Best way to note first-hand knowledge of immediate family and close extended family?

Question

I've been reading a lot of questions/answers about first-hand, second-hand, etc records. I've jotted down several possible terms to use when noting my sources. I don't yet know how to correctly note sources when I have documents, but I want to focus for now on knowledge that I have because I know close family members.

For example, I know my parents' and siblings' birth dates. I do not have (yet) their birth certificates. I want to enter this information for them without citing paper documents (that will come later). What is the best way to word this?

And in the same vein for noting siblings' marriages, children, etc? When I have knowledge of the info but not any documentation.

Comments

relevant Help pages:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources#First-hand_information_.28yourself.29

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Sources#Second-hand_information

Answer 1

"For example, I know my parents' and siblings' birth dates."

This would be considered second-hand information - information that you were 'told' by someone. So if you mother told you she was born on a specific date, you could record that as:

MOTHER'S NAME. Personal recollection of her life, as told to [[Beach-5608|Emily Metzger]] on DATE.

First-hand information would be something that you personally witnessed - such as the birth of a child or sibling, which can be recorded as:

[[Beach-5608|Emily Metzger]]. Personal recollection, DATE.

For more examples, see Help:Sources.

Comments

Steve, for as long as my mother and I both lived, our family celebrated her birthday on April 23.  Do you think I still would need to call that "second-hand information"?  After all, she was there.  She knew her own birthday.

---

Julie, that would be second-hand information to you (you knew her birthday based on what others knew or told you). What she knew would be her own first-hand information.

I know it sounds convoluted, but it based on how the information is known. Since you were not there for her birth to confirm it, you couldn't be a first-hand witness to the facts.

Does that make sense?

---

Steve, the more I think about this the less convinced I am that there's any difference between the quality of my mother's information and my own on this particular issue.  She could not have been aware of the date on the day she was born, so she and I both depended on what others told us.  Instead of "she was there" in my last comment, I should have said "I was there" with respect to the 67 years that we were both alive for her birthday celebrations.

Edited in an attempt to explain myself better.

Answer 2

As long as you are a relative who knew the person in your lifetime (e.g., you can't say "personal knowledge" when you are documenting a person who died in 1850), I don't think most people would question that.  So one way to state it would be "personal knowledge of Emily Metzger, daughter," for example.  In the long run it will be helpful, as you appear to know already, to have more documentation--usually, the more the better.