Reliable Sources

[John Bennett]

Hello all.

Recent debates on these boards have seen several posters question the reliablity of certain sources (Census returns, Booth research, Police Statements, Inquest reports, photographs, modern commentators etc).

Contemporary newspaper reports are invaluable, but not always reliable.

In a field where references and source citations seem to be paramount, what do we base our research on, and what can be trusted?

A serious question for the masses.

[truebluedub]

I think the best way of looking at these sources is through a process of questioning the source, as a qualitative sociologist, I would see this process as looking into these areas.

1. who wrote the source
2. Authenticity, authority, bias, intelligibility
3. The contemporary interpretation of the event
4. For whom was this source written
5. What does it include or omit
6. What evidence does it offer
7. The historical context
8. What the author is saying and why
10. Can it be confirmed from other sources

This is probably more useful than saying one type of source is more reliable than another.

[Mike Covell]

I use a lot of contempory newspapers when researching the Stephenson family, but ensure that I cross reference these with magistrate papers. So everytime I find a story, I check the date, contact the archives and take it from there.

The same method is used when looking at census returns, burgess rolls, polling books, trade directory entries, etc. I use one to back up another.

Needless to say, this approach has given me solid dates for both the Stephenson and Dawber familes from the mid 1700's, to the present day.

I also try to verify what living descendants have mentioned with known facts, and use all of these to create a bigger picture.

My chronology on Stephenson stands at over 100+ pages, with over 1,000+ entries, utilising letters, magistrate papers, census entries, shipping registers, burgess rolls, polling books, year books, council sessions, numerous newspapers, hospital records, birth, marriage and death details, christening registers, contemory books and journals, maps, plans, and much much more.

This not only gives me a single core time line, but also enables the time line to be thickened with known facts, to enable a clearer picture to be created!

[John Bennett]

As Mike has put it in his post, it's always wise to cross-reference.

The problem comes with trusting one source over ALL OTHERS.

[Sam Flynn]

John,

My view is that as many sources as possible should be compared, whether contemporary or more recent. No single source is invariably accurate, and it pays to triangulate between a number of them in order to get closer to the truth.

Like "truebluedub" says: "Can it be confirmed from other sources?"

...to which I'd add: "Does it fit in with what has subsequently been learned?"

[brummie]

Even today tabloid newspapers are frequently made to print retractions and make payments to individuals for incorrect information and alegations printed,notably of late the Madelaine McCann case. Probably the most reliable source of info are the official police records and reports or inquest reports but so much of the Ripper case is centred on newspaper accounts of witness testimony which needs to be carefully analysed, some instances like Mathew Packer who spoke at various times to police, private detectives, reporters and police again, each time finding something else to add going from seeing nothing suspicious to talking to and selling grapes to a suspicious man must make such reports open to question.