APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-08 > 1092630997


From: "Mills" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Citations and facts
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 23:37:47 -0500
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAaklsBZ+7zhG8IACqAFw2TMKAAAAQAAAA3di4VepTp0eN3wbVFQX0MAEAAAAA@sbcglobal.net>


Kevin wrote:
<OK, so far I now know what you consider fact or information. In Ken's
humble experience there is no need to repeat that information as a part of
the source citation. Any other opinions?>
<Another example would be a birth certificate, do I state as a part of the
citation that the Birth Certificate show his date of birth as October 20,
1914?>
<So really I guess the question is for any information from a source, do you
re-state the obvious? What about that birth certificate that shows October
20, 1914, but the obituary shows October 21, 1914. Obviously the birth
certificate would be considered a better source. So if you show both as
sources, would you restate the fact and indicate that the obituary date of
October 21, 1914 doesn't match the birth certificate.>


Kevin, it seems to me that the key issue here is your question, "Do you
restate the obvious?"

If your text says his obituary gives the birth date as 21 October 1914, then
it's redundant to say that again in the citation to the obituary.

If your text says his birth certificate shows the birth date as 20 October
1914, then it's redundant to say that again in the citation to the
certificate.

Given that you have two documents whose assertions conflict, then it would
seem to me that the text would discuss that conflict in terms of "the birth
certificate says *this* but the obit says *that*"--in which case it would be
redundant to say both again in the citations!

Someone in an earlier posting suggested:
If this were a footnote in an article, and you thought it important
to comment on the source of your information, [this] comment might
follow the citation, "This is the only direct evidence found regarding
the birthdate of X."

IMO, that would not be a "comment on the source" but on the nature of the
conclusions you're drawing from the source. A *source* is simply the
"container" that holds information, while *evidence* is our interpretation
and evaluation of what that information means. So, I'd put a comment like
that in the text, right there where you are discussing your conclusions. The
text is where your readers are riding your train of thought. Why side-rail
them and make them read another track in the notes?

To me, a "comment on the source of the information" would be a comment that,
say, tells the reader that the birth certificate you're citing is a 5th-hand
copy that is barely legible--or something else that relates to the *nature*
of the source (i.e., this container has holes in it), not to the value of
the information within that source.

Elizabeth
------------
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
Author/Editor of . . .
*Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian*
*Professional Genealogy: A Manual for Researchers, Writers,
Editors, Lecturers & Librarians*
*Isle of Canes* <www.isleofcanes.com>
& other works on genealogy and generational history

This thread: