More on genealogical proof

Question

This just in from Elizabeth Shown Mills, posted to her Facebook page; copied with permission:

----

Elizabeth Shown Mills

October 16, 2023 at 3:33 pm

In three different online forums today, various people have expressed the same premise: "'Documentation' means attaching a document that proves the point. Without an attached document, a citation to a non-imaged source is just a clue, not proof."

Below, I'm posting my response to one of these statements:

The availability of document images online today and the tree-building habit of “attaching documents” have led to a warped sense of what documentation means. “Attaching a document that says so,” to a research report or a tree profile, does not constitute proof for numerous reasons, including these three:

1. That document may err. Or, it may mention the right name in the right place and time and still not apply to the person we are studying. 

2. Most documents in this world are not available as online images. Many, if not most, cannot be imaged and circulated because of ownership rights. How, then, could we do research, if citations are not valid when the attachment of a document is not possible?

3. Proof does not rest within any one document that happens to say what we’re looking for—and we may never find a document that “explicitly says so” (i.e., direct evidence). The “proof” we offer for every assertion we make is the conclusion we draw from a body of evidence. Our conclusion is valid only if the research meets the five criteria of the Genealogical Proof Standard—starting with the first (thorough research in all relevant records, wherever they are, applying all relevant strategies) and proceeding through the processes of analysis, correlation, reconciliation, and explanation.

The use of documents that cannot be imaged is not a new problem. Long before any of us were born, history researchers developed processes and standards for citation and analysis. These two go hand in hand. They are inseparable. With every source we use, whether it is currently available online or not, we are expected to thoroughly identify the source from two perspectives:

1. Location: Which means citing enough details that others can find it for themselves.

2. Evidence analysis: Which means identifying the source well enough that we (and those who use our work) will understand exactly what we used and its evidentiary strengths and weaknesses.

It is also up to us as researchers, with every citation we find elsewhere, to do two things: 

• to appraise it from the two perspectives above; and then,

• (if its assertions are critical to the proof we are trying to establish) to make the effort to locate that cited source, confirm that it does say what it is alleged to say, and glean from it any other relevant information or clues.

That is how we judge credibility, whether it is “for any random loose document found" or for those documents that have been imaged by an agency that allows us to attach their documents to our work

Comments

And here's more about the Genealogical Proof Standard from https://bcgcertification.org/ethics-standards:

Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS)

To reach a sound conclusion, we need to meet all five components of the GPS.

1. Reasonably exhaustive research.
2. Complete and accurate source citations.
3. Thorough analysis and correlation.
4. Resolution of conflicting evidence.
5. Soundly written conclusion based on the strongest evidence.^[3]

The GPS overarches all of the documentation, research, and writing standards described in Genealogy Standards, and is applied across the board in all genealogical research to measure the credibility of conclusions about ancestral identities, relationships, and life events.^[4]

---

Thanks, Jillaine. I think the terminology of "genealogical proof" confuses a lot of people. Per your cited material, it does not mean that a fact has been established by 100% certainty or even proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it just means that the 5 steps have followed so that the conclusion is sound, even if the conclusion is that a certain fact is uncertain or unlikely.

Answer 1

All good information, but a Source is more about where the information came from, than necessarily "proof". I would agree that we should aspire towards "proof" in all cases, but in many situations, proof is "Grandma said so". That's a source, but not a proof. So there's a bit of a difference.

Comments

I do not think that "grandma said so" would fall under proof as defined by ESM or the Board for Certification of Genealogists.

---

Unless she was talking about a VERY close relative like a sister?

---

Agreed. I would not regard it as proof, but as a source for certain. I just wanted to pull out that point from above, as often there's a great deal of confusion mixing the terms "source" and "proof" together. They "can" mean the same thing, but more often than not, they do not. To me, a source is where you obtained your information, regardless of where it came from (Grandma, family Bible, Mom's handwritten notes, all the way to certified genealogical research results) and proof is something that "in theory" would hold up in court under the "reasonable" statute where it would be reasonable to believe that there is enough evidence to prove what you set out to prove. The details above are nice in that they lay out in more plain terms what might constitute such a "reasonable" level of evidence to prove your information.

Answer 2

Thanks for posting this Jillaine.  I'd like to hit you with one follow-up question.

I think I get the point of the post, but as I read and re-read, I wish Elizabeth Shown Mills had clearly stated whether she thinks it's desirable to include an image or a transcript of a valid source document when one is actually available.  The persistent problem of broken links springs to mind.  I could foresee the ESM post being interpreted as a recommendation against including valid links to documents in a source citation.  Somehow I doubt that ESM really intended to provide a justification for omitting valid links, or do you think I'm misinterpreting?

Comments

Not exactly misinterpreting, but taking her response out of context. She was responding to a series of posts that claimed that one could not prove something UNLESS there was an attached image.

---

Good point Jillaine, I have also noticed a reluctance by some family history researchers to use records that don't have an image.

An image does not mean the information shown in the image is correct for the person being researched.

Though an image can be very effective to make people take notice of something, when there is a common error.

In my husband's family history there is a person who has consistently had the wrong spouse attached to him. The incorrect spouse lived in another country and has a FInd a Grave record for her burial with the correct information for her husband,

After far too much time trying to convince people who  were copying from one wrong Ancestry tree to another to look at the records.

I created a very short word doc description of why this information was wrong, giving the sources for the wrong spouse, then created a screen shot of it and uploaded it to my Ancestry Tree, which meant it popped up as a photo hint for the many people researching the same family.

It's quite satisfying how many people have removed the wrong spouse.

Answer 3

The way I approach genealogy is this “Take it all with a grain of salt” especially further back in time 

Comments

Probably a good rule outside of genealogy as well.