Evaluate the Evidence: Difference between revisions

*'''''Background information''''' is sometimes misinterpreted or applied incorrectly to individual cases. For example, just because most immigrants joined friends or relatives in their new country does not mean your ancestor had relatives when he arrived in his new country.

|-

| bgcolor="#ffff99" align="center" |<center>'''Even a source recorded close to the time of the event may have errors.'''</center>

'''''Primary Information''''' was recorded at or near the time of the event by someone closely associated with it. It is usually found in original records. However, ''not'' all information in an original record is "primary." For example, a death record usually contains primary information about the death but secondary information about the person's birth. If the information does not come from a primary account of the event, consider it suspect. If you cannot determine where the information originated, it is undocumented and therefore less reliable information.<br>  

|-

| bgcolor="#ffff99" align="center" |<center>'''Prefer primary information.'''</center>

'''''Direct statements''''' give a straightforward fact. For example, a baptismal record may state the birth date of the child being baptized. Whenever possible, try to find records that directly state specific facts as proof of a genealogical event or relationship.  

|-

| bgcolor="#ffff99" align="center" |<center>'''Prefer direct evidence.'''</center>

In most cases, evidence in an original record created closest to the event is most likely to be correct. However, if several credible records (original or derivative) of a later date suggest different information, the evidence that the first record is incorrect may be clear and convincing. Sometimes this is called the preponderance of the evidence.  

|-

| bgcolor="#ffff99" align="center" |<center>'''Proof is the accumulation of acceptable evidence.'''</center>