As old hats to genealogy welcome the newcomers that arrive after the holidays every year, it may be time to revisit "proof." There are no genealogical statutes for proving our research methods, but we do have a certain amount of GAGP (Generally Accepted Genealogical Principles). And while genealogists may differ on the details of GAGP, one idea is generally understood: genealogists should document their conclusions as best they can and provide a clear and to-the-point discussion of their reasoning when the conclusions are not blatantly obvious from the record being utilized.

The National Genealogical Society has published standards for genealogical research, including the following:

Remembering always that they are engaged in a quest for truth, family history researchers consistently—

• Record the source for each item of information they collect.
  
• Test every hypothesis or theory against credible evidence, and reject those that are not supported by the evidence.
  
• Seek original records, or reproduced images of them when there is reasonable assurance they have not been altered, as the basis for their research conclusions.
  
• Use compilations, communications and published works, whether paper or electronic, primarily for their value as guides to locating the original records.
  
• State something as a fact only when it is supported by convincing evidence, and identify the evidence when communicating the fact to others.
  
• Limit with words like "probable" or "possible" any statement that is based on less than convincing evidence, and state the reasons for concluding that it is probable or possible.
  
• Avoid misleading other researchers by either intentionally or carelessly distributing or publishing inaccurate information.
  
• State carefully and honestly the results of their own research, and acknowledge all use of other researchers' work.
  
• Recognize the collegial nature of genealogical research by making their work available to others through publication, or by placing copies in appropriate libraries or repositories, and by welcoming critical comment.
  
• Consider with open minds new evidence or the comments of others on their work and the conclusions they have reached.

[© Copyright 1997 by National Genealogical Society. Permission is granted to copy or publish this material provided it is reproduced in its entirety, including this notice.]

Ideas Worth Remembering
Two fairly recent publications also come to mind. One is Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian by Elizabeth Shown Mills (published in 1997), which focuses on methods and forms of citation for genealogists and family historians. The other is the BCG [Board for Certification of Genealogists] Genealogical Standards Manual, edited by Helen Leary and published by Ancestry in 2000.

While it may seem like all this attention to detail is an attempt to make genealogy boring drudge work, it is not. Being accurate and backing up your conclusions with sources are integral parts of family history research. And most genealogical software packages make it significantly easier to track sources and citations than in the "old days."

That brings us back to the question of the maiden name published on many Web sites (1,000 is a slight exaggeration).

A posting to a bulletin board regarding one of my ancestors asked a question I had asked several years ago: "Has anyone come across ANY sort of document that shows the maiden name of Edward Blahblah's wife is XXXX?"

One posting replied: "There are lots of Web sites on this family, and they all list the maiden name for that ancestor. Here's one—there's your proof." Well, not quite.

The referenced Web site simply stated the maiden name as fact, which is what many sites do. There are many reasons these sites do not list sources, but you should know that simply because the site says something is so does not "make it so." The family in question is slightly more difficult to research and has been tackled by many before. Unfortunately, many took the maiden name as correct and went on.

We are not talking about an early twentieth-century family with potentially many records to utilize. The family lived in eighteenth-century Virginia, and absolutely no marriage record can be found for them. We know they likely married in the 1730s to 1740s. Marriages can sometimes be blatantly indicated in other records and may sometimes be inferred from a series of records. But just because the maiden name appears on a Web site (or a pedigree chart, an old published family history, etc.) does not mean it is correct.

What Is a Researcher To Do?
If possible, begin a dialogue with the creator of the Web site or the submitter of the data. Some will respond and some will not; some will have obtained the information from someone else, and you'll start getting "referrals." If you ask for proof, you may find that they have it or you may find that they do not have it. There is a great deal of variation. Keep in mind, though, that this process doesn't mean the online sources should be ignored, for I have encountered plenty of print sources with no documentation and a compiler who was not really concerned about "where" the information came from.

Can You Trace the "Mistake" (or Misinterpretation)?
Sometimes you can, and sometimes you can't. There are times when the incorrect information has been repeated so many times that it is virtually impossible to locate the origin of the error. In the case of the maiden name of Mr. Blahblah's wife, a record had been interpreted incorrectly (at least in the opinion of several researchers). When the supposed parents of the female ancestor were analyzed, it turned out that they did not have a child by the name of the ancestor and that their children were fairly well documented in other records. Is it possible they had another child? Yes, but proving it requires searching records on that family in an attempt to determine if Mr. Blahblah's wife was one of the children.

When Searching, It Is Important to Remember:
Assumptions are necessary in order to get the research process started. However, we search to find as much of the truth as possible and should honestly evaluate assumptions and conclusions in light of what information is found. Assumptions should not be clung to in the same way a three year old clings to a favorite stuffed animal (after all, they usually outgrow them). Your conclusion should fit the evidence, not the other way around.

What Constitutes "Proof"?
The details of "proof" vary greatly from one instance to another. Generally, one should state the sources that have been used, transcribe or summarize what those sources say, and include the logic and reasoning that supports your conclusion. This approach makes it easier for you to re-evaluate your conclusions if necessary and for others to see the reasoning behind your conclusions.

Bibliography
Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual, Salt Lake City, UT: Ancestry, 2000

Mills, Elizabeth Shown, Evidence! Citation and Analysis for the Family Historian. Baltimore, MD: GPC, 1997

Michael John Neill, is the Course I Coordinator at the Genealogical Institute of Mid America (GIMA) held annually in Springfield, Illinois, and is also on the faculty of Carl Sandburg College in Galesburg, Illinois. Michael is the Web columnist for the FGS FORUM and is on the editorial board of the Illinois State Genealogical Society Quarterly. He conducts seminars and lectures on a wide variety of genealogical and computer topics and contributes to several genealogical publications, including Ancestry Magazine and Genealogical Computing. You can e-mail him at mneill@asc.csc.cc.il.us or visit his Web site.

© Copyright 2000, MyFamily.com.