, for example "Birth:  U.S. Census, 1850," etc.

As you stated, though, the current policy seems only to require a reliable source, not that it be described or linked to a particular fact.  And yes, it would be nice if the policy were more explicit (and stringent).

Comments

... and I read the question a little bit differently from that.  I was picturing a profile that stated lots of stuff in the biography and included a source that was about the person, but did not support any of the biography content.  This is the sort of stuff that I think of as belonging in the "see also" section.

---

Yes Julie, it’s about sufficient information on the profile to justify the use of the source on that particular profile. It doesn’t need to be a huge amount of information .. but enough to show it’s not just a cut and paste source. Another example is if a particular parish register (with no link or details about a specific entry) is added as a source, but no dates or locations on the profile except a birth year. So you are left wondering what information the person found in that parish register that was useful. Thanks!

Answer 4

I use that kind of sources only next to the sources that proof the specific facts in life on a certain profile. Never as only source on a profile. And I put them in the see also section beneath the References.

Answer 5

I think the important point is that the text of the profile should explain precisely what the "reliable source" says about the profiled person.

I'm not sure I would count handed-down family trees or online genealogies as "reliable sources" at all - at least not without having seen that they in turn are based on proper research.

I'm thinking of reputable sources like the Swedish pastorologies for our dioceses. For the oldest clergy they will be based upon research into documents not easily available to the public by professionals trained in making the proper connections between mentions of a person in different types of documents. The result may be no more informative than to say that "herr Peder" was a Jonsson, that he was ordained in 1550 and still alive in 1573. So this should be stated in the bio - while it is not really a source for whatever guesstimate we put into the birth date field.

Comments

Hi Eva, thanks for your comment. I think that you’ve hit on a key issue. If there is nothing on the profile summarising the information contained in the source (either in the birth, death or marriage fields, or in the bio), and no detail included as part of the source citation, then how can anyone know if the source is relevant to the profile created.