Are books reliable sources?

Question

Well somebody has to ask.  I've looked at some of the new Reliable Sources lists, and mostly they have generalities about wills and websites.  I haven't seen a lot of books mentioned.

There seem to be two broad categories.

1.  Old books.  These are products of the time when they were written.  Mostly they contain some chunks of junk.  If they're classed as reliable, people have the green light to use the junk, and some will.

2.  New books.  Books that aren't out of copyright yet often have to be bought for good cash money.  Some were printed in small numbers for family circulation and are almost unobtainable.  And sadly it can't be assumed that modern books will be OK.  Some recent self-published books are stinkers.

So what will happen?  What should happen?

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Pre-1700_Profiles

Comments

Some of the pre-1700 projects have addressed this question, at least partially, in their pre-1700 reliable sources pages.

Answer 1

I believe everything should be taken with a bit of skepticism.  Every source is the product of a human and open to human error.  My experience is that most sources (primary, secondary and tertiary) might have some human errors, but are mostly correct or at least, believable.  This is why a profile is never finished;  you never know when some new information will be presented. So consider old and new books as you should any source; with an eye for possible errors and a bit of skepticism.  

Remember the old bit of wisdom:  Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you read.

Comments

That's how we used to work.  But now, the project makes all the decisions.  And if a book gets onto the list, and there's junk in the book, some people will make a beeline for the junk and say they have the authority of the project.

---

I agree, I think we should aim to foster a sceptical attitude rather than attempt to make a list of books with the wikitree imprimatur.

 We already have two authors who are used as authorities by two projects. So far, I have found that people are willing to accept that these authors are fallible.

---

I am on a project now that began after one book caught my eye - and it seems real good on the parts that are current with when it was written, but the earlier stuff is sometimes not quite right - I did not get at first why people used several sources for one fact - but now I do and that is why - different sources are good for different facts and some of the other facts you have to look elsewhere

---

Kitty, I couldn't agree with you more.  

I pretty much think that all sources are suspect but to be considered.  When I am working on my family history, I think of myself as a detective and I look at all sources and bits of information as leads. In one particular case I waited 20 years to finally bash down one brick wall.

---

Thanks, Frances.

Answer 2

No matter how well they are written and sourced books will always be secondary sources at best (except maybe for personal facts recounted in an autobiography).  When the facts in a book are documented then it can be a great resource for finding those primary records.  Some books are both well-documented and written or edited by persons who are accepted as authorities on a time, place, or group by the research community.   I would classify their fully-documented books as reliable sources since the original documents are often inaccessible to most people.

Answer 3

I know a book written about a town close to me. In it it has the geneology of the person that the town was named after, who is also an ancestor of mine. the family list given in the book is missing one complete generation.

Comments

Yes, that sort of thing is common enough.

But what happens when somebody asks for the book to be listed as a reliable source?  Suppose they mention the missing generation.  Can it be called reliable?

Suppose they don't know about the missing generation?  Suppose they do know, but don't mention it?

Answer 4

I do not think you can have a general answer. It depends what the book is. The temptation I see on Wikitree is for some of us to regard some sources as unreliable unless we can check them out on the web. That is wrong.

Books like Calendars of State records, parish register society transcripts of parish registers, transcripts and digests of wills and inquisitions, etc etc can surely be regarded as just as reliable as anything on the web. Though like everything, they are not infallible and there can be transcription errors. Books of family history or local history, whether old or recent, need to be treated with greater caution, as does any ancestral information in biographies. (The fact that a book is recent does not mean it is accurate and I have seen substantial errors in some recent biographies and local histories.) Some would regard the works of Douglas Richardson or other favoured genealogists as generally trustworthy, though I personally prefer to look for other corroborative sources where I can. The standard peerages and baronetages need to be checked out wherever possible, especially for earlier centuries. The old Visitations are often unreliable, particularly for generations more than a couple of generations before the date of the Visitation.

In any event, all genealogical ‘facts’ may need to be amended in the light of new evidence. Even things like birth certificates are not always accurate.

Answer 5

I think the answer is simple.  Any publication -- book, article, web page, wikitree profile, FaG profile etc etc etc -- is only as good as the sources it cites and/or its analysis of the evidence.  

So if someone wants us to add a book or any other source to the [project] reliable sources page, that's what I'd be looking for.

Comments

Most old books are inconsistent.  Old county histories tend to quote a lot of deeds (for which they are often the only source), but they also cheerfully quote fake family pedigrees.  Standards of scholarship have evolved.

People will want to have the discussion at the level of "is this book OK for this specific profile", unconcerned about what else is in the book.  On Monday you could do that.  I don't know if you still can in the latest version.

---

I should add that Richardson cites the unreliable old books all the time.  We just kind of trust him to use them judiciously.

---

Modern books - and for that matter genealogical websites - are inconsistent too, and can be just as inaccurate as older ones. Even Douglas Richardson, who is often regarded as generally trustworthy, acknowledges in his prefatory material that some of the key sources he has drawn on can be inaccurate and are incomplete.

The reliable source lists will always be very incomplete, and that is, I think, entirely recognised. It would be arrant nonsense if a tweak in wording of guidance for project-related pre-1700 profiles stopped what is self-evidently good and sensible practice. When I use books, as I often do, I am frequently thinking in terms of “does this book give reliable information for this particular fact or this particular relationship or the existence of this particular person?” That must surely be the right approach. If a book of any age gives a transcription, quotation or translation from, say, a will, deed, official record, tombstone inscription etc etc etc, then, unless there is some strong reason to do otherwise, I will generally trust that transcription, quotation or translation even if there are other things in the book I do not trust. As Jillaine has said, what matters is the quality of the sourcing used by a book or website - and often sourcing is far better for some things than for others.

Answer 6

Each book needs to be evaluated.   The question are books to be trusted is too broad.  There are books that are well researched and books that are not worth the paper they are printed on.  

Who should evaluate the worth of a book?  If the subject of the book is famous or pedigreed you will often find historians critiquing the book.  

In doing a lot of research for one Scottish line I found no less than 3 books by 3 different authors and a book that critiqued all 3 books.  There was even a lawsuit filed about the contents of one of the books as being false.   So you have to do your research if you want to use a book as a source.  

Even primary sources can have errors.  My grandfather's birth record at City Hall is a mess.  The midwife jumbled the info badly.  He is listed as Josephine and his twin sister is listed as Marc Anthony.  He found this out when he went to get a copy of his birth certificate to go to Canada before passports were required.  There is an amendment to the original document dated over 60 years after the birth where my Grandfather who looked a lot like Harry S Truman and knew how to stand his ground convinced the clerk to fix the record.  Everyone in the family knew he was Joseph and his twin was Anna Marie but City Hall had the wrong info.  

This is why when you find conflicting info you must include both.  It it not good research to just use the one you like or agree with.  You really need to include both and try to find a third independent one to collaborate one of the other two.  

Sometimes the truth is lost to the mists of history so the best you can do is show both sides of the disagreement.  

But that is why all sources need to be double checked and one source is better than none but not enough to really fully source a profile.

Comments

Where it is certain that a primary source is wrong, my own practice is to put the correct information in the main part of the profile, with sourcing, but also, perhaps in a research note, mention the existence of the incorrect information, where it is found and (if it is not obvious) why it is wrong. I hope that helps others.

And yes, conflicts between respectable sources should not be hidden. Research notes can again often help. I have also done some notes mentioning egregious errors that are widespread in unsourced trees on Ancestry and elsewhere.

Answer 7

It all depends on the book. If the book cites it sources you can then find the original documents, depending on how long ago the book was written.

An un-sourced Family Genealogy book is all but useless! Some are just Fantasy!

Comments

@Cfv Smith: But Gran-Maw said the book was ackurate cos it was writ in the torn pages of the family bible. 

Answer 8

Here is an example of how I decided which sources to trust in one case.

When I was trying to verify the parentage of a 2nd great grandfather on my mother's side, I ran across three books that all agreed on the identify of the father, and it was the same man the family has always listed in family records. Those books were "Genealogy of the French Families of the Detroit River Region" by Rev. Father Christian Denissen, "Navarre, or, Researches after the Descendants of Robert Navarre, Whose Ancestors Are The Noble Bourbons of France, and some Historical Notes On Families Who Intermarried With Navarres," and "The City of Detroit, 1701-1922, Volume 4," by Clarence M. Burton, and they are all available to read online. I have no information concerning the general reliability of any of them, but they did agree on the item I was trying to verify, at least.

However... three unsourced Findagrave memorials claim that my 3rd great grandfather was someone completely different. And if anyone is still not convinced that Findagrave is not always reliable, the memorial for my 3rd great grandmother, the wife of the man I'm talking about, lists her being born in Michigan but her twin brother was allegedly born in France. Now there's a good trick.... Since the creator of those memorials got something as basic as that wrong, I am very reluctant to trust any other information they might claim to offer.

I went with the three books and the information passed down in the family records. But I put notes on the profiles in question to the effect that if anyone could come up with valid sources that said otherwise, I would be willing to take a look at them.

Comments

@Carolyn: 2 memorials just turned up in a local cemetery to me on Find A Grave both dated 40+ years before the cemetery was open for 'business'. There are many examples of these. Most Find A Grave memorials are unsourced in that they have no photograph and even having one does not mean they are accurate!

---

Well, that's easy to explain... they invented time travel! But seriously... just another nail in the "Findagrave isn't reliable" coffin. If a memorial exists, I'll list it, and sometimes they have clues that might help answer questions.