This article critically summarizes the debate in this article on whether or not oral history is a mere rumor simply because it passed through word of mouth and for this reason its sources did not they are documented. The article critically analyzes the debate presented in the document in support of the theses according to which Dane-Zaa Oral History is not hearsay, but a reliable and credible source of information. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay This article begins by examining the controversy surrounding the application of information from Canadian Aboriginal oral histories in defense of the rights of Canadian Aboriginal people in Canadian courts. Section 35(1) of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 recognizes the existing and treaty rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Despite this recognition, however, the application of information from the oral history of Aboriginal Canadians in support of their rights has been somewhat controversial. The controversy arises from the question: Can undocumented information be used in a court of law as evidence in court? Shouldn't undocumented historical information from oral history be treated as hearsay? Different lawyers and academics have expressed different opinions in this regard. According to Chief Judge Beverly McLachlin, information from oral histories can be used in a court of law as evidence only where the information is useful and reasonably reliable. According to some experts, who argue that oral history is a reliable source of information, information from oral history cannot be used as evidence in court because, according to him, “'oral history' refers to first-person narratives of personal experience ” (Ridington, 39). This essentially means that oral history is unreliable because it does not refer to actual events as they happened in the past. Some other scholars, however, argue that oral history is not a reliable source of information. According to Jan Vansina, for example, information from oral histories should not be presented in court as evidence because it is a mere testimony to what people believed, in the distant past, when they provided such information. Vansina distinguishes oral stories from oral traditions. He defines oral traditions as “'recollections of individuals who were eyewitnesses or who had personal experience or had personal experience of events that occurred during their lifetime'” (Ridington, 39). Vansina, on the other hand, defines oral traditions as “'records of past events transmitted orally for at least one generation'”. For Vansina, therefore, oral traditions are “'historical gossip”' (Ridington, 41). Vansina concluded that oral tradition is not an accurate account of what actually happened in the past, and for this reason it cannot be used as evidence in court. Many lawyers opposed to using information from oral histories or oral traditions as evidence in court have used Vansina's views on oral traditions to support their arguments. The following results of the study that the author of this article conducted on the Dane-Zaa Oral History shows that oral history is a reliable source of information and is not mere hearsay. The interviewees in the study were Dane-Zaa oral historians. To begin with, the interviewees in the Dane-Zaa oral history study are the narrators of the Dora-Zaa story, and for this reason they are the oral historians of Dane-Zaa. The dane-zaa storytellers or historians are the keepers of the history of dane-zaa and, although.