APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2001-05 > 0989381583


From: "Robert V. Montague" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Citing Sources within Sources
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 23:15:05 -0500
References: <14.13c4ecbd.282855bf@aol.com> <004b01c0d73c$a732ae60$4a500a3f@1pka7>


I have one final question about citations taken from secondary sources. In
Ms Mills reference to CMS, they don't include the publishing press and
location, just the title and date. Is that correct style or should press
and place be included, per usual for a single source whenever known for all
sources, original and secondary? Thanks again.

Robert V. Montague

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mills" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [APG] Citing Sources within Sources


> Mills wrote
> > Susie Screwball, *Screwball Wills from Doozie County* (Dooziedale:
> Screwball
> > Press, 2001), 66, citing Doozie County Will Book 2: 257.
>
> Julia wrote:
> > At the University of Maryland, Department of History I was told to cite
> this as
> > Dozzie County Will Book 2:257 as quoted in "Screwball Wills from Dozzie
> County," (Dooziedale: Screwball Press, 2001)
> > That way they know I did not look at the original but at the version
given
> in the book cited.
>
> Julia, did the UM prof really tell his students to put book titles in
> quotation marks? <g>.
>
> FYI, having had at least one foot in the "academic history" camp (as the
> wife of a university history professor, as well as a history major) for
more
> years than I'd like to admit online <g>, I suspect you'll find that
whether
> one element is placed before the other is a toss up that depends more on
the
> habit of which professor is giving the advice. Or which journal someone is
> writing for. Among the various "academic" history journals in which I've
> published, some do it one way and some do it the other. As a writer, I'm
> expected to follow the style of the journal I'm writing for.
>
> *Chicago Manual of Style* (which most historians generally follow), 14th
> ed., at nos. 15.425 and 15.426, illustrates both ways and makes the point
> that the order depends upon what one wishes to emphasize.
>
> Among those that emphasize the use of original records, there may be a
> tendency to emphasize the original and then add the "Oh, by the way, I'm
> quoting so-and-so because I didn't actually see the original myself." But
I
> tend to fall into line with those who feel it is more intellectually
honest
> to primarily cite what we have actually used, and let the other author's
> source be the "Oh, by the way . . ."
>
> *However* even CMS's example is designed for *quoted* material taken from
> another source -- as when we *quote* (i.e., take words verbatim, with
> quotation marks around them) from Bonnie Costello's book in which she
> *quotes* something Louis Zukofsky himself wrote in another publication. (I
> notice, too, that your example of the method you learned at UM, also
> includes the phrase "as quoted in.")
>
> Robert's original question likely deals with a different matter -- a mere
> extraction of dates or names or other facts from a compilation of data
taken
> from random sources, in which the compiler typically *abstracts* or
> *paraphrases* the materials he consulted. In those cases, the compiler is
> our principle source and whatever he said he got *his facts* from (a point
> historians rarely bother to note) deserves secondary emphasis, IMO.
>
> And by now, I suspect Robert has more of an answer than he anticipated!
>
> Elizabeth
>
> =============================
> Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
> Tuscaloosa, Alabama
>
>
> ==== APG Mailing List ====
> The Association of Professional Genealogists
>
>

This thread: