The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires reasonably exhaustive research. This means the researcher must make a diligent effort to identify and consult all reasonably accessible sources that could provide information relevant to the research question. This doesn’t mean finding every single record ever created, but rather exploring likely record groups given the time period, location, and the individual or family being studied. The standard also emphasizes the importance of proper source citation. Citations allow others to evaluate the sources used and the conclusions drawn. They also provide a roadmap for future researchers. A proper citation includes sufficient detail to allow another researcher to locate the original source. While personal communication can be a valuable source of information, it must be evaluated carefully and corroborated with other sources whenever possible. Relying solely on personal communication without further verification would not meet the standards of GPS. Furthermore, even if multiple individuals relate the same story, that does not necessarily make the story true, it only means the story has been repeated, and the origin needs to be verified. GPS also requires a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. This conclusion should explain how the evidence gathered supports the research question and address any conflicting evidence. The conclusion should be presented in a clear and logical manner, making it easy for others to understand the reasoning behind the researcher’s conclusions.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) is the bedrock of sound genealogical research. It consists of five key elements: reasonably exhaustive research, complete and accurate source citations, thorough analysis and correlation, resolution of conflicting evidence, and a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. Failing to meet any one of these criteria undermines the validity of genealogical findings. Reasonably exhaustive research involves exploring all reasonably accessible sources that could contain information relevant to the research question. This doesn’t mean examining every single record ever created, but rather identifying and searching those records most likely to provide evidence. Complete and accurate source citations are crucial for allowing others (and oneself) to verify the information and assess the reliability of the sources. Thorough analysis and correlation require carefully examining the evidence gleaned from each source, comparing it with evidence from other sources, and looking for patterns and discrepancies. Conflicting evidence must be resolved through careful evaluation of the sources and the evidence they contain. This might involve determining which source is more reliable or finding additional evidence to support one conclusion over another. Finally, a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion presents the genealogical findings in a clear and logical manner, explaining the reasoning behind the conclusions and acknowledging any remaining uncertainties. A genealogist who fails to address conflicting evidence adequately violates the GPS, as it demonstrates a lack of thorough analysis and a failure to construct a sound genealogical argument.

This question assesses the understanding of cluster research (also known as FAN club research – Friends, Associates, and Neighbors) and its application in overcoming genealogical brick walls. Cluster research involves identifying and researching the individuals and families who interacted with the target ancestor, such as friends, neighbors, associates, and relatives. By analyzing the records of these individuals, the researcher can often uncover clues about the target ancestor that would not be found by focusing solely on direct line ancestors.

The underlying principle of cluster research is that people do not live in isolation. They are part of a social network, and their lives are intertwined with the lives of others. By studying the records of these individuals, the researcher can gain a more complete understanding of the target ancestor’s life and circumstances.

Cluster research can be particularly useful when dealing with common surnames or when vital records are scarce or incomplete. By identifying the individuals who lived near the target ancestor, the researcher can narrow down the possibilities and focus their research on the most likely candidates.

The key to successful cluster research is to be systematic and thorough. The researcher should identify all of the individuals who may have interacted with the target ancestor and then systematically search for records related to those individuals. This can be a time-consuming process, but it can often yield valuable results.

This question is designed to test the candidate’s understanding of ethical considerations in genealogical research, specifically regarding privacy laws and regulations, particularly concerning living individuals. The scenario involves accessing sensitive information about a living person through online databases.

The key ethical principle is respecting the privacy of living individuals. Genealogical research often involves accessing records that contain personal information, such as birth dates, addresses, and family relationships. While these records may be publicly available, it is essential to consider the potential harm that could result from disclosing this information without the individual’s consent.

Many jurisdictions have privacy laws that restrict the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. For example, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union imposes strict requirements on the processing of personal data. In the United States, various federal and state laws protect certain types of personal information, such as medical records and financial information.

In this scenario, accessing and sharing the living individual’s birth date and address without their consent would violate their privacy. The genealogist should obtain consent from the individual before disclosing this information. If consent is not possible or is refused, the genealogist should refrain from sharing the information. The focus should be on respecting the individual’s right to privacy and avoiding any actions that could cause them harm or distress.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires reasonably exhaustive research. This means the researcher must explore all reasonably accessible sources that could contain information relevant to the research question. The definition of “reasonably accessible” depends on the specific circumstances of the research project, including the time period, geographic location, and the resources available to the researcher. For instance, if a key record type is known to exist but is only available in a distant archive that requires significant travel and expense, the researcher must carefully consider whether the potential value of that record justifies the effort required to access it. This decision should be documented in the research log. Similarly, if a record is known to be indexed but the index is known to be incomplete or inaccurate, the researcher should consider whether a manual search of the unindexed portion of the record is warranted. The researcher must document the sources they searched, even if those searches yielded negative results. This documentation demonstrates that the researcher made a good-faith effort to locate all relevant information. The standard requires a thorough evaluation of the quality and reliability of each source. Some sources are more reliable than others, and the researcher must be able to distinguish between primary, secondary, and derivative sources. A primary source is one created by someone who witnessed the event in question. A secondary source is one created by someone who did not witness the event but who relied on primary sources. A derivative source is one that is based on secondary sources or other derivative sources. The researcher must also consider the potential for bias in each source. For example, a family history written by a descendant of the subject may be biased in favor of that subject. The researcher must also be aware of the limitations of each source. For example, a census record may not include all members of a household, or it may contain errors in the information it does include.

When creating family trees and charts, accuracy and clarity are paramount. Family trees should accurately reflect the relationships between individuals, based on sound genealogical evidence. Charts should be visually appealing and easy to understand. Various software programs and online tools can be used to create family trees and charts. These tools allow genealogists to organize their research, add sources, and generate reports. It is important to choose a tool that meets the specific needs of the project and to ensure that the output is accurate and well-formatted. Family trees and charts can be used to communicate research findings to others and to preserve genealogical information for future generations.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires reasonably exhaustive research. This means exploring all avenues of research that are likely to yield relevant information. This is not just about finding a single document that supports a conclusion, but rather about systematically searching for all available evidence. The standard also necessitates complete and accurate source citations, allowing others to verify the information and assess the reliability of the sources used. A soundly reasoned, coherent conclusion is crucial; the evidence must be carefully analyzed and synthesized to form a logical argument that supports the genealogical conclusion. This involves evaluating the quality and consistency of the evidence, resolving any conflicting information, and clearly articulating the reasoning behind the conclusion. Finally, the conclusion must be persuasively presented. This means clearly and concisely explaining the research process, the evidence found, and the reasoning behind the conclusion, in a way that is easily understood and convincing to others. A failure in any one of these components weakens the proof. The question specifically asks about the impact of a failure to meet *any* element of the GPS. The correct answer is that the genealogical conclusion lacks sufficient support to be considered proven.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) is the bedrock of sound genealogical research. It demands reasonably exhaustive research, complete and accurate source citations, thorough analysis and correlation, resolution of conflicting evidence, and a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. When encountering conflicting evidence, a genealogist must meticulously examine each source, considering its reliability, potential biases, and the context in which the information was recorded. Simply dismissing a record because it contradicts a preferred narrative violates the GPS. A soundly reasoned conclusion requires weighing all available evidence, explaining discrepancies, and acknowledging any remaining uncertainties. If a record is dismissed, the reasoning must be clearly articulated and justified based on the evidence itself, not on preconceived notions or desires. Failing to address conflicting evidence undermines the validity of the genealogical conclusion. A genealogist should consider the expertise and position of the record creator, the proximity of the record’s creation to the event, and whether the information is primary or secondary. All of these considerations are essential for a reliable genealogical conclusion.

Cluster research, also known as collateral research, involves studying the family, friends, associates, and neighbors (FAN club) of an ancestor to uncover information about the ancestor themselves. This technique is particularly useful when direct evidence is scarce or conflicting. By examining the records of individuals who interacted with the ancestor, researchers can gain insights into their life, relationships, and activities. For example, if a marriage record for an ancestor is missing, examining the marriage records of their siblings or close friends might provide clues about their marital status or whereabouts. Similarly, analyzing the land records of neighbors can reveal information about property boundaries and community connections. Cluster research can also help to identify potential errors or inconsistencies in existing records. Therefore, cluster research is a valuable tool for overcoming research obstacles and building a more complete picture of an ancestor’s life.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires reasonably exhaustive research. This doesn’t mean finding every single record ever created for an ancestor, which is often impossible. Instead, it means making a diligent effort to locate and examine a wide variety of relevant sources, both direct and indirect, that are likely to contain information about the research question. The scope of “reasonably exhaustive” is determined by the specific research question, the availability of records, and the time and resources available to the researcher. A source citation is more than just a URL or a book title. It’s a detailed description of the source that allows others to locate and evaluate it. This includes information like the author, title, publication date, repository, and specific location of the information within the source. It’s crucial for transparency and allows others to verify the researcher’s findings. Analyzing evidence involves critically evaluating each piece of information and synthesizing it to form a coherent conclusion. This includes considering the reliability of the source, the accuracy of the information, and any potential biases. It also involves identifying conflicting evidence and resolving discrepancies through further research or by weighing the evidence based on its credibility. A sound genealogical conclusion is one that is based on credible evidence, logical reasoning, and adherence to genealogical standards. It should be clearly articulated and supported by thorough documentation. The GPS requires that all five elements—reasonably exhaustive research, complete and accurate source citations, thorough analysis and correlation of the collected data, resolution of conflicting evidence, and a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion—be met before a genealogical relationship or identity can be considered proven. Failing to meet even one element means the conclusion is not proven according to the GPS.

When evaluating conflicting evidence in genealogical research, a systematic approach is crucial. This begins with identifying all discrepancies across various sources. For each piece of conflicting information, the researcher must meticulously assess the reliability of the source. Primary sources, created at or near the time of the event by someone with direct knowledge, are generally considered more reliable than secondary sources. However, even primary sources can contain errors. Corroboration, or the confirmation of information by multiple independent sources, strengthens the validity of a claim.

The researcher should analyze the context in which each source was created, considering factors such as the purpose of the record, the social and political climate, and the potential biases of the creator. For instance, a death certificate completed by a family member might be more accurate regarding the deceased’s parents than a census record where the informant was a neighbor. Discrepancies should be categorized based on their nature and potential impact on the research question. Minor inconsistencies, such as slight variations in spelling, might be less significant than major conflicts, such as differing birthdates or parentage. Finally, the researcher must synthesize all available evidence, weighing the reliability and context of each source, to construct a reasoned conclusion that addresses the genealogical question. This conclusion should be clearly documented and supported by the evidence, acknowledging any remaining uncertainties. The Genealogical Proof Standard emphasizes this rigorous approach to resolving conflicts and building a sound genealogical argument.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires reasonably exhaustive research. This means exploring all avenues likely to yield relevant information about the research question. A researcher cannot simply rely on easily accessible sources. They must actively seek out records, even those that may be difficult to locate or access. The GPS also requires complete source citations to allow others to verify the information. The researcher must provide enough information for others to locate the sources they used. The GPS mandates thorough analysis and correlation of evidence. This means carefully evaluating the information found in each source and comparing it to information from other sources. It also means resolving conflicts in the evidence. The GPS requires a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. This means clearly stating the research question, explaining the evidence, and presenting a logical argument that supports the conclusion. The GPS demands that the conclusion be probable and persuasive. This means that the evidence must be strong enough to convince a reasonable person that the conclusion is correct.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires reasonably exhaustive research. This means exploring all avenues likely to yield relevant information. However, the definition of “reasonably exhaustive” is context-dependent. It’s not about finding every single record *ever* created about an individual, which is practically impossible. Instead, it’s about identifying and searching all record *types* and repositories likely to contain information pertinent to the research question, given the time period, location, and social status of the individual or family being studied. The “most likely” sources are those records that are most commonly created and preserved for the relevant time and place, and which contain the specific type of information sought. Consulting guides, indexes, and finding aids is crucial to identify these sources. While consulting with other genealogists can be helpful, it doesn’t substitute for direct examination of relevant records. A single, obscure record, discovered after an initial conclusion, might not invalidate the conclusion if reasonably exhaustive research was already conducted based on the most likely sources, and that single record doesn’t fundamentally alter the preponderance of evidence. It’s a matter of judgment, weighing the new evidence against the existing evidence and considering the research process that was followed. The Genealogical Proof Standard emphasizes the *process* of research, not simply the outcome.

When analyzing DNA test results for genealogical purposes, it is crucial to understand the limitations of ethnicity estimates. These estimates are based on statistical probabilities and reference populations, and they can vary significantly between different testing companies. They should not be taken as definitive statements of a person’s ethnic origins. Instead, they should be used as clues to guide further research. A CGRS should focus on analyzing DNA matches, which provide more direct evidence of genealogical relationships. By identifying shared DNA segments and triangulating matches, the researcher can reconstruct family trees and identify common ancestors. It is also important to consider the effects of endogamy (marriage within a small community) and pedigree collapse (multiple relationships to the same ancestor), which can complicate the interpretation of DNA results. A CGRS must critically evaluate all available evidence, including DNA results, documentary records, and oral histories, to arrive at sound genealogical conclusions.

Understanding the evolution of census records is crucial for accurate interpretation. Pre-1850 censuses generally only list the head of household by name, with other household members tallied by age range and gender. This makes identifying specific individuals within a household challenging. The 1850 census was the first to list every free person by name. Slave schedules (1850 and 1860) enumerated enslaved individuals by age, sex, and color, but not by name (except for the owner). Mortality schedules (taken in conjunction with the 1850-1880 censuses) provide information about individuals who died in the year preceding the census. Understanding these nuances is essential for drawing accurate conclusions from census data.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) consists of five components: reasonably exhaustive research; complete and accurate source citations; thorough analysis and correlation of the collected information; resolution of conflicting evidence; and a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. When a researcher overlooks readily available sources, it weakens the claim of “reasonably exhaustive research.” This directly impacts the validity of the genealogical conclusion, as the research might not have uncovered crucial evidence that could alter the findings. The absence of a thorough search can lead to inaccurate or incomplete conclusions, undermining the entire genealogical proof. Ethical considerations also come into play, as presenting findings based on incomplete research can mislead others and damage the researcher’s credibility. Therefore, neglecting to search obvious sources violates the first tenet of the GPS, rendering the conclusion questionable.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. This means that the researcher must clearly explain their reasoning and how they arrived at their conclusions based on the evidence. The conclusion should be logical, well-supported by the evidence, and free from unsupported assumptions. It should also address any conflicting evidence and explain why certain evidence was given more weight than others. A coherently written conclusion presents the research findings in a clear and organized manner, using proper grammar and spelling. The conclusion should summarize the research process, the evidence found, and the conclusions drawn from that evidence. It should also acknowledge any limitations of the research and suggest avenues for further investigation.

When faced with conflicting evidence, a researcher must meticulously evaluate each source’s reliability, accuracy, and completeness. Primary sources, created at the time of the event, are generally considered more reliable than secondary sources, which interpret or summarize primary sources. However, even primary sources can contain errors. Corroboration, or finding the same information in multiple independent sources, strengthens the validity of the evidence. When discrepancies arise, the researcher must analyze the context in which each source was created, considering factors such as the author’s bias, the intended audience, and the record-keeping practices of the time. The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) provides a framework for resolving conflicting evidence by requiring reasonably exhaustive research, complete source citations, analysis and correlation of the collected information, and resolution of conflicting evidence. A sound genealogical conclusion is based on the preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the evidence supporting the conclusion outweighs the evidence against it. It’s not simply about having more sources on one side, but about the quality and relevance of those sources. The final conclusion should be clearly articulated and supported by the evidence, with any remaining uncertainties acknowledged.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) is the bedrock of sound genealogical research. It comprises five key elements, all of which must be satisfied to reach a credible conclusion about a genealogical relationship or identity. The first element is reasonably exhaustive research. This doesn’t mean finding every single record ever created, but it does require a thorough search of all likely sources relevant to the research question. Next is complete and accurate source citation. Every piece of information used must be linked to its original source, enabling others to verify the findings and assess the source’s reliability. Third is thorough analysis and correlation. Evidence from different sources must be carefully compared and contrasted to identify consistencies, discrepancies, and potential errors. Fourth is resolution of conflicting evidence. When evidence conflicts, researchers must investigate the reasons for the conflict and determine which evidence is most reliable. Finally, a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. The conclusion must clearly state the research findings and explain how the evidence supports the conclusion, addressing any limitations or uncertainties. Failing to meet any one of these five elements weakens the proof and makes the conclusion less credible. This framework ensures rigor, transparency, and replicability in genealogical work, leading to trustworthy and reliable results.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires reasonably exhaustive research. This does not mean every conceivable record must be searched, but rather that a diligent search for all likely relevant sources has been conducted. A key component is source evaluation, assessing the reliability and completeness of each source. Simply finding a record does not guarantee its accuracy; the information must be analyzed in conjunction with other sources. Conflicting information is common in genealogical research, and resolving these discrepancies is crucial. A sound genealogical conclusion is based on the preponderance of evidence, meaning the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion, even if some discrepancies exist. Finally, proper citation of sources is essential for transparency and allows others to evaluate the research. The GPS demands all these elements be met for a conclusion to be considered proven. Therefore, while each of the other options is important, only fulfilling all aspects constitutes adherence to the GPS.

When evaluating genealogical evidence, it’s essential to consider the *principle of negative evidence*. Negative evidence refers to the absence of expected records or information. While the absence of a record does not necessarily prove that an event did not occur, it can be significant when combined with other evidence. For example, if a family is known to have lived in a particular area for several generations, but no birth records can be found for their children in the local church or civil registration records, this absence of records may suggest that the family was not actually living in that area during the relevant time period, or that they belonged to a religious group that did not keep records. The significance of negative evidence depends on the context and the availability of records. It’s important to consider whether the records were likely to have been created and whether they have survived. Negative evidence should be carefully documented and analyzed in conjunction with positive evidence to form a well-supported conclusion.

When a researcher encounters conflicting information across different record types, a systematic approach to evidence analysis is crucial. This involves several steps. First, the researcher should identify the specific points of conflict. Second, the researcher must evaluate the reliability and accuracy of each source. Primary sources, created at or near the time of the event by someone with direct knowledge, generally carry more weight than secondary sources. However, even primary sources can contain errors. Factors like the informant’s memory, potential biases, and the purpose for which the record was created must be considered. Third, the researcher should look for corroborating evidence. If other independent sources support one version of the information, that version becomes more credible. Fourth, the researcher should consider the context of the records. Understanding the historical, social, and legal context in which the records were created can shed light on potential reasons for discrepancies. Finally, the researcher should document the analysis process, clearly stating the conflicting information, the sources consulted, the evaluation of those sources, and the reasoning behind the conclusion reached. This transparency is essential for maintaining genealogical standards and ensuring the integrity of the research. Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires reasonably exhaustive research, complete source citations, thorough analysis and resolution of conflicting evidence, and a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. Failure to address conflicting evidence adequately undermines the validity of any genealogical conclusion.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires reasonably exhaustive research. Reasonably exhaustive research doesn’t mean finding every single record that *might* exist. It means conducting a thorough search of all likely and relevant sources given the research question, the time period, the location, and the availability of records. It requires considering the limitations of record availability and accessibility. If a specific record type is known to exist but is destroyed, inaccessible, or has extremely limited indexing, the absence of that record does not necessarily invalidate the research if other, more accessible sources have been thoroughly examined. Furthermore, the GPS emphasizes that the research should be tailored to the specific research question. For example, if the research question pertains to establishing a relationship between two individuals in a specific location during a certain time frame, the research should prioritize records that are most likely to provide evidence of that relationship. The GPS also requires that any contradictory evidence be resolved, or at least acknowledged, before a conclusion is reached. Finally, the GPS requires a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.

When researching immigration and naturalization records, a Certified Genealogical Records Specialist needs to understand the historical context of immigration laws and procedures. Passenger lists, also known as ship manifests, can provide valuable information about an immigrant’s arrival in a new country, including their name, age, place of origin, destination, and sometimes even their occupation or relatives. Naturalization records document the process by which an immigrant becomes a citizen of their new country. These records can include declarations of intention, petitions for naturalization, and certificates of citizenship. The information contained in naturalization records can vary depending on the time period and the jurisdiction, but they often include the immigrant’s name, age, place of birth, date and place of arrival, and names of witnesses. It’s important to note that not all immigrants naturalized, and some may have naturalized in a different location than where they initially settled. Alien registration files were created in some countries during periods of heightened national security, such as during World War I and World War II. These files can provide information about non-citizens residing in the country, including their name, address, occupation, and country of origin. Researchers should be aware of privacy laws and regulations that may restrict access to certain immigration and naturalization records, particularly those containing sensitive personal information.

Research ethics in genealogy extend beyond legal requirements like copyright and privacy laws. They encompass a broader responsibility to treat individuals and their stories with respect and sensitivity. Publicly disclosing potentially stigmatizing information, even if legally permissible, without considering the impact on living individuals and their families, is ethically questionable. While the researcher may have obtained the information legally, ethical considerations dictate that they should exercise discretion and avoid causing unnecessary harm or distress. A responsible genealogist would weigh the historical value of the information against the potential for harm and consider alternative ways to present the information that minimize the risk of causing offense or damage to reputations. This aligns with the principle of “do no harm,” which is a cornerstone of ethical conduct in many fields, including genealogy.

Cluster research, also known as community reconstruction, involves studying the interconnected relationships between individuals and families within a specific community or geographic area. This technique is particularly useful when direct evidence linking individuals is lacking or ambiguous. By examining the records of neighbors, associates, and other individuals who interacted with the target ancestor, researchers can uncover indirect evidence that supports or refutes genealogical hypotheses. For example, if a researcher is trying to identify the parents of an individual and cannot find a birth certificate, they might examine the records of the individual’s neighbors to see if any of them share the same surname or came from the same region. Cluster research can also help to identify migration patterns, social networks, and economic activities that influenced the lives of ancestors. This approach requires a broad and systematic examination of various record types, including census records, land records, probate records, tax records, and church records.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) is the bedrock of sound genealogical research. It consists of five key elements that must be satisfied to reach a credible conclusion. The first element is reasonably exhaustive research, which means exploring all reasonably available sources relevant to the research question. This doesn’t mean looking at absolutely every record ever created, but rather diligently searching the records that are likely to contain the needed information, given the time period, location, and social context of the individual or family being studied. The second element involves complete and accurate source citations. Every piece of information used in the research should be linked to its original source with a detailed citation. This allows others (and the researcher themselves) to verify the information and assess the reliability of the source. The third element is thorough analysis and correlation. Genealogical research often involves conflicting or incomplete information. This element requires careful analysis of the evidence, weighing the reliability of different sources, and correlating information from multiple sources to build a cohesive narrative. The fourth element is resolution of conflicting evidence. When discrepancies arise, the researcher must actively seek out additional evidence to resolve the conflicts and determine which information is most likely to be accurate. This may involve re-evaluating the sources, considering the context in which the records were created, and applying critical thinking skills. The fifth and final element is a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. The research findings must be presented in a clear and logical manner, with a well-supported conclusion that directly addresses the original research question. The conclusion should explain how the evidence supports the findings and acknowledge any limitations or uncertainties.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) requires reasonably exhaustive research. This means the researcher must have explored all reasonably accessible sources that could contain information relevant to the research question. The standard doesn’t dictate a specific number of sources, but rather emphasizes the thoroughness of the search. The researcher must document the search process, including sources consulted (both those that yielded information and those that did not), and explain why certain sources were deemed relevant or irrelevant. A simple checklist, while helpful for organization, doesn’t inherently demonstrate reasonably exhaustive research. The crucial aspect is the *reasoning* behind the selection and evaluation of sources, and the justification for concluding that the research is reasonably complete given the available resources. It’s about demonstrating a sound and logical approach to the research, not just ticking boxes. A finding aid is just one type of source, and relying solely on it would not meet the GPS. Claiming a source is unavailable without demonstrating attempts to locate it and alternatives is also insufficient.

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) is the bedrock of sound genealogical research. It requires reasonably exhaustive research, complete and accurate source citations, thorough analysis and correlation, resolution of conflicting evidence, and a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion. When a researcher uncovers conflicting information, they must meticulously analyze each source’s reliability, considering factors such as the author’s expertise, the date of creation, and potential biases. If one record states a birth year as 1850 while another claims 1855, the researcher must evaluate which record is more likely to be accurate based on its context and corroborating evidence. This might involve examining original records versus derivative sources, considering the proximity of the record’s creation to the event, and assessing the credibility of the informant. Furthermore, the researcher should seek additional records to support or refute either claim. This could include census records, vital records, church records, or family letters. The goal is not simply to choose the record that seems most appealing, but to build a preponderance of evidence that supports a specific conclusion. Failure to address conflicting evidence undermines the validity of the genealogical proof and can lead to inaccurate conclusions. The GPS mandates a transparent and rigorous process for resolving discrepancies, ensuring that genealogical claims are based on the best available evidence and a well-reasoned argument.