Are census records primary or secondary? As I see it....from my training in historical sources in graduate seminar: A census taker goes to a household and queries a member of the family about the family and writes down what he THINKS he hears. So a census record is essentially secondary information since the census taker wrote it down, not the family member. Your example of a lazy census taker is evidence of this. And of course two primary sources can disagree on an issue. Ask any lawyer about eyewitness descriptions of a crime. You can get all kinds of differences about a person's appearance, the exact sequence of events, the color and make of the car, etc. People's memories play tricks. However, it can be close to primary evidence, depending on who provided the information. Sometimes an older child might give the info if the head of the household is not available. So it's hard to pin down exactly where the info came from. Sometimes a source can be both depending on which information is at question. To get away from genealogy for an example--if a soldier describes a battle in which he participated, he is primary for the part he actually saw but may add details told him by others, so that part would be secondary. But secondary evidence might in some occasions be more accurate than primary. If a reporter arrived on a battle scene and questioned a number of participants on both sides, he might get a more accurate picture than any one of his primary sources. An artifact can also be primary evidence. I have an IOOF pin from my great grandfather giving his birth date. It is primary in two ways: The pin is evidence he was in the IOOF; the inscription was given directly by him so he would be primary for his birth date. But remember--in former times less attention was paid to birthdays, and there were occasions of people not being certain about their exact age. One rule we learned about primary and secondary evidence: With primary evidence the closer to the event the memory is recorded, the more accurate it is likely to be, as obviously memories get fuzzy over time. With secondary evidence, time can actually make it more accurate, as more sources may be found, and there is less chance of bias. Our Pace research is an example of that--as we find more sources and more evidence, old stories are disproven and new evidence is added to lineages. Roy Johnson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jon Pace Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [PACE] Source reliability - ratings Q 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 No virus found in this incoming message. 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