There is also a difference between evidence and inference, although inference sometimes becomes accepted as fact. For example, it seems universally accepted by genealogists and historians that Richard Pace and Isabella Smythe of Wapping Wall, London, are Richard and Isabella Pace of Jamestown. However, this is an INFERENCE. The EVIDENCE that it is based on consists of the marriage record of Richard and Isabella in the St. Dunstan parish book, and the appearance of a Ruchard and Isabella Pace in Jamestown shortly thereafter, with ages that seem right for the Wapping couple. There is NO evidence in any of the English sources that the Wapping couple left for America, and NO evidence in the American records or the London Company records as to the English origins of Richard and Isabella of Jamestown. However, this connection has come to be accepted as fact based on circumstantial evidence, although it is an INFERENCE drawn from the available evidence. This doesn't mean that there is no possibility it could be wrong; the "facts" of history sometimes do change with new evidence. It just means that genealogists and historians believe that there is a near 100% likelihood that it is correct. We have to remember: History is not the past--history is what we THINK the past was like, and it changes with new perspectives, new evidence, and yes, with the frame of reference of the person writing it. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Christensen Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 10:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q Jon,    Taking #4 first, the death date in the Social Security Death Index is direct evidence - the Social Security Death Index plainly states a date, although it is incorrect in your father's case.  Direct evidence may be wrong.  It is not the correctness of the information that makes it direct evidence or indirect evidence.  Direct evidence is evidence that appears to answer a question without needing any other document.   A death certificate usually provides direct evidence of a person's death date.    Indirect evidence is evidence that is not stated plainly but needs additional information to be able to come to a conclusion.   For example, many times we use indirect evidence to determine a time period of a person's death by using the date of a person's will (the person is still living) and the date of the first probate record created after the person died or the date a will was proved in court (the person has since died).   By using these two documents, the time of death can be stated to be between the two dates.  These two documents provide indirect evidence as to the person's date of death. Now to #3:    A census record is an interesting document to analyze as to whether information is primary information or secondary information.       In most cases, primary information in a census document would include the date the census taker enumerated a household and the location of the household.  This information is usually first hand information.   Usually, the names of those in the household at the time of the census would be considered primary information - supposedly the person giving the information to the enumerator for a household would have first-hand information of who lived in the household when the enumerator showed up at the door.      But we all know the problems with census enumerations.  If we knew who provided the information to the census taker, it would help us in our analysis of how to classify the rest of the information on the census as being primary (first-hand) information or secondary (second-hand) information.    For example, in my own family, if my mother were to provide the information to the census taker, I would probably say any information she gave to the census taker about the ages and birth locations of her children is primary information.   She would be giving firsthand knowledge of our birth dates and locations (and be accurate).   Even if it were my father, the information would be roughly accurate and would probably be considered primary (first-hand) knowledge although it wouldn't surprise me if the ages and dates were wrong.   But, say the census taker approached a blended family created by two families becoming one larger family or the family included laborers or servants as many of our ancestors' households did.   Then some of the information may very well be secondary information - information given by someone without firsthand knowledge of an event.         Again, the rightness or wrongness of the information is not what determines whether it is primary information or secondary information.  Primary information may be wrong and secondary information may be right.   What makes information primary is that it is information given by someone with first hand knowledge and/or the information is provided close in time to the event.   Secondary information is second-hand or third-hand, etc., information given by someone who learned it somewhere else or can be information provided long after the event when the memory of the details of the event may be fading.    A death date on a gravestone would probably be considered primary information if the stone was created near the time of the death - although it could be incorrect.  Sometimes new gravestones are created to replace deteriorated stones or to mark graves that were previously unmarked.  In this case, the death date on a grave stone might be considered secondary information as the source of the information is often second-hand information rather than information from an eyewitness to the death.     The analysis of evidence needs to take into account all of these considerations - is the source an original source (still in its original form) or a derivative source (one that has been copied or manipulated), is the information primary (firsthand knowledge) or secondary (second-hand knowledge), and is the evidence direct (answers the question by itself) or indirect (needs additional information to answer the question).     Hope this helps. Rebecca Christensen --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jon Pace <[email protected]> wrote: #3 - Information: Primary or Secondary Primary: The person who supplied this source had firsthand knowledge of the fact. Secondary: The person who supplied this source had only secondhand knowledge of the fact. This is where I waver: Is census form head-of-household's birth date first or secondhand information? I don't remember being born - I know my birthday because my parents taught it to me. I'm leaning to secondhand information. Is census state of birth firsthand information for anyone? I've seen census forms where the enumerator appears to have been lazy and put all the kids down as born in the current state when I know the family moved in after the first couple were born elsewhere (and is reflected properly on other censuses). However, a parent would know where their child was born if everything is recorded properly. Can two firsthand sources disagree on an issue? I don't know what to indicate here. What about spellings of names? Is a census form firsthand? Draft registration card? Anything? Lastly, is date of death on a headstone first or secondhand knowledge? #4 - Evidence: Direct or Indirect Direct: The source plainly states the fact I have just entered. Indirect: The source suggests this fact but does not plainly state it. Proof will require better or additional evidence from other sources. Odd question on this one: My father's social security death index card shows the wrong date of death for whatever reason (6 days later). Does something that's just plain wrong even count as indirect evidence? Thanks for your guidance, Jon ------------------------------- 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 Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.5/1883 - Release Date: 1/8/2009 6:05 PM