Mrs. Mills wrote:

"...without a bunch of jargon thrown around to make the evidence
seem more important than it actually is. Your bottom line is right: real
proof is not a label; it's the validity of the evidence....Most researchers
who thoughtfully consider the records they find have also
noticed exactly what you point out . . .. virtually all scraps of evidence
are of more than one category.  'A Civil
War discharge [that] ( (thanks for not sic-ing me <g>)
some call primary evidence that the man named served in
some fashion for some period in that war [might be] called secondary as to
whether or not he participated in the battles in which that regiment was
involved.  It is circumstantial that he was present on the date of that
discharge, and the whole of the document, like a tombstone, is PURE hearsay
in its most apparent form'."

"Those "labels" (the ones that actually work <g>) are valuable because they
encourage each of us to thoughtfully analyze every piece of information we
find. Those labels (the ones that actually work <g>) require us to take each
piece of information we find, define its strengths and weaknesses, and
consider what kind of sources might yield better information from which we
might draw more reliable conclusions."

As you point up so well, "'(...the ones that actually work...)" are very few
and very far between.
Across years of speaking/teaching, I found it is better to tell
students/attendees that I will use none of those labels, and they should
strive to do the same.  I teach/lecture that what is labeled "secondary" by
far too many researchers/teachers is better understood by using the word(s)
suggested by another fine researcher and now again by you - "second-hand".
That is, the information being offered is not from actual experiences of the
person writing about or stating those facts, but rather is from words or
events related by some third party who, in  turn, learned of those words or
events from the original source or person.
Example? A record written in 1759 by a clerk to a VA court that may now be
found within the record books of that county is very reliable evidence and
most valuable to us.  Why?  Because, even though that clerk might have erred
in writing down the words of that judge, that clerk was there and heard the
words of the judge or for whatever other reasons was assigned the duty then
of accurately recording those words in the records. Notice however that my
copies (no matter how precise may be my work) of those writings are surely
second-hand.  Thus, though I may be as eminently learned and practiced in
such transcriptions as are you, Mrs. Haun, and others, I MAY have made
errors in my work, and many examiners would require a copy (probably
certified) from the present clerk.

I also suggest to my students that the sources called "primary" - again, by
too many folks - are much better explained as being those words or actions
described or written by a person who was present at the utterance or event -
first-hand - or who by reason of some unique place and time had the
opportunity to accurately know of those events and words.  Example? A diary
entry of a fellow soldier who did not witness your being killed, yet was
told of it that evening by your commander and later wrote of that death in
that diary, has provided very powerful, yet surely second-hand evidence,
even though his diary entry is VERY near being "first-hand".  Another:
Since we can not talk to the judge who made the rulings as stated in that
1759 entry, the words written by the clerk are quite usually accepted as
first hand evidence of that event, even no matter that those old records
have been copied several times.  Why?  Because we believe - rightly or
wrongly - that folks (before copy machines), whose work required that they
be most accurate in copying records, almost always were so.

A difficult question often is raised: "But aren't writings that are
"certified", "sworn to", "notarized", or "acknowledged" always acceptable as
proof of what is there stated?  While I would rather say "quite usually",
instead of "always", the answer is a cautious "yes".  Why? Because as a
practice we presume the truthfulness and accuracy of such documents unless
and until we are shown otherwise.  Why again? Not because the truth police
roll in and lightning strikes when a notary seal is affixed, but because we
virtually all know that it is a crime to give false testimony, and also
because we - as a people generally - believe that we might go to hell or
whereever if we affirm something or lie with our hand on a Bible.  Still,
there is no better reason; we have decided as a society that such writings
are MORE reliable.  Caveat: virtually every researcher has come across
documents made under oath or affirmation that are flat wrong.

"The problems you point to with these terms are exactly why the field has
virtually abandoned the labels....They don't work. There is too much overlap
between them.
They don't allow us to make distinctions where distinctions are critical.
(so very important!!)
....The point you make above, that a so-called 'primary source'
could be a so-called 'secondary source' at the same time is exactly why
more-accurate and more-precise terminology is now used. But, as you point
out, just throwing around labels is pointless. Those 'labels' have value
only if the researcher understands and applies the *principles* that those
labels represent.

Amen !!  And also, only if someone has set forth such principles in a style
that is readable and understandable by all.

"In the 16 years that I edited the NGS Quarterly, I did not expect the
authors of manuscripts to fill their footnotes with labels or jargon. I
expected them to cite sources that soundly supported their assertions.
However, the quality of the sources they cited clearly revealed whether they
had a sound grasp of what constituted reliable evidence."

I surely agree, and during the years when I was a TNSSAR examiner, I looked
for exactly that understanding.

".... while they evaluated the information within that source by criteria
that actually
applies to information....Every time that authors
needed to 'prove a point,' they had to make a decision as to whether the
information they were citing explicitly provided the answer to their
problem....
 or whether they were going to have to accumulate many
pieces of indirect evidence to assemble a case that was circumstantial but
still convincing."

Although we surely are on the same page, M'Lady, in the advice and lessons
you have here offered, you and I may have to agree to disagree, not as to
the bottom lines, but as to how to state/relate the whole of the
evidence/proof problem in the most understandable way to everybody who has
an interest.  A VERY difficult task, indeed!!!.

I suggest that every writing, memento, word, and state of  being that in any
way, no matter how small or insignificant, tends to establish lineage is
evidence.   The only differences in this or that bit of evidence are not in
the nature of those bits, but rather are in the measure of reliability we
should accord each piece.

 I have found it easy to tell folks that proof is like a balance scale.  How
so?  As genealogists, each of us mentally puts all - ALL - the
material/evidence -that we have gathered in a pile on one side of that
balance scale, and in the other pan we put the requirements of that
person/organization who is to judge our work or application.  As each scrap
of evidence is added to the pile we likely will come a dab closer to tipping
the scales in favor of what we believe.

Those bits of evidence arising from writings that were done or written by
those who lived then and could have known of the event are very weighty
indeed.  Those sources that arose from the words or actions of someone of
the past who could NOT have been present when the events or writings took
place, yet had good reason to know what happened, also are added to the
pile, even though they have less weight - probative value. Perhaps the next
evidence to be considered are those writings and mementos that are
concluions and were created through studies of  sources by other able and
competent researchers.  Such would be your conclusions, Ms. Mills, in such
matters as your own family, which conclusions you, as a most accomplished
researcher, have created out of years and years of research.  Finally, we
must add to the pile every other word, writing, memento and state of being,
no matter of what nature, source or weight, that in any way tends to
establish who we think that ancestor was.

In keeping with this, as we all likely know, even what you called hints or
clues when you came upon those years ago may, with further study, become
weighty indeed.

If you can NOT tip those scales in your favor to THE SATISFACTION OF YOUR
EXAMINER - no matter that you can do so to me, your Aunt Jane, your
Grandpaw, or your local society - you lose!    Sorry 'bout that.   <g> "

"Most researchers never write for journals...."

 AMEN!!  And, I suggest to every student that he or she should write and
submit local newsletter articles, and then journal articles, as their first
efforts at publication, and also should diligently seek out articles done by
others concerning their family lines. When they tell me they "simply can't
do that", they are reminded that none of us likely will ever write as
clearly and splendidly as did Winston Churchill, Shelby Foote or you, but
that you folks also were not born with that skill; it was developed through
study, practice, diligence and great effort

"Few family historians want to
claim other folk's ancestors....They want an
identty (identity) for their family that won't crumble when their brother
submits his
applicant to SAR... (or).when somebody else supplies sources they didn't
think to use."

If I may be a tad presumptuous about your views generally, it seems that you
and I surely agree that the whole matter turns, never on labels, but on
reliability of the materials gathered, that one can not and should not try
to judge the value of evidence unless and until that person has digested the
requirements of those who are to do the judging; by those of you who are
editors or family historians who select what is to be printed in this or
that publication, by examiners at societies, by fellow genealogists who are
to know or read your work, or by Aunt Jane or some distant cousin.

We seem at issue only as to how one should recommend to or teach others in
the proper use and measure of the evidence - stuff - they find.

Again, thanks for your comments and advice.

Paul


--
----------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 1931 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html