* Does one use multiple sources for same event?

[Gowermick]

I’ve been tidying up my research, and realised that if I have the actual image of the Parish Register entry for a Baptism, Marriage or Burial,, the other transcription sources for the event/fact are redundant, and not really required.

I’m quite happy to quote these multiple sources if they are only transcriptions as they confirm the accuracy of the transcription, but are they really necessary once I’ve got the image itself? What value are they adding to my research?

What do others think.

[NickWalker]

Using part of the text I replied to another post earlier in the week: The reason that I like to have a text transcription is because I can read it really quickly. If all I had was, for example, was a very readable/legible image of a baptism page it will at least half a minute, if not longer, to display that image, scroll down to find the relevant entry, zoom in/out to read it and probably have to squint a bit to see what it says compared to this being almost instant with a transcription. On the other hand I do understand that creating transcriptions is time-consuming so this is your choice as to whether to do so. I would say though that one of the aims of the AS autotext is to make it easier to transcribe sources. So generally for me a source consists of a Title, reference, transcription and linked image (if available).

[Gowermick]

Nick,
I just use generic sources, and don't actually cite/copy what is in the transcription into the source, simply that it exists in the specific dataset. As for the image, once the details have been copied into FH for the individual (from image or transcription), I rarely need to go back to view it, so the few seconds I could save is not an issue.

[Mark1834]

If I locate an image of an original Parish Record for example, I create a new source containing both the image and a transcription and delete all existing “finding aid” citations such as a FamilySearch, FreeReg, etc.

Similarly, if I obtain a GRO Certificate, I incorporate the index data into the Certificate source and delete the earlier citation to the index. If I only have a Parish Register image from a marriage, I keep the GRO marriage index citation, as it is a separate source.

[Gowermick]

I keep the GRO marriage index citation, as it is a separate source.

Same here

Idealy for each name, I should end up with GRO Birth; Baptism Image; GRO Marriage; Marriage Image; GRO Death; Burial Image; and a Census Reference for each census they appear in. (Listed in chronological order of events, NOT the order I found them)

For Baptisms and Burials, I should ideally end up with only one source each, i.e. Baptism Image or Burial Image.

[ColeValleyGirl]

I record every source that I find for a fact, even the contradictory ones. You never know when something will show up that throws into question a previous conclusion and you need to reassess everything you've seen for that 'fact' to date.

For example, you may have a birth certificate giving a particular birth date... and then you find a baptism giving an earlier birth date. I would record both, with a note that it was probable that the date on the certificate had been falsified to avoid a late registration fee. (This was the most likely explanation in this case because the individual concerned was within living memory and always celebrated her birthday on the date given in the baptism record).

Actually, I actively seek out multiple sources for the same fact -- the GPS calls for a 'reasonably exhaustive search for all information that is or may be pertinent to the... event in question.' From The importance of establishing proof and the Genealogical Proof Standard:

This does not mean you have to access and explore every possible genealogical record that might be of use in answering your question. This would be pretty impossible given the vast number of sources available. Thomas W. Jones in his book Mastering Genealogical Proof offers the following six criteria to assure you that your research has been ‘reasonably exhaustive’:

• that at least two independently-created sources are in agreement
• that you have looked at all sources competent genealogists would examine for that particular question
• that you have included some primary information
• that you have included some original records (ie. you have looked an image of a birth certificate instead of just viewing the transcription of that certificate)
• that you have used the primary and original documents where these are findable instead of relying on transcriptions or secondary sources which refer to these sources.
• that you use all findable sources listed in an index or mentioned in a related source.

I do recognise that not everyone wants to work to the GPS!

[Mark1834]

It's also worth mentioning that I order multiple sources for the same event in a rough order of priority. So for example, a birth date may be cited by Birth Certificate (contemporary record), 1939 Register (what the person thought) and GRO Death Index (what somebody else thought) in that sequence. If there is no Birth Certificate, the index citation would come between the 1939 Register and Death Index citations.

It can complicate Queries, which would be much simpler if FH were a "proper" database where record sequence is irrelevant, but I don't think there is any way around that given the FH structure.

[Mark1834]

There's really two different cases here though - my view is "yes" to multiple independent sources for the same event, but "no" to multiple citations to the same source (original register and transcript for example).

[Gowermick]

Helen,
I was really talking about images and their transcriptions, which shouldn't contradict each other, but if they do, then image is deemed to be true and Transcription wrong (which I tend to report to relevant site).
i.e why keep an Image and a transcription of the same image?

[ADC65]

Same as Helen, and for the same reasons. The last 25 years of research has taught me never to believe anything I see on paper

For a date of birth, I will quite often have a GRO Births Index and/or Birth Certificate, a Baptism Record, a 1939 Register entry and a GRO Deaths Index if it gives DOB. Sometimes they all match up, sometimes they don't. I don't often cite censuses or marriage certificates as birth years unless I have nothing else as they seem to be the most unreliable.

[Mark1834]

Actually, I'll qualify what I said earlier. Birth Certificate, 1939 Register, and Death Index are not fully independent sources, as the second two are usually just based on what the first records (few of us can remember our own births, and even if we could, we couldn't read the calendar!).

Still all worth recording though, even if it is only to document that there is no evidence to contradict the other sources. After all, every "fact" we enter in our projects has some level of uncertainty...

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen,
I was really talking about images and their transcriptions, which shouldn't contradict each other, but if they do, then image is deemed to be true and Transcription wrong (which I tend to report to relevant site).
i.e why keep an Image and a transcription of the same image?

I refer my learned friend to my earlier answer on this subject: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=21657&p=135280#p135277. A manorial court roll from the 1660s in highly abbreviated 'New' (Legal) Latin...

[Mark1834]

That's confusing the specific and general though, isn't it? If I have the original image, I wouldn't keep every transcription I find for parish registers, censuses, etc, just because there may be an exceptional case where it is worth keeping both.

That's the problem with following "methods" or "standards" - I prefer to use my judgement for what is reasonably necessary to demonstrate the "fact" to an acceptable level of confidence.

[Gowermick]

Helen,
I was really talking about images and their transcriptions, which shouldn't contradict each other, but if they do, then image is deemed to be true and Transcription wrong (which I tend to report to relevant site).
i.e why keep an Image and a transcription of the same image?

I refer my learned friend to my earlier answer on this subject: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=21657&p=135280#p135277. A manorial court roll from the 1660s in highly abbreviated 'New' (Legal) Latin...

Helen,
May I refer you to my original post in which I was referring to parish register images of Baptisms, Marriages and Burials and their transcriptions

Other images, like manoral rolls and wills are a different kettle of fish

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen,
May I refer you to my original post in which I was referring to parish register images of Baptisms, Marriages and Burials and their transcriptions

Other images, like manoral rolls and wills are a different kettle of fish

I don't think so -- I have Baptisms/Burials in Welsh, Marriage records in Canadian French...

That's confusing the specific and general though, isn't it? If I have the original image, I wouldn't keep every transcription I find for parish registers, censuses, etc, just because there may be an exceptional case where it is worth keeping both.

Whereas I'd rather be consistent and always make a transcription (I prefer not to use the ones provided on Ancestry etc., not having a lot of faith in them... transcriptions done by local Family History Societies with the benefit of local knowledge are more reliable). The value of making these transcriptions is threefold:

• Doing a transcription is an excellent aid to assessing the source and making sure you really understand what it's telling you
• As Nick Walker has said, it's faster to review a transcription than it is to review the original
• If you're publishing your research, there are very many source images and transcriptions by others that you will not have the right to publish, whereas you will probably have the right to publish your own transcriptions. (I say probably because there are circumstances where the owner of the original document may have placed restrictions on what can be done with its contents).

[Mark1834]

Agree - that’s exactly what I said 11 posts up the thread . If I locate the original image, I make my own transcription, and discard other finding aids and transcriptions that cite the same source (unless the document is difficult to read, as in your example).

[ColeValleyGirl]

Agree - that’s exactly what I said 11 posts up the thread . If I locate the original image, I make my own transcription, and discard other finding aids and transcriptions that cite the same source (unless the document is difficult to read, as in your example).

I think I was led off track by the reference to 'multiple sources' in the topic title, when it actually mean 'multiple (derivative) versions of the same source'.

Similarly, if I obtain a GRO Certificate, I incorporate the index data into the Certificate source and delete the earlier citation to the index. If I only have a Parish Register image from a marriage, I keep the GRO marriage index citation, as it is a separate source.

Should have picked up this when you said it -- why do you treat the GRO marriage index citation a separate source to the Parish Register entry when there isn't a separate marriage certificate created by a registrar for CoE marriages?

[Gowermick]

Helen,
I think we are talking at cross purposes. Of course I transcribe the images and add the relevant details into FH. What I no longer do is add another source that references another transcription from anywhere else!
i.e. if I get a burial image, I delete the source that tells me I also found the burial transcription in the FHS Burial Index

[Mark1834]

Should have picked up this when you said it -- why do you treat the GRO marriage index citation a separate source to the Parish Register entry when there isn't a separate marriage certificate created by a registrar for CoE marriages?

Arguably, it is a separate source, as the GRO Certificate is not an image of the original CofE Register, but a parallel source of equivalent primacy. It also keeps the process consistent between CofE, Non-conformist and Catholic Registers, so if I’m introducing one inconsistency to avoid another, so be it - that’s part of the fun!

[NickWalker]

Helen,
I think we are talking at cross purposes. Of course I transcribe the images and add the relevant details into FH. What I no longer do is add another source that references another transcription from anywhere else!
i.e. if I get a burial image, I delete the source that tells me I also found the burial transcription in the FHS Burial Index

Ah OK. In that that seems reasonable to me. I/we misunderstood your original post

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen,
I think we are talking at cross purposes. Of course I transcribe the images and add the relevant details into FH. What I no longer do is add another source that references another transcription from anywhere else!
i.e. if I get a burial image, I delete the source that tells me I also found the burial transcription in the FHS Burial Index

Whereas I would include both -- my transcription may differ significantly from the e.g. FHS Burial Index transcription and could indeed be wrong, so it's important (to me) to record both (of every) version.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Should have picked up this when you said it -- why do you treat the GRO marriage index citation a separate source to the Parish Register entry when there isn't a separate marriage certificate created by a registrar for CoE marriages?

Arguably, it is a separate source, as the GRO Certificate is not an image of the original CofE Register, but a parallel source of equivalent primacy. It also keeps the process consistent between CofE, Non-conformist and Catholic Registers, so if I’m introducing one inconsistency to avoid another, so be it - that’s part of the fun!

The GRO certificate for a Birth is not an image of the Local Register Officer original, but a (hand made) copy -- just as the GRO certificate for a marriage is not an image of the original, but a hand made copy.

[Mark1834]

Exactly - we all make our own choices on which compromises to make and what satisfies our motives for doing what we do. They’re as individual as we are.

[arthurk]

Should have picked up this when you said it -- why do you treat the GRO marriage index citation a separate source to the Parish Register entry when there isn't a separate marriage certificate created by a registrar for CoE marriages?

Arguably, it is a separate source, as the GRO Certificate is not an image of the original CofE Register, but a parallel source of equivalent primacy. ...

The GRO certificate for a Birth is not an image of the Local Register Officer original, but a (hand made) copy -- just as the GRO certificate for a marriage is not an image of the original, but a hand made copy.

In fact a GRO certificate may even be a tertiary source:
Primary source = marriage register, whether held by a church or a register office
Secondary document = quarterly return of marriages, collated by register offices and sent off to GRO
Tertiary source = GRO certificate copied by hand or typed as a transcript of the quarterly return

If the quarterly return is clear enough, GRO will generally do a photocopy from it, but it's still secondary as it's the minister's/registrar's transcript of the register - hence its all being in the same handwriting and not having original signatures.

[ColeValleyGirl]

In fact a GRO certificate may even be a tertiary source:

I'd call a GRO certificate a derivative source (a copy of an original, or as you point out, possibly a copy of a copy of the original) with a mix of primary and secondary information, e.g. primary information about an individual's death (date and place provided by the informant about a recent event of which they supposedly have first hand knowledge) ) and secondary information about their age/birth date (provided by the informant years or decades after the birth event, at which in most cases the informant was not present, so their knowledge is second-hand).