When does a profile have enough sources?

Question

One of the questions I get a lot is "when can I remove the unsourced template from a profile".   My answer is always two-fold.  (1) The unsourced template can help find sources, as others will help you look (2) Removal of the template means that you have "proof" of birth, death, marriage and family; in addition for Pre-1700 profiles, that proof is primary documentation.

That said, there is a big difference between a profile with NOTHING on it and a profile that has maybe a marriage document and the person is found in the will of their father.   While the dates in the second case are not documented, other than the marriage, at least we have a good idea that the person actually existed in the time frame shown and with some of the family members shown.   But, truly, the data for that person is still unsourced.  Should there be a "partially sourced" category?   Or is that good enough to say the profile is sourced?

Comments

Greg actually introduced/created this idea back in April last year:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Profiles_With_Incomplete_Sourcing

I agree with Ruben's overall take on the Unsourced template. While we can always hope for more thorough sourcing on any profile, the Unsourced template, from my understanding, denotes a profile with no sources on it at all (excluding Ancestry Family trees and similar links).

---

Thank you, Jayme.

Answer 1

This is just MY PERSONAL idea of sufficient sources, but to me a source has sufficient details to prove birth, marriage, death, and at least one census (especially if they were alive before the 1940 census in the USA). 2 or more census records would be ideal.

Take this profile for example - Hanff-18. There is nothing special or remarkable about this fellow at all. He died barely 10 years ago!!  As you can see - I found records for him that cover 3 censuses, plus his marriage and death records. The only reason he has a profile is because his sister is the Notable American author Helene Hanff who wrote the cult classic book, 84 Charing Cross Road..

Once the profiles get back to the time before the census coverage, then I would be happy with birth, death and marriage records only.

Comments

If only! Once you get back in time the only direct evidence for a person's existence may be that they are named in someone else's will. But that mention can often be enough to establish relationships. The difficulty is that we often know that people existed and what their relationships were, but nothing to give us a year for when they were born or married. Sometimes we have a will that gives a good idea of death +/- a couple of years. But on the plus side, the fun of genealogy is finding all the indirect sources that allow us to fill in the blanks.

---

Yes, "If only!" People who assume that it should always be possible to find a birth, marriage, and death record for a person must work exclusively with people who lived in roughly the last 120 to 150 years in places that are politically stable, have well-developed public records systems, and haven't been disrupted by war or major calamities during that period.

---

I wish I could upvote Chris's comment with which I totally agree

---

Upvote for Chris AND Ellen.

Answer 2

I'd say Unsourced = No sources. If there is at least one trustworthy source, then that profile is not Unsourced.

On the other hand, no matter how many sources or information is in a biography's profile we have to have in mind This profile is a collaborative work-in-progress. Can you contribute information or sources?.

There will always emerge some information or source to be added to any profile.

Comments

Well said.

---

As a person who has been taking part in sourcer's challenges for a few months, I understand that adding one source is enough to remove the UNSOURCED tag. I try to add more than one, or as many as I can, but I do keep moving. As you say, this is a collaborative effort!

---

I'm weighing in with Ruben.  When I remove the Unsourced category, I make sure that the source is decent like a marriage record, a couple of census records, a christening record, etc.  If I can only find one source, that profile is still sourced and I'll remove the Unsourced category.  Working on the sourcerer's challenge each month, I will try to add multiple sources, clean up the profile and add what I usually call a micro or mini bio.

---

I'll remove the unsourced tag at one source showing existence.  That said, if the profile is one of mine, or a member of a line I'm working on, I'll keep adding sources and bits of information to the biography any time I find a source that isn't already listed and/or linked. The more information I see, the more the person feels real and interesting. I like checking out sources I find on profiles and reading more about a person.

---

That's also my understanding of what's needed to remove the Unsourced template.

---

Another good reason to have multiple sources (especially from multiple providers) is that more sources makes it more likely that at least one can be viewed at any given time. If I only use, say, Family Search sources, then another viewer is SOL if familysearch.com goes down.

Answer 3

I agree with Robin's two-fold answer.  If a profile has birth date and place, parents names, marriage date, place and spouses name, children's names, and death date and place, then the biography section should have at least one source for each of those facts.  

Some sources might cover more than one of those facts, but all of the facts need to be sourced.  If I come across a profile that only has a source for the marriage for instance, then to me that profile is effectively unsourced.

Comments

I agree. However, the description of the Unsourced categroy says:

This category is for profiles that do not cite any sources. 

This would mean removing the Unsourced template is allowed as soon as 1 event is sourced. 

I think that's exactly what can be seen in the "Sourcerers Challenges" (and Source-A-Thon): members rush to the next profile after sourcing one event, because sourcing another does not count...

So it encourages quantity, not quality!

---

I can't speak for anybody else, but when I'm sourcing, I add as many sources as I can confirm, and I fix other issues (like lack of a bio, missing or incomplete places, dates, etc.) while I'm at it. Sure, I could rack up more points if I just add a source and move on, but I just can't bring myself to do that.

Answer 4

I've been a Sourcerer for a year and a half now. When I started, simply adding a source was ok. Now the profile should be IMPROVED, as well as sourced. To me, this means adding a barebones bio, such as So and so was born/married/died, in Wherever. The statement is referenced with a good source, and include a hot link to the source. Then you can remove the  Unsourced tag, including the state or country (see the DB Errors). I will note that the vast majority of the profile I source predate the auto tagging, many are badly sourced to ancestry. However many profiles have the tag, I'm sure there are just as many, if not more, that don't have the tag.

Answer 5

As Much as I would like to agree with you, your proposition goes against the current definition for the use of the Unsourced template.  In addition, as long as we are not supposed to put the Unsourced template on profiles that have only unsourced family trees as "sources," it is sort of counter-intuitive to say that you can't take off the template if you put on a good source.

Comments

I include Unsourced tag if the only source is an online tree.

Answer 6

I agree with the selected Best Answer - only 1 source is NOT "Unsourced". Certainly pre-1700 and even earlier, there be only one extant source to indicate the existance of someone.

I suggest that we need a "This profile needs More Sources to support the assumptions made to create the profile and its links" template/category/flag

I would be happy to scatter that warning across my watchlist and ONS project, which is source-led anyway.

The biggest assumption that I generally make, when creating a profile of someone who undoubtedly existed, and which is not addressed by the standard profile certain/uncertain flags is 'Age at marriage or birth of first child'. Perhaps a separate thread needed for this.

Comments

There are always the maintenance categories:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Project:Profile_Improvement#Maintenance_Categories

Answer 7

Hi Robin,

My understanding is the same as others who have posted, that "Unsourced" means no sources.

There is a little ambiguity in the description. We say "This template should be placed on profiles that have no sources. It should be removed once sources are added."

We should change that second sentence so it says "It should be removed when a source is added."

There might be value in indicating when a profile needs more sources. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Template:More_footnotes has a very similar purpose but it's not exactly the same.

Practically speaking, I'm not sure we should use a category. The Unsourced category is so large that it almost can't function. We have had to make special rules for the handling of it on the back-end. A category for profiles that aren't perfectly sourced would be even larger.

Then again, maybe it wouldn't be larger. Unsourced is so large because we automatically place it on profiles when sources aren't included. If you have to manually place the "More Sources" template it would never be used as often.

I think we should refocus this discussion on how to change or replace the More Footnotes Research Note Box.

Chris

 

Comments

Just as a note Chris. The more footnotes template goes on profiles that have sources listed and biographies, they lack inline citations.

---

I hope I'm doing this correctly. I do remove the unsourced category with the addition of a source, but I also add the citation need template to data that is not supported by a source.

---

James, that is exactly what I do, when I don't want to invest the time to find another source or more likely didn't find one.

---

Thanks, Chris for the clarification....

---

One last clarification...so, when we say "source", do we mean primary source or is a reference to a Geni/MyHeritage/Ancestry tree sufficient?

---

The Sourcerers info page I know is explicit about derivative family trees not counting as sources.

---

I think they are 2 separate discussions, there is the sourcing question and the profile improvement question, which I believe also has its own challenge or project, not sure which.

Answer 8

Never! ;-)

Comments

Hear Hear! Improve forever!! ;-D

---

Totally Agree. Even a newspaper clipping stating xx won a knobbly knees competition at Butlins in 1963 is a source, and should be used.

There is always one more source. 

Answer 9

I am reasonably new to Wiki Tree and when I am working on Unsourced I will remove it after I have found what I can BUT if there is still more needed I add the Category 'needs birth source' or whatever is needed.  I do that because it is sourced but it needs more and using the categories will have it come up in reports etc.