Hi all, interesting discussion about the data held within the Source and whether or not it is Primary, Secondary etc. Looking at the FH help it states 'Assessment (of how reliable the source is)' and goes on to say about the 'where within' tab 'which part of the source the relevant data is to be found'. It is not the data which is being described as Primary etc., it is the Source of that data that is described so. We seem to be getting hung up on the data which is misleading. Every document I know of in the genealogical research is a mixture of fact, part-fact, nearly fact and absolute fiction. As I said before, we can deduce 9 different birth years from census images, one from a death certificate, maybe if you're lucky one from the baptism record etc. The documents can all be Primary in their own right, it is just the data that is suspect. Don't shoot the messenger (the document)! David -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Mike Fry via Sent: 22 December 2015 18:03 To: family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence On 22 Dec 2015 7:23 PM, Victor Markham via wrote: > Sorry I will have to disagree with you here. Let's not argue but agree > to disagree! Agreed :-) I am also aware that there can be minor differences between how the GRO records an event and how the relevant LRO records it. After all, the GRO just gets a transcription from the LRO. Also, there can be differences in the information the LRO retains and how it presents that to the researcher. Again, a transcription is sometimes involved. The best certificates (IMHO) are those that include a photocopy from the registers. Which gets us nicely back on topic. Should transcriptions be considered as primary evidence? -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg ------------------------------- 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

I would also add that just because you have a box to fill in it doesn't mean you have to do so. I've never bothered to use those assessment fields. If there's any conflicting evidence I prefer to add my reasoning to the note field for the event in question. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:family-historian-users-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of D C Banks via Sent: 22 December 2015 18:42 To: 'Mike Fry'; family-historian-users@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [FHU] Primary Evidence Hi all, interesting discussion about the data held within the Source and whether or not it is Primary, Secondary etc. Looking at the FH help it states 'Assessment (of how reliable the source is)' and goes on to say about the 'where within' tab 'which part of the source the relevant data is to be found'. It is not the data which is being described as Primary etc., it is the Source of that data that is described so. We seem to be getting hung up on the data which is misleading. Every document I know of in the genealogical research is a mixture of fact, part-fact, nearly fact and absolute fiction. As I said before, we can deduce 9 different birth years from census images, one from a death certificate, maybe if you're lucky one from the baptism record etc. The documents can all be Primary in their own right, it is just the data that is suspect. Don't shoot the messenger (the document)! David

On 22 December 2015 at 18:42, D C Banks via < family-historian-users@rootsweb.com> wrote: > ... It is not the data which is being described as Primary etc., it is the > Source of that data that is described so. We seem to be getting hung up on > the data which is misleading. ... > > I still contend, I'm afraid, that for family historians, it is the data (as extracted from the source for a *specific* issue) that should be regarded as primary or secondary. If it were the source **as a whole** that were Primary or Secondary, then the "rating" would be on the source record. FamilySearch went to great trouble to put the "rating" against just the data for a particular event. If they meant the same rating to apply across the source as a whole, then they'd have put it on the source record. As it is, we *can* say that a date of death on a death certificate provides primary evidence for the date of death while the age provides secondary (and indirect, if you want to go that way) evidence for the person's birth date. A mix on one source record. But all this is secondary (no pun intended for once) to trying to decide on a case by case basis whether we can trust the evidence - the primary / secondary, original / derivative, direct / indirect (or negative?) angles are just rough-cut suggestions about "trustability". And I think we actually all agree on that. PS - I have a feeling that, when I looked in Wikipedia, it said that academic historians class documents *as a whole* as primary / secondary / tertiary. Unlike (most) family historians. Adrian