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
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