I would disagree with the statement that Census documents are primary evidence as, with the exception of the U.K. 1901 Census, all you can generally see is the is the Enumerators' compilation and interpretation of the individual household schedules, which were the primary sources, but which have all been destroyed. Mervyn Sent from my iPhone > On 21 Dec 2015, at 23:12, D C Banks via <family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > Hi Dennis > > If the Death Certificate is an original or a 'stamped' copy of an original > then it is Primary evidence. Likewise an image of the 1881 census is also > Primary evidence. However, when I use only a transcription of a Death i.e. > from FreeBMD then I cite that as Secondary. Likewise a transcription of a > census. It is the document or 'source' of the information that is primary, > secondary etc., not the content. > Take the different ages on Census as an example. We have up to nine census > to give us an age, the chance is that we can deduce a different birth year > for each of the nine. The census image is still the Primary source at that > point in time even though you think the content is suspect. The > transcription by the local history society or Find My Past will always be at > best case Secondary evidence. > So, to answer your particular question, regardless of the content, if the > certificate is a true copy of a GRO entry then it is the best you can get > without finding the original register so, yes, it is Primary. The fact that > the informant couldn't count is neither here nor there, it is what they > thought at the time, you can't rewrite history. > > David > > -----Original Message----- > From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Dennis > Hawkins via > Sent: 21 December 2015 22:36 > To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com > Subject: [FHU] Primary Evidence > > I have a death certificate which lists the birth date of the subject. Is > this primary evidence of birth date? > Dennis Hawkins > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 21 December 2015 at 23:44, Mervyn Ashby via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I would disagree with the statement that Census documents are primary > evidence as, with the exception of the U.K. 1901 Census, all you can > generally see is the is the Enumerators' compilation and interpretation of > the individual household schedules, which were the primary sources, but > which have all been destroyed. > > It's a good point, but if we take it to its logical conclusion, we'd probably need to declare all documents to provide secondary evidence only - GRO certificates are copies; we never see the certificates at superintendent registrars - but a photocopy might count; parish registers are probably written up after the event from the priest's notes; WW1 Soldiers' Records are compiled by clerks from letters long since lost.... And if we do all that, what's the point of a classification that makes 99% of stuff secondary? As I say, this is just a step along the way to deciding if it's evidence that we can trust - so we do need to worry about enumerators' errors, absolutely we do - but we might as well put the primary / secondary boundary somewhere that obviously distinguishes between (say) microfilm of the 1881 enumerators' forms and the LDS transcription of the 1881. Adrian

Hello Adrian I agree that most documents are actually 'copies' or 'transcriptions' of an event but I tend to couple 'primary' and 'trusted' as the same thing. In 99% of GRO documents I trust the 'copy' of the certificate as it is a copy of the information known at the time. On the contrary, any family tree put on the LDS by the public, unless substantiated by another source, I would call Questionable. I think the confusion occurs in the differentiation between 'information' and 'document'. A document may be 'Primary' (it is what was known at the time) even though the content may be inaccurate. I have put a note on all my GEDCOM and other major data files/storage about how I have interpreted various types of document so that there is hopefully no argument later after I have gone to that magic place in heaven where I can spend 25 hours a day doing family history. Just so everybody knows where I am coming from I have designed traceability and 'genealogical' systems for pharmaceutical, defence and food and beverage industries so do know a bit about the subject - I have put that knowledge into how I have set up my document hierarchy - but that's just my way and opinion - each to their own. Happy Christmas everybody -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce via Sent: 22 December 2015 00:05 To: Mervyn Ashby; Family Historian UG Mailing List Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence On 21 December 2015 at 23:44, Mervyn Ashby via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > I would disagree with the statement that Census documents are primary > evidence as, with the exception of the U.K. 1901 Census, all you can > generally see is the is the Enumerators' compilation and > interpretation of the individual household schedules, which were the > primary sources, but which have all been destroyed. > > It's a good point, but if we take it to its logical conclusion, we'd probably need to declare all documents to provide secondary evidence only - GRO certificates are copies; we never see the certificates at superintendent registrars - but a photocopy might count; parish registers are probably written up after the event from the priest's notes; WW1 Soldiers' Records are compiled by clerks from letters long since lost.... And if we do all that, what's the point of a classification that makes 99% of stuff secondary? As I say, this is just a step along the way to deciding if it's evidence that we can trust - so we do need to worry about enumerators' errors, absolutely we do - but we might as well put the primary / secondary boundary somewhere that obviously distinguishes between (say) microfilm of the 1881 enumerators' forms and the LDS transcription of the 1881. Adrian ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Mervyn I believe if a source of information no longer exists i.e. the original Census documents which were destroyed then it can't be accepted as a source whatsoever, only hearsay. The important thing is once you have set your own rules, stick to them. I have seen original documents that have subsequently been destroyed by a person who thought nobody had seen them, I have annotated to the effect that the author (me) saw the information and I still credit them as Primary. (They were court affidavits) My rule, if I can't go 'back' any further i.e. to the household schedules, then the enumerators schedule is my Primary Source, there is nowhere else to go. David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mervyn Ashby via Sent: 21 December 2015 23:44 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence I would disagree with the statement that Census documents are primary evidence as, with the exception of the U.K. 1901 Census, all you can generally see is the is the Enumerators' compilation and interpretation of the individual household schedules, which were the primary sources, but which have all been destroyed. Mervyn Sent from my iPhone