Max I had a similar end result on my Sky+ box - there were recorded programmes shown in the guide, but if I then selected a subset of that data (either viewed or unwatched, akin to using queries in FH) I was told that there was nothing to display and then no programmes at all in the guide. Reselecting the recorded items from the main menu then displays all the programmes once more. I can resolve this by rebuilding the index, so I wonder if you are suffering from a corruption of your FH database? Have you tried running Validate from the file menu? There may be some problem with a particular section of your data. Also - do you have a backup file which you could try the queries on (obviously backup your current file first!!) to identify whether it is a problem with that one file, or a more fundamental issue with FH itself? Apologies if you have already tried these suggestions. Good luck Russell -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Max Willoughby Sent: 08 February 2014 04:00 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] FH V5 stops working Hello I have now reviewed the links posted below and nothing relevant to my system is evident. I have reinstalled FH V5.09 as administrator. The error [attempting to copy selected result set cells causes FH to stop working] persists for some queries I have run, but not for all, viz: Tools> Work with data> Addresses> Where used - fail Work with data> Tools> Places> Where used - fail Work with data> Occupations> Where used Tools> - OK Work with data> Source types> Where used - OK Plug-in: notes list for individual - OK I have also noticed that FH tells me there are no facts or events to be sorted by date, when there clearly are. Sincerely Max

Hello I have now reviewed the links posted below and nothing relevant to my system is evident. I have reinstalled FH V5.09 as administrator. The error [attempting to copy selected result set cells causes FH to stop working] persists for some queries I have run, but not for all, viz: Tools> Work with data> Addresses> Where used - fail Tools> Work with data> Places> Where used - fail Tools> Work with data> Occupations> Where used - OK Tools> Work with data> Source types> Where used - OK Plug-in: notes list for individual - OK I have also noticed that FH tells me there are no facts or events to be sorted by date, when there clearly are. Sincerely Max -----Original Message----- From: Beryl & Mike Tate [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 3 February 2014 21:19 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [FHU] FH V5 stops working Max asks: I'm running FH V5.09 on Windows Vista. When I try to copy data generated by [Tools> Work with data> Addresses> Where used] using the copy button, Windows reports FH has stopped working and the program shuts down. I can however, print the data without a problem. Is this a bug or do I have a problem with my system? "Tools > Work with Data > Addresses > Where Used" produces a Query "Result Set" window that has a "Copy Selected Cells" button in the top right toolbar. Does the same problem apply to any other Query "Result Set" produced by a Query or a Plugin? The FHUG Family Historian Installation Guide does list some similar symptoms that may be worth investigating: http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:reinstall_family_historian#er rorfamily_historian_stopped_working http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:reinstall_family_historian#fa mily_historian_installs_but_won_t_run_properly http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:reinstall_family_historian#co py_paste_facts_buttons_do_not_work Regards, Mike Tate

One other thing to try is to boot up Windows in Safe Mode and see if the FH problems persist. If there is no problem in Safe Mode then it is probably an interaction with some other software. Try excluding the C:\Program Files (x86)\Family Historian\ folder from your anti-virus package. I presume you are running on a supported version of Windows, i.e. XP, 7, or 8. If all else fails contact Calico Pie at Family Historian Support [email protected] Regards, Mike Tate

As a qualified historian I would say that all these documents have their problems, it is the way you use the information that counts I have found deliberate and unintentional wrong information on all types birth/marriage/death records. However, saying these documents can only be considered secondary sources, puts into doubt probably about 95% of what most academic historians would consider primary sources. All historical sources are either descriptive, normative or a mixture of both. You cannot have a document that is part primary source and part secondary, though you can have a source that is part plausible ( i.e. descriptive), and part implausible/suspect (normative). My personal position is that I regard these documents as primary sources as they describe what the informant believed to be true at that point in time, or what they wanted people to believe. Just because the deliberate misinformation sends researchers on a wild goose chase does not automatically designate them as secondary sources. They are the closest record to actually what happened and involved people who participated in the event so they must be primary. Cheers Gabrielle -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2014 7:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence <snipped> .. UK genealogists would say the information about the birth is secondary (a) because of the time lapse and (b) because the groom might have an interest in showing he was "of age"... </snipped> My two-penneth: I would take the same line as Adrian. The Marriage Certificate is Primary evidence for the Marriage Ceremony. All else is Secondary, including the parentage of the couple. I have at least one bride with an apparently deceased father, invented for the purposes of the certificate. John --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

My take would be that I would also be sure to use the "calc" Date Qualifier against the Date of Birth in this case - I would then be quite happy to regard the Marriage Cert as Primary evidence unless or until I had better information.  For me, Secondary usually means e.g.plausible information from someone else's Tree, not yet verified or e.g. my Grandmother's handwritten list of the Dates of Birth of her siblings (since verified as corect), Regards Steve

Regarding the issue about a document being both Primary and Secondary evidence, the GEDCOM specification accommodates that. Where a Fact cites a Source it is the Citation that has the Assessment option of Primary, Secondary, Questionable, Unreliable and not the Source Record. So the Marriage Event can cite the Marriage Certificate Source Record with an Assessment of Primary evidence. Whereas a Birth Event can cite the same Marriage Certificate Source with an Assessment of Secondary or Questionable since the Age may be in doubt. Regards, Mike Tate

Hi Adrian   I am in perfect agreement, many sources contain secondary evidence which later turns out to be primary evidence and vice versa. How many times have we seen a old lady as the mother of a child on a census return when we know very well she is actually the grandmother and mum is actually listed as a sister. Is that primary evidence for the 'truth' at the time, for a genetic link between grandmother and granddaughter or that there was a naughty mother!   David From: Adrian Bruce <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2014, 10:09 Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence <<snipped>> surely isn't the fact that something was invented for the certificate be an example of the Primary evidence of a deception being employed? <<snipped>> Actually, you can get quite mathematically strict in a very tongue in cheek fashion... Yes, (speaking like a UK family historian), the fact that something was invented for the certificate is indeed primary evidence for **a deception being employed**. However, the same words are only secondary evidence for the **date of birth** (the original query). What's crucial in this view of the world, is that we need to look at what the text is being used as evidence for - the same words can be used as primary evidence for one thing and secondary evidence for another. If this dual view is a bit of a headache for you, then you should understand I'm a fan of Steven Moffat's Sherlock... I need to sit down and read Gabrielle's mail properly later since I'm not familiar with terms like "normative". I have long believed, however, that academic and family historians use these terms differently... She is, however, speaking for all of us when she says "it is the way you use the information that counts". Adrian ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> Yes, (speaking like a UK family historian), the fact that something was invented for the certificate is indeed primary evidence for **a deception being employed**. However, the same words are only secondary evidence for the **date of birth** (the original query). <<snipped>>   I am with Adrian here - I think the nearest you can get with an age on a marriage certificate is an approximation. My grandmother stated her age on the marriage certificate as 26, and her husband 24. As I also have their birth certificates, I know that she was in fact 28, whereas he was only 23! So they both gave false information - maybe to hide the fact that she was still a spinster at 28, maybe to hide the age gap, we'll never know. However with your cousin, if he was indeed 22, then you should be able to find him as a baby in the 1911 census ? - I have found that however much people lied about their ages as adults, in census and other documents, the ages of babies in the census were usually accurate! Regards, Andrea   ________________________________ From: Dennis Hawkins <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, 3 February 2014, 20:47 Subject: [FHU] Primary Evidence I have a Marriage Certificate showing that my cousin was 22 when he got married in July 1931. It may sound a bit strange but I consider that this is “Primary Evidence” that he was born in “approximately 1909”. Is this correct? Dennis Hawkins ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> surely isn't the fact that something was invented for the certificate be an example of the Primary evidence of a deception being employed? <<snipped>> Actually, you can get quite mathematically strict in a very tongue in cheek fashion... Yes, (speaking like a UK family historian), the fact that something was invented for the certificate is indeed primary evidence for **a deception being employed**. However, the same words are only secondary evidence for the **date of birth** (the original query). What's crucial in this view of the world, is that we need to look at what the text is being used as evidence for - the same words can be used as primary evidence for one thing and secondary evidence for another. If this dual view is a bit of a headache for you, then you should understand I'm a fan of Steven Moffat's Sherlock... I need to sit down and read Gabrielle's mail properly later since I'm not familiar with terms like "normative". I have long believed, however, that academic and family historians use these terms differently... She is, however, speaking for all of us when she says "it is the way you use the information that counts". Adrian

Hi John   But surely isn't the fact that something was invented for the certificate be an example of the Primary evidence of a deception being employed?   David From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2014, 8:19 Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence <snipped> .. UK genealogists would say the information about the birth is secondary (a) because of the time lapse and (b) because the groom might have an interest in showing he was "of age"... </snipped> My two-penneth: I would take the same line as Adrian.  The Marriage Certificate is Primary evidence for the Marriage Ceremony.  All else is Secondary, including the parentage of the couple.  I have at least one bride with an apparently deceased father, invented for the purposes of the certificate. John --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

May I offer a perspective from my experience with linguistics and anthropology? One of my instructors studies a language which has data source as one of its requirements (not unlike how English requires us to use singular/plural). [She told us that her students who were native speakers of this language were much better at quoting their sources than the native English speakers.] Sometimes when people hear that languages with data source exist, they say: "But that means you can't lie in that language!" --- which is ridiculous, because speakers can use the wrong forms deliberately, just as we can say things that we know not to be true in English. An assertion of my marriage: "Jan got married" could be reported with any of five different grammatical forms, which would express the same quality of source information as the English examples that follow: 1. Things directly experienced by the speaker: "I was at the wedding." (I saw them get married.) 2. Things you were told by someone else: "Someone said Jan got married." 3. Things you deduce or infer: "She's calling herself [some naming convention used by married people] so I guess they got married." 4. Non-involvement: "I wasn't at the wedding and I don't care anyway." 5. Historical: "It was so long ago that no one who was there is alive anymore." (No one alive could know.) When I'm weighing a piece of evidence, I find it useful to look at the data in the same way. If you are a contemporary of the bride and groom, the date and place of marriage is direct evidence, given by the officiant, and witnessed by the witnesses. The information about the parents is "someone else said so" information because the bride and groom only know their own parentage from what they were told by people older than they are. If I am reading the certificate now, and telling you the details, and all the participants are deceased, the event is "no one alive could know". If we only have the marriage registration and not the certificate, we can use it to estimate a date range and a place range. It is indirect evidence. Non-involvement might apply if I advise someone not to use a particular online index because I think the index is faulty and the search results are suspect, e.g. some batches of Massachusetts marriage records on Family Search which, according to their "known issues" pages in the Research Wiki, have death dates reported as marriage dates. With death certificates in the USA, we usually have the name of the informant on the certificate. Assume the deceased's spouse is the informant -- they were not present at the birth of the deceased, nor at the birth of either of the deceased's parents, so all of that information was told to them by someone else, and if the deceased is old enough, it is also "no one alive could know" information -- there is no one the informant could consult with who would have direct knowledge. I find it useful to think of things from this perspective, to bring myself back to the question of how do I know something? It's easy to get tangled up in the labeling of primary evidence / secondary evidence and lose sight of what is really going on. And in my mind, it is more important not to lose sight of whether the source is original or derivative as in this example from Elizabeth Shown Mills about examining church records, posted on 14 January 2014: https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips /document-day-analyzing-church-records In that case the marriage record was a derivative source and was compiled from two different records. Yes, you can argue about what bits are primary and secondary, but if you aren't certain that the two compiled records actually belong to the same person or not, what good is that? Jan

<snipped> .. UK genealogists would say the information about the birth is secondary (a) because of the time lapse and (b) because the groom might have an interest in showing he was "of age"... </snipped> My two-penneth: I would take the same line as Adrian. The Marriage Certificate is Primary evidence for the Marriage Ceremony. All else is Secondary, including the parentage of the couple. I have at least one bride with an apparently deceased father, invented for the purposes of the certificate. John --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

I've always treated certificates as having both primary and secondary evidence depending on what you're looking at. On your marriage certificate, I would seethe marriage date as primary, but calculating a birth date as secondary. I suppose others might see this differently. John On 4/02/2014 7:47 AM, Dennis Hawkins wrote: > I have a Marriage Certificate showing that my cousin was 22 when he got married in July 1931. It may sound a bit strange but I consider that this is “Primary Evidence” that he was born in “approximately 1909”. Is this correct? > Dennis Hawkins > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- Site : http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~owenjones/ojname1.html MyHeritage : http://www.johnedowen.myheritage.com MyHeritage : http://www.ellenowen.myheritage.com Who Were They? : http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~owenjones/ Wyong Family History Group : http://rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nswwfhg/ --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

<<snipped>> I have a Marriage Certificate showing that my cousin was 22 when he got married in July 1931. ... I consider that this is "Primary Evidence" that he was born in "approximately 1909". Is this correct? <<snipped>> See http://www.bcgcertification.org/skillbuilders/skbld085.html for the American view from their Board for Certification of Genealogists. To quote... "We need to process every resource by examining every fact and clue. Only then are we able to draw reasonable conclusions. The process includes identifying three basic elements. "Source type-is it an original or a derivative? "Information type(s)-is each piece primary or secondary? "Evidence type(s)-is each piece direct or indirect?" This is valuable because it emphasises that it's more than just the primary / secondary issue that should concern us. It is clear here that the primary / secondary question is about the content. Again, quoting: "A piece of information is primary when it is recorded by a knowledgeable eyewitness or participant in that event, or by an official whose duties require him or her to make an accurate record of the event when it occurs." Thus if we examine the information about his birth, that information is indeed that he was born about 1908/1909. But is it recorded by "a knowledgeable eyewitness or participant in" his birth? (i.e. his birth)? No. Is it recorded by "an official whose duties require him or her to make an accurate record of the event when it occurs"? No - the officials relevant to the birth are long gone. Now, things do go a bit awry between the typical US and UK views. So far as I can see, UK genealogists also require the primary information to be recorded roughly contemporary with the event and by someone who is DISinterested (not UNinterested!) in the information. Thus, a politician's memoir describing how they were brought up in a shoebox might be rejected as primary information both from the lapse of time and from the fact that the politician probably has an interest in emphasising his hard upbringing. So UK genealogists would say the information about the birth is secondary (a) because of the time lapse and (b) because the groom might have an interest in showing he was "of age". Adrian B

Thanks, everyone. Dennis -----Original Message----- From: David Banks Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 10:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence Hi Dennis The Marriage Certificate is the source of your Primary Evidence, all data contained on that source is 'primary' whether suspect or not. So, yes, the date of 1909 is the one known at the time of creating the primary evidence. Likewise, we all know that birth dates calculated from the 1841 'age' can be suspect because they rounded up but it is still your Primary evidence because that's what they knew at the time. Always enter primary source information as is, if you find out better primary source information later i.e the actual birth date, create another record to show the latest primary source. But don’t overwrite the original source, that's what you knew at the time. Remember, 'primary' refers to the source of the information, not the content. David -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dennis Hawkins Sent: 03 February 2014 20:47 To: [email protected] Subject: [FHU] Primary Evidence I have a Marriage Certificate showing that my cousin was 22 when he got married in July 1931. It may sound a bit strange but I consider that this is “Primary Evidence” that he was born in “approximately 1909”. Is this correct? Dennis Hawkins ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3684/7057 - Release Date: 02/03/14 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3684/7057 - Release Date: 02/03/14

Hi Dennis The Marriage Certificate is the source of your Primary Evidence, all data contained on that source is 'primary' whether suspect or not. So, yes, the date of 1909 is the one known at the time of creating the primary evidence. Likewise, we all know that birth dates calculated from the 1841 'age' can be suspect because they rounded up but it is still your Primary evidence because that's what they knew at the time. Always enter primary source information as is, if you find out better primary source information later i.e the actual birth date, create another record to show the latest primary source. But don’t overwrite the original source, that's what you knew at the time. Remember, 'primary' refers to the source of the information, not the content. David -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dennis Hawkins Sent: 03 February 2014 20:47 To: [email protected] Subject: [FHU] Primary Evidence I have a Marriage Certificate showing that my cousin was 22 when he got married in July 1931. It may sound a bit strange but I consider that this is “Primary Evidence” that he was born in “approximately 1909”. Is this correct? Dennis Hawkins ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3684/7057 - Release Date: 02/03/14

I have a Marriage Certificate showing that my cousin was 22 when he got married in July 1931. It may sound a bit strange but I consider that this is “Primary Evidence” that he was born in “approximately 1909”. Is this correct? Dennis Hawkins

Hello listers I'm running FH V5.09 on Windows Vista. When I try to copy data generated by [Tools> Work with data> Addresses> Where used] using the copy button, Windows reports FH has stopped working and the program shuts down. I can however, print the data without a problem. Is this a bug or do I have a problem with my system? I'd appreciate any helpful comments. Max Willoughby in Australia

Max asks: I'm running FH V5.09 on Windows Vista. When I try to copy data generated by [Tools> Work with data> Addresses> Where used] using the copy button, Windows reports FH has stopped working and the program shuts down. I can however, print the data without a problem. Is this a bug or do I have a problem with my system? "Tools > Work with Data > Addresses > Where Used" produces a Query "Result Set" window that has a "Copy Selected Cells" button in the top right toolbar. Does the same problem apply to any other Query "Result Set" produced by a Query or a Plugin? The FHUG Family Historian Installation Guide does list some similar symptoms that may be worth investigating: http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:reinstall_family_historian#errorfamily_historian_stopped_working http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:reinstall_family_historian#family_historian_installs_but_won_t_run_properly http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=how_to:reinstall_family_historian#copy_paste_facts_buttons_do_not_work Regards, Mike Tate

I've been trying to replicate this and I can't. Where used produces a query window with the results. The copy button copies it to the clipboard. No problem. What have I misunderstood? Martin -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Max Willoughby Sent: 03 February 2014 02:35 To: [email protected] Subject: [FHU] FH V5 stops working Hello listers I'm running FH V5.09 on Windows Vista. When I try to copy data generated by [Tools> Work with data> Addresses> Where used] using the copy button, Windows reports FH has stopped working and the program shuts down. I can however, print the data without a problem. Is this a bug or do I have a problem with my system? I'd appreciate any helpful comments. Max Willoughby in Australia ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message