Rebecca gave an excellent overview of the new genealogical standards for evaluating evidence standards. However, I would like to add one more thing, and this thing took me a while to understand: Are our Federal census records "originals" if we see a microfilmed, scanned or photocopied of them? Most Federal census records are "derivatives," not originals. The "original" was the actual piece of paper the census enumerator used to write his or her information on. In the beginning (1790 - 1810), only summaries were sent to the Federal Government, not the originals. On later censuses, 2 more copies were made and who knows if the original was sent or the transcribe copy was sent. However, starting in 1890, only the original was made and sent to the Federal government. Unfortunately, some original censuses were destroyed. Either by fire or by act of Congress (The 1930 census was destroyed after microfilming in 1949.). Thus, microfilmed census records are "derivatives" not the original. This is also true of the scanned or digitized censuses we are seeing on the Internet today. They are scanned copies of the microfilmed copies! They are still "derivatives"! Just remember that cameras, scanners/digitizers, and photocopiers are "copy makers"! Hope this helps to clarify things. Kim Stracener Zapalac -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Christensen Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q     It looks like Family Tree Maker has finally started implementing the evidence standards in their software.  It's about time.      There have been several excellent publications and articles about evaluating evidence.  The concepts John mentioned have been explained in more detail in the following resources, among others.  _Evidence: A Special Issue of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly_, 87 (September 1999).   (No longer available for purchase but you may find it in a larger genealogical library.) Elizabeth Shown Mills, _Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian_. Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1997. Elizabeth Shown Mills, _Evidence Explained!_.  Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2007.   (Also available as a downloadable digital version from Footnote.com) There is also a laminated  _Evidence Analysis, A Research Process Map_ that can be purchased from the Board for Certification of Genealogists.   It is a two-sided page with information from _Evidence Explained!_ _The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual_. Washington, DC: Board for Certification of Genealogists, 2000.   Also see their website at www.bcgcertification.org Mills, Elizabeth Shown, ed. _Professional Genealogy:A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers and Librarians._ Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2001. The "Clarity" term used by Family Tree Maker appears to be one they created as it is not part of the evidence standards. The evidence standards as discussed in the publications I listed above are: Sources:  Original vs. Derivative Information: Primary vs. Secondary Evidence: Direct vs. Indirect While many people still use the terminology "primary source" and "secondary source" those terms were abandoned when the evidence standards were created over a decade ago.    The problem with those terms is a *source* can have both primary information and secondary information.  For example, a death certificate has *primary information* - generally, the name of the deceased and the date of death and location and may have *secondary information* - the birthdate and birth location of the person and possibly his parents.   The death information is usually first hand information - reported at the time of the event by someone with firsthand knowledge while the birth information may be reported years after the birth event many times by those who were not present at the birth.   On the other hand, the death certificate of an infant who died shortly after birth might include primary information about both the birth and the death.  Classifying the *information* in the source as primary and secondary rather than the source as a whole is much clearer and easier than trying to classify a source one way or the other when there is both primary (first-hand) and secondary (second-hand) information together in the source. Rebecca Christensen --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jon Pace <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jon Pace <[email protected]> Subject: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 2:31 PM This Christmas I received Family Tree Maker 2009 and the companion book The Official Guide to Family Tree Maker 2009. I'd been using Legacy Family Tree 7.0 for a few months, but the explanations in the book made FTM 2009 far more useful for me. The recent discussion of source reliability have me focused on "rating" (FTM term - not sure it's universal) the quality of my sources. I've been debating answers to questions that have surely long been settled, so I would greatly appreciate my more experienced research kin answering a few newbie questions. The four quality measures & my questions: #1 - Source: Original or Derivative Original: The source is an original or image copy of the original document. Derivative: The source is derived (transcribed, translated, etc.) from the original. I'm largely looking at microfilmed records on Ancestry.com, so those are Original. #2 - Clarity: Clear or Marginal Clear: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is clear. Marginal: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is not clear. I can read some handwriting better than others, and some documents were better preserved before microfilming than others. Most of mine are Clear. #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

I was thinking of bringing this up. However, on the basis of logic, I would consider a good clear photocopy as having the basic characteristic of the original. It bypasses the problem of human error creeping in, as when someone copies an original by hand. It would depend on how clear the copy was. Paper documents tend to deteriorate, and if a photocopy is made while the original is in good shape, it may be better evidence at a later date than a deteriorated original. Roy Johnson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kim Stracener Zapalac Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q Rebecca gave an excellent overview of the new genealogical standards for evaluating evidence standards. However, I would like to add one more thing, and this thing took me a while to understand: Are our Federal census records "originals" if we see a microfilmed, scanned or photocopied of them? Most Federal census records are "derivatives," not originals. The "original" was the actual piece of paper the census enumerator used to write his or her information on. In the beginning (1790 - 1810), only summaries were sent to the Federal Government, not the originals. On later censuses, 2 more copies were made and who knows if the original was sent or the transcribe copy was sent. However, starting in 1890, only the original was made and sent to the Federal government. Unfortunately, some original censuses were destroyed. Either by fire or by act of Congress (The 1930 census was destroyed after microfilming in 1949.). Thus, microfilmed census records are "derivatives" not the original. This is also true of the scanned or digitized censuses we are seeing on the Internet today. They are scanned copies of the microfilmed copies! They are still "derivatives"! Just remember that cameras, scanners/digitizers, and photocopiers are "copy makers"! Hope this helps to clarify things. Kim Stracener Zapalac -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rebecca Christensen Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q     It looks like Family Tree Maker has finally started implementing the evidence standards in their software.  It's about time.      There have been several excellent publications and articles about evaluating evidence.  The concepts John mentioned have been explained in more detail in the following resources, among others.  _Evidence: A Special Issue of the National Genealogical Society Quarterly_, 87 (September 1999).   (No longer available for purchase but you may find it in a larger genealogical library.) Elizabeth Shown Mills, _Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian_. Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1997. Elizabeth Shown Mills, _Evidence Explained!_.  Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2007.   (Also available as a downloadable digital version from Footnote.com) There is also a laminated  _Evidence Analysis, A Research Process Map_ that can be purchased from the Board for Certification of Genealogists.   It is a two-sided page with information from _Evidence Explained!_ _The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual_. Washington, DC: Board for Certification of Genealogists, 2000.   Also see their website at www.bcgcertification.org Mills, Elizabeth Shown, ed. _Professional Genealogy:A Manual for Researchers, Writers, Editors, Lecturers and Librarians._ Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2001. The "Clarity" term used by Family Tree Maker appears to be one they created as it is not part of the evidence standards. The evidence standards as discussed in the publications I listed above are: Sources:  Original vs. Derivative Information: Primary vs. Secondary Evidence: Direct vs. Indirect While many people still use the terminology "primary source" and "secondary source" those terms were abandoned when the evidence standards were created over a decade ago.    The problem with those terms is a *source* can have both primary information and secondary information.  For example, a death certificate has *primary information* - generally, the name of the deceased and the date of death and location and may have *secondary information* - the birthdate and birth location of the person and possibly his parents.   The death information is usually first hand information - reported at the time of the event by someone with firsthand knowledge while the birth information may be reported years after the birth event many times by those who were not present at the birth.   On the other hand, the death certificate of an infant who died shortly after birth might include primary information about both the birth and the death.  Classifying the *information* in the source as primary and secondary rather than the source as a whole is much clearer and easier than trying to classify a source one way or the other when there is both primary (first-hand) and secondary (second-hand) information together in the source. Rebecca Christensen --- On Sat, 1/10/09, Jon Pace <[email protected]> wrote: From: Jon Pace <[email protected]> Subject: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 2:31 PM This Christmas I received Family Tree Maker 2009 and the companion book The Official Guide to Family Tree Maker 2009. I'd been using Legacy Family Tree 7.0 for a few months, but the explanations in the book made FTM 2009 far more useful for me. The recent discussion of source reliability have me focused on "rating" (FTM term - not sure it's universal) the quality of my sources. I've been debating answers to questions that have surely long been settled, so I would greatly appreciate my more experienced research kin answering a few newbie questions. The four quality measures & my questions: #1 - Source: Original or Derivative Original: The source is an original or image copy of the original document. Derivative: The source is derived (transcribed, translated, etc.) from the original. I'm largely looking at microfilmed records on Ancestry.com, so those are Original. #2 - Clarity: Clear or Marginal Clear: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is clear. Marginal: The portion of the source that pertains to this fact is not clear. I can read some handwriting better than others, and some documents were better preserved before microfilming than others. Most of mine are Clear. #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 ------------------------------- 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

Kim makes a good point that what we mostly see on microfilmed censuses is the *copy* of the census that was created to be sent to Washington DC.  The originals were often kept on the local level and in some instances can still be found locally.    When the original copy of the census is available, it is good practice to search it as well.  Errors are known to have crept into the federal copy that are not in the state (or county) copy.   Have you ever bemoaned the fact that a particular census taker just used initials to identify family members?   Well, the original state copy probably had the names spelled out and when the handwritten copy was made to send to Washington DC, only the initials were copied rather than full names.  It is the federal copies that were microfilmed rather than the census taker's originals. Roy also brought up a good point about image copies. Generally, image copies (microfilm or digital) are treated as originals rather than derivatives.  But we should identify that we are looking at an image copy rather than the original document. >From Elizabeth Shown Mills' _Evidence Explained!_, p. 30: "Theoretically, they [photographically reproduced image copies] are the equivalent of an original.  However, they may or may not be of equal merit.  ... an image copy can present problems. Imagers may have missed a page ... They may have had difficulty filming text in a crack... Lighting conditions may have produced inferior copies. Moreover, the black-and-white medium long used for image copies can mask content problems that are visible on the original, such as erasures in a record or alterations or additions in a different color or type.  Photocopies made by other researchers also may have been altered to provide evidence for one purpose or another." "As history researchers, we are justified in treating image copies as originals so long as (a) the images are legible; and (b) their information does not conflict with other evidence.  In case of conflicts or poor legibility, we should treat the image copy as a derivative and seek access to the material from which the images were made." Hope this helps. Rebecca --- On Mon, 1/12/09, Roy Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: From: Roy Johnson <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q To: [email protected] Date: Monday, January 12, 2009, 3:39 PM I was thinking of bringing this up. However, on the basis of logic, I would consider a good clear photocopy as having the basic characteristic of the original. It bypasses the problem of human error creeping in, as when someone copies an original by hand. It would depend on how clear the copy was. Paper documents tend to deteriorate, and if a photocopy is made while the original is in good shape, it may be better evidence at a later date than a deteriorated original. Roy Johnson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kim Stracener Zapalac Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:16 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q Rebecca gave an excellent overview of the new genealogical standards for evaluating evidence standards. However, I would like to add one more thing, and this thing took me a while to understand: Are our Federal census records "originals" if we see a microfilmed, scanned or photocopied of them? Most Federal census records are "derivatives," not originals. The "original" was the actual piece of paper the census enumerator used to write his or her information on. In the beginning (1790 - 1810), only summaries were sent to the Federal Government, not the originals. On later censuses, 2 more copies were made and who knows if the original was sent or the transcribe copy was sent. However, starting in 1890, only the original was made and sent to the Federal government. Unfortunately, some original censuses were destroyed. Either by fire or by act of Congress (The 1930 census was destroyed after microfilming in 1949.). Thus, microfilmed census records are "derivatives" not the original. This is also true of the scanned or digitized censuses we are seeing on the Internet today. They are scanned copies of the microfilmed copies! They are still "derivatives"! Just remember that cameras, scanners/digitizers, and photocopiers are "copy makers"! Hope this helps to clarify things. Kim Stracener Zapalac