The definitions embodied in the Genealogical Proof Standard are pretty definitive and should be considered in your discussion above. The GPS discusses analyzing and drawing conclusions from all of the evidence found to support an assertion. See http://www.bcgcertification.org/resources/standard.htmlThe last part of the comment is not persuasive to me at all. Even if I didn't buy into the culture, I was still raised in the 60s to doubt all authority. Because a definition is repeated makes it suspect not authority. It is probably a good idea to revisit the Genealogical Proof Standard (Unfortunately the acronym is "GPS" which is not a good idea since GPS is so commonly associated with Global Positioning System). As set forth on the website for the Board for Certification of Genealogists, (BCG) the Genealogical Proof Standard consists of five elements:
In the GPS, Sources are either Original or Derivative.
Information is either Primary or Secondary.
Evidence is either Direct or Indirect.
These definitions make a lot of sense to me, and have been adopted by almost all of the professional community. You will hear them used almost exclusively at conferences.
- a reasonably exhaustive search;
- complete and accurate source citations;
- analysis and correlation of the collected information;
- resolution of any conflicting evidence; and
- a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion.
- Source type—is it an original or a derivative?
- Information type(s)—is each piece primary or secondary?
- Evidence type(s)—is each piece direct or indirect?
The Guide defines primary information as, "A piece of information is primary when it is recorded by a knowledgeable eyewitness or participant in that event, or by an ofﬁcial whose duties require him or her to make an accurate record of the event when it occurs." It goes on to give the following definition of secondary information, "Secondary information is supplied by someone who was not at the event and may include errors caused by memory loss or inﬂuenced by other parties who may have a bias or be under emotional stress." I prefer the legal method of determining the reliability of a witness. There is usually no way to evaluate the reliability of the creator of a historic document, he or she may have been accurate or drunk. Can you tell by looking at a death certificate, for example, the mental state of the person who compiled the information? Do you really think that the doctor or coroner entered all of the information into the certificate form?
My point is this, regardless of the tag you put on the document, the information is inconclusive unless it is corroborated by similar information. One reason why researchers come to wrong conclusions or no conclusion is that very few researchers are even aware of the Genealogical Proof Standard or the Guidelines of BCG. As the Guide states concerning the evaluation process,
In order to reach reasonable conclusions, it is essential to perform a complete analysis of each resource. The process includes careful scrutiny of each fact (stated directly or implied) to determine plausibility, possible contradictory evidence, and impact on the particular research project.The fact that the above Death Certificate could be termed an "original" document or a "primary source" is meaningless if the handwritten information was added after the date of the typewritten information, which may have been compiled at an uncertain time after the incident in question. Talking about the GPS and Guidelines is only helpful if the researcher is aware that they exist and is not making his or her conclusions based on what they may have heard at a genealogical conference.
At the same time, it is important to remember that a single genealogical resource is analogous to a single man—neither is an island, and neither stands alone. Every effort must be made to identify additional resources and connections to the particular project.
Here is a common definition of a "primary source." "A record that was created at the time of a event by a person who had reasonably close knowledge of the event." See About.com. Do you see any difference between this commonly used definition and the one prescribed by the BCG? My point is that the use of these facile definitions often obscures the very analysis they are supposed to promote. In case you didn't catch the difference, BCG uses the terms primary and secondary to refer to individual pieces of information, whereas the common definition encompasses the entire record. My argument is not with BCG but with the common use of the terms.
If you are a genealogical researcher and have never thought about these distinctions, you are not part of the solution. If you are presented with a document, like the Death Certificate above, and do not question the fact that it is partly handwritten and partly typed, then you need to read and think about the Guidelines on the BCG site.