I have attempted to follow the postings about Primary/Secondary Evidence and wonder whether we are getting distracted from what we really need to know - the reliability of the data. The fact that FH source assessment offers the following options only clouds the issue: * Unreliable * Questionable * Secondary Evidence * Primary Evidence A source can be primary and unreliable! From an historical perspective I was taught that primary refers to "first capture" and that it is usually a good idea to try and get back to the first capture. So in reading about the First World War (UK perspective), the unit war diaries (WO95 at the UK National Archives) are "primary". They are written - usually by the Unit Intelligence Officer or by his clerk and then initialled by the IO - usually within a day of the events described. Front-line unit diaries are often hand-written. They describe what the IO /thought happened/. He would have been close to the action. Unit Histories - or the Extensive Official Histories - are usually secondary being based on a collation of primary sources after the event. The Author was probably not there, but is still describing what /he thought happened/ - with hindsight and the benefit of other sources - but also subject to group think and unconscious (even conscious) bias. Which of the two is most reliable - likely to record /what actually happened/? So in a genealogical context, * the primary evidence of birth is probably the entry in the birth register signed by the informant (usually a parent) - but I think in the UK there are mid-wives (or other NHS) records that are more a "first capture". * the primary evidence of marriage is the entry in the marriage register signed by the couple and their witnesses * the primary evidence of death is probably the medical certificate certifying death the entry in the death register (signed by the informant) might be considered secondary because the registrar will only prepare an entry on production of the medical certificate by the informant. So whilst a date and place of birth on a death certificate is useful, it is probably good practice to try to get back to the birth certificate as /we would expect it to be more reliable/. (My father was born in Hampstead - per birth certificate; the registrar for his death certificate said this had to be recorded as Camden! I think I reported his date of birth correctly.) Perhaps we should look to see FH split the "source assessment" - which is actually a "source assessment" in the context of a "fact" - into two: * Unreliable * Questionable * Believed reliable * [user defined?] and * Secondary Evidence * Primary Evidence David