In your case, the informant was not the person who was born, as Cathy mistakenly assumed, but the father of the person. It is more likely that he was correct about the birth date of his daughter!
Another thing to remember about official documents is error-prone humans. Also, if you are dealing with dates before the modern era, births and deaths were not reported by organizations such as hospitals, but by attendees at the event. For births in 1903, that was usually a midwife or experienced family member, Even for the birth dates taken from modern death certificates are what a relative says. A relative of mine, born on 16 Sep 1908, was listed on his death certificate as being born on 20 Oct 1910, because that is what his caregiver said. His family felt it was not worth the time, effort, and money to have the death certificate changed, so the incorrect birth date is on an official modern document which is wrong. As for early passport applications, no birth certificate was required. Census takers put down whatever date they were told. My grandmother was born in 1880, but as she "matured" her census and passport applications birth year became 1882, 1886, 1887, 1888, 1890, 1891. Heaven knows what she told them for the 1950 census! On hand-written documents, such as those in 1903, it is too easy to turn a squiggle on into a "10" instead of a "1". Ancestry.com has many documents on it's site. If you use their site, be warned! Look at the image of the document yourself! Do not take what the "reader" has said the document says! The majority of my database is medieaval, where such misprints, blots, and interpretations are common in documents. Many corrections to prestigious secondary sources have been made by esteemed historians and genealogists who looked at the primary document! CE Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 13:20:56 -0700 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Quality questions To: [email protected] Cathy, The document was filled out by the father (my great-grandfather)--he was the 'informant' I guess. And what's different is that he said she was born on October 1st, while the other more official looking documents say October 10th--all agree on the year (1903). You would think 3 for the 10th outnumber one for the 1st; however, the three are really all from the same place, just requested copies 3 different ways & times. One I found online, and the other two appear to have been obtained by my grandmother on two occasions when she was getting a passport. So, I don't think the 3 for the 10th can be said to be "independent" sources. Back to square one. Thanks! --Paula From: Cathy Pinner <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2014 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Source Quality questions I don't think a person is a primary source for their own birth date. They weren't consciously there and only know what they have been told or gleaned from birth certificate. Paula, the document you speak of is the original but has primary and secondary information on it if I've understood you correctly. Even if the parents gave the birth date, it's not a document contemporary with the birth and they could have miscalculated the year or falsified it for any number of reasons. Cathy R G Strong-genes wrote: > Yes, The document itself is original, however, the fact of her birth > you would have to go by who supplied the data for the birth date to > determine if it is Primary or Secondary evidence. If the provider of > the info was not your grandmother or her parents then the data is not > Primary source. > *From:* Paula Ryburn <mailto:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 10, 2014 6:17 PM > *To:* [email protected] > mailto:[email protected] > *Subject:* [LegacyUG] Source Quality questions > I'm working on a very focused research project, just one question, and > doing it the "right" way per two recent Legacy webinars & the Geneal. > Stds. book, to test out some of the new v8 functionality--namely > Source Quality analysis on the Source Detail citations. See how it > works for this one person, then update the rest of my folks. > Research question is "When was my grandmother born?" > One document I have is the original Certificate of Registration of > American Citizens, which lists my grandmother's birth date (among other > things). > When entering the citation for her birth date, I was puzzled on the first Source Quality item: > Source - Original, Derivative, Authored or IDK. > At first I put IDK, because this document is not her birth > certificate--not the first documentation of her birth date, and it's > not a derivative as Legacy describes it on the screen or "authored" > either. > Now I'm thinking I may have over-thought that. > It IS the original (not even a photo copy) of this certificate--even > if the purpose of this document/certificate is not to record her birth date > (at least not only). > So, I would indicate "original" in Legacy, right? > Thanks! > --Paula > > -- > Russell G. Strong Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
