Historical scholars classify sources as "primary" or "secondary."
- Princeton University, "What is a primary source"
- Library and Archives Canada, "Toolkit: Defining Primary and Secondary Sources"
- Auburn (Montgomery) Library, "Historical Research: Primary vs Secondary Sources"
- History on the Net.com "Historical Terms - Historical Sources Explained"
- Wikipedia, "Primary Source," citing James Cook University, "Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sources."
In genealogy, scholars classify sources as "original or derivative," information as "primary or secondary," and evidence as "direct," "indirect," "circumstantial," "negative" and so on.
- Linda Woodward Geiger , CG, CGL, "Skillbuilding: Guidelines for Evaluating Genealogical Resources" , Board for Certification of Genealogists.
- Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence explained: Citing history sources from artifacts to cyberspace, electronic edition (Baltimore, Md: Genealogical Pub. Co., 2007). See her related discussion, EvidenceExplained.com, "QuickLesson 2: Sources vs Information vs Evidence vs Proof."
The references above show there is a distinct differences between historians and genealogists about the categorization of sources. Why is this different distinction pursued by genealogical scholars?