FamilySearch "Legacy NFS Source" accuracy - Italy

[battista]

I'm trying to find out more information about Giovanni Battista, born approximately 1847 in Cassino (he lists Cassino as birthplace in the UK census records).

Now, on his FamilySearch profile, someone attached a "Legacy NFS Source" which lists his name, birth date (19 May 1847) and birthplace as Rocca d'Arce, Frosinone, Lazio, Italy. Rocca D'Arce is right next to Cassino, so this seems likely that this is him.

The record is from "Registro dello stato civile di Rocca d'Arce, FHL film 1170678, LDS Family History Library", which seems legitimate. Unfortunately, I'm not able to see the original record, as it's only accessible at FamilySearch libraries/affiliate centers. I did go to a FamilySearch affiliate center, unfortunately, within the hour I was there, I was not able to view any documents, the internet connection was unbearably slow. Additionally, there was something like 1000+ pages. It didn't look like I could search for the name, and I doubt I'd have been able to go through those pages and find him manually. I've contacted the person who attached the record (they attached it in 2014), and so far no response.

Here's the FS link: https://www.familysearch.org/links-pages/sourceVE?&entityId=L89K-DR7&entityType=person&sourceId=M9C5-LPR&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.familysearch.org%2Ftree%2Fperson%2Fdetails%2FL89K-DR7&showPhotos=true

Has anyone here had any experience with the accuracy of these Legacy NFS Sources? If this is correct and is him, I should be able to track down a birth certificate.

[iluleah]

Legacy NFS Source is just  'donated' information and NOTHING is real until you have seen the real record.

The only 'help' any of these are is it gives you a clue about what real record to look at, however much of LDS 'sources or collections' are donated unchecked information and too many are spurious.

I can only give you the information I personally have found with regards to LDS. My oldest friend is LDS, she was the person who first helped me start my research and taught me what real records are and what they are not. At that time she warned my never to trust as real anything unless it was the actual record or a scan of the record. The LDS used to be simply all these collected/donated info now under different names was simply called the 'IGI' it was only ever a clue, in my research maybe 2 out of 10 turned out to be real information after I researched further and found or didn't find a real record.
So my advice is use it only as a clue and find the real record before you trust it.

I have to say I am not surprised the person who  submitted it has not responded, likely an LDS member and as part of their faith they collect/donate names, dates, places for the LDS collections none of which are proved or checked, it is not part of their faith to clarify to other people researching.

It 'sounds' like you have a potential clue to a real record, go and find the real record, fiches can be ordered of the PR which should be the scanned PR and if it turns out to be real then you will want to look at the rest of the PR as well as there are likely to be more 'events' of bap/marriage of siblings/parents etc

[battista]

I see.

Thanks for that information iluleah, I did suspect that was the case. Hopefully I can get my hands on the real record and this is in fact correct.

[iluleah]

I will keep my fingers crossed for you, at least you have a clue what to look for and hopefully you will find it is real, but at least you have researched and can get a copy of the real record to prove your research

[bungey]

 I would like to say that I believe that your initial answer is the most coherent explanation that i have seen to date for certain family trees on the familysearch.org website. That most family trees there in the early days seemed to be works of fiction. That even today we are plagued by so called Legacy record family trees.

[battista]

I would like to say that I believe that your initial answer is the most coherent explanation that i have seen to date for certain family trees on the familysearch.org website. That most family trees there in the early days seemed to be works of fiction. That even today we are plagued by so called Legacy record family trees.

Yes, so it turned out the record listed from Rocca D'Arce was correct in its information. I have the original birth certificate from the region, however, this is the wrong person. Whoever added the information simply placed it onto my ancestor who had the same name and lived in the city nearby.

I now have my ancestor's real birth certificate, which is from Cassino not Rocca D'Arce. The Cassino record completely matches with all my other records fortunately.

[bungey]

 I am pleased for you that you do have a resolution. Your problem it seems to have  been one that must happen time and time again. Where some one has the same forename and surname as another in the same area/district, and in the same time frame. Or even the same names etc,etc, as others in the same district and time frame. I was researching a William Henbest, and thinking to myself, Henbest is not that common a name. Bet you don't get too many of them to the £ pound. There were five William Henbests all in the same parish of Bramshaw. Four from William 1735-1775 Henbest as father ,and a grandfather. and one from his first cousin once removed Robert 1743-1812 Henbest. Who named his youngest child William Henbest  in 1783. Yes the youngest son of  William 1735-1775 Henbest was a Robert 1767-1832 Henbest.