Every researcher has heard this advice: To prove a point, we need multiple sources: multiple sources, independently created. Not multiple sources that all copy each other. Decades ago, we were told that we needed "three sources that agree." In recent years, that "instruction" has been streamlined. Supposedly now, all we need are two. If that’s been your guidance, forget it ....

What's the difference between analysis of a record and source identification?

There's a rumor circulating that researchers need Evidence Explained because it provides models for citing historical sources. But there's more to EE. Much More. That's why ...

Evidence analysis is the proverbial thorn in the thumb for many history researchers. We’d love to gather blossoms from the rose garden and make beautiful bouquets from them. But those darn thorns have to be dealt with in the process.

Many of the records maintained in America’s courthouses—records that historians and some other fields generically call “primary” sources—are duplicate originals or record copies rather than true originals. Does it matter? For the next several postings, we’ll consider the processes that created these legal records, the reasons why differences matter, and characteristics by which we can recognize the type of record we are using.

A follower of EE's Facebook page has just inquired about how to identify the "author" of a database. That prompted another follower to ask whether "author" was the appropriate term for the creator of a database. EE, of course, addresses that. Let's consider a couple of passages here …