APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-12 > 1102050138


From: "Kevin Sholder" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Citing Sources - Original, Derived, etc.
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 00:02:23 -0500
In-Reply-To: <004001c4d8d6$1c6ec940$6401a8c0@DICK>


Richard,

Thank you for you additional thoughts on this subject and I hope that I am
not out of place in commenting here. If so, I'm sorry. This is what I've
been struggling with before I commit to a specific amount of detail for
specific types of sources. I have been shot down before for including what
some people would consider "unneeded" information. Therefore I tend to
agree with Natalie and this is why:

I will use myself as an example. I started doing family history back in the
1970's as a 4-H project. No sources at all, it was meant to be fun and get
you interested in your family and generally speaking history. Heck I even
provided some of the information I had "collected" to various family
relatives, they could have cared less about footnotes and documentation.

Later I found I needed something to organize my information, so I purchased
a computer. And over the years I have made progress in learning and doing
better at documentation. And therefore recording my family more
"accurately" or to a higher standard. Yet, still as providing information
to "general" family members, it didn't seem to matter, but I included what
sources I had at the time.

Today, I find myself entrenched in documentation, because I want to produce
a "quality" family history. What determines quality or your level of
professionalism?

In my opinion it is determined by the audience in which you are doing the
work for as well as the "reason." Which has already been previously stated.

A little while ago Elizabeth mentioned three stages:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

E. Rodier asked:
<Is it better to buy how-to books, CDs, DVDs
>OR attend lectures, workshops, courses?
>OR learn by doing family research with an occasional search of the
>Internet

>and questions on mailing lists?

Elizabeth wrote:
All three! But the most telling fact is that most people start out with No.
3 and then realize they need No. 1 to half-way understand what they're
finding. Once they're deep into your No. 1, the reality hits that they need
your No. 2 to achieve the proficiency they hope for.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

I am on this exact course of "study." I've been through No. 3 (talking with
family members, there was no internet that I knew about in the 1970's and
1980's) then No. 1, and now I'm moving on to No. 2.

Now what does all this have to do with Citing Sources? I trying get the mix
of "pepper" and "fly specs" to enable me to produce what I deem (as well as
others) that "quality" family history by accepted standards, which is why I
joined this list a few months back and have joined a few organizations.

I think we are all trying to get the right mix of "Textbook notes - or
practical notes?" to validate the research that has been done. So do I want
to cite 50+ words for a full footnote and possibly as many as 20+ in a short
footnote, not really. So the shortened 15 word version will work as well
again, based on the audience "Do my many cousins - close and far - really
want to know all of what is in Kevin's note?"

As a professional doing work for hire, however, what would your choice be?
What do your clients require? For me I'm working on producing the most
professional work I can produce and want to continue to do more.

Thank you for your time,
Kevin L. Sholder

P.S. Even though the following book may no longer be available at any
number of libraries when your great-grand children read the Pence Family
History:

Carson, Beatrice: Pence Family History: Descendants of Henry, Lewis and
Jacob Pence of Shenandoah County, Virginia, and Champaign County, Ohio,
1967. Unpublished typed manuscript in the possession of Richard A. Pence,
who made a copy for the Champaign County Library in Urbana. Miss Carson's
niece, Janice Beatley, Cincinnati, Oh. (now deceased) revised portions of
this and placed copies in local, state and a few other libraries.

Does it make it invalid as a source that was "once" available somewhere?

P.S.S. - I live in Montgomery County, Ohio, if you need anything let me know
and I'll see what I can find.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard A. Pence [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:19 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [APG] Citing Sources - Original, Derived, etc.

Natalie Cottrill <> wrote while discussing
citations:

> To some degree, this probably boils down to each of us considering
> what is practical for our situation, while also striving to be as
> consistent as possible.

I have been struggling with this issue and I think Natalie has made an
excellent point.

For many years I have been working on a compilation of the descendants of my
immigrant 5th great grandfather and his four sons who came with him in 1749
from what is now a part of Germany. I am acutely aware that proper
documentation is critical, but that part of the compilation is becoming the
"tale" (sic) that wags the dog. (I have groused about this to whomever will
listen. Once I thought of entered the NGS writing contest with the story of
my 4th great and his children and grandchildren. Then I realized there was
10,000-word limit. At that moment the footnotes alone were *12,000 words* -
and growing!)

One day I tell myself, you have to go back and sharpen up some of those
endnotes. A few days later I find myself thinking that there has to be a way
to keep the seemilngly endless notes from overwhellming the narrative.

In another message today, Kevin Sholder gave us his interpretation of a
"correct" census citation for today's world:

Mortimer Edwards household, 1880 U.S. Federal Census,
Winona County, Minnesota, population schedule, town of
Winona, enumeration district [ED] 289, supervisor's
district [SD] 1, sheet 19, dwelling 172, family 182. Digital
scan of micropublication T9, roll 637 from the U.S. National
Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.]
(Online: Heritage Quest), <http://www.heritagequestonline.com/>;,
subscription database, accessed 2 Dec 2004.

At this stage in my compilation I have pretty solid information on slightly
more than 1,000 individual descendants (generations 1, 2, 3 and 4). There
probably is at least one census citation for each of these and as many as
five or more for some individuals.

Do my many cousins - close and far - really want to know all of what is in
Kevin's note? (And can I afford the printing bill?)

I have collected census (and other) records for over 30 years - first simple
abstracts, then photocopies of the microfilm made at NARA or an FHC and -
now - from on-line access. Admitedly, I neglected proper sourcing at first -
and even later. To use my rationale "back when" (when I was always in a
hurry), "I can always find this again later if I need to. It will only take
a few minutes."

And now I am still wrestling with my problem. Sure, I can go through the
entire compilation and do a "correct" citation, looking them up again if
necessary, for each of two or three thousand census notes. Or I can take
some pity on my readers and let the footnote read:

Morton Edwards household, 1880 U.S. Cen. (Pop. Sched.) of
Winona, Winona Co., Minn., p. 18.

And I would bet you that nearly every one of my cousins is sharp enough to
find that reference if they should care to do so. (It should go without
saying that if there are irregularities or questions about a record, the
issue would be a part of the narrative or the note. I have noticed, though,
that if you don't state the obvious on the Net, some one will state it for
you.< g>)

What would you do?? "Textbook" notes - or "practical" notes?

Richard A. Pence, 3211 Adams Ct, Fairfax, VA 22030 Voice 703-591-4243 Fax
703-352-3560 Pence Family History <http://www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/>;

P.S.: I have given up on including *any* URLs in citations. They are seldom
the same from one day to the next. Worse, the URL will be valid but the
information is no longer what it was. And it really doesn't add anything to
say that you looked at it on such-and-such a date, now does it?



==== APG Mailing List ====
The Association of Professional Genealogists
http://www.apgen.org/publications/apg-l/index.html

This thread: