TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 1999-07 > 0930931955

From: Terry Reigel <<A HREF="mailto:"></A>>
Subject: Re: TMG-L: Custom Source Elements & Nested Cites
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 12:12:35 -0400

Message text written by Lee Hoffman:

>Is there a _NEED_ to cite the cited Source in your Foot/Endnote or
>Bibliography in every such citation?

I think so. So long as a significant part of my database remains
un-verified by me (at current rates that would seem to be nye on to
forever), and as long as the quality of my sources varies widely from part
to part (which seems to be the nature of the beast; look at my own data)
then I want to know what parts are most credable. Especially when sources
conflict, as they seem want to do.

> You should (for your own knowledge)
>note the fact that a Source drew its information from another Source
>a Source of a Source), and you can do this in TMG.

I see that now. But it appears to just give a sort of bibliography for the
source, and not give the ability to tie the cited source to a specific tag,
unless one amends the template, which gets us back to where this started.

>Now for some Sources, you may want to include additional information to
>regular Source Pattern(s). For example, Mills indicates in _Evidence!_
>(p.83) how to cite microcopy from the Family History Library. While this
>is not really the same thing, one might get some ideas from her examples.

I'll check this out.

Will Pratt wrote:

>There are two basic approaches
>here. You can simply cite all the sources cited by your source, and sort
>them out, if at all, in the cds,

Do the sources of sources print in reports? I made a test and couldn't find
it. I expected them to appear in the bibliography, but it didn't happen. I
checked the options in CRW and couldn't find any that seemed to apply.

If you use the CDs to sort out the cited sources, is there any advantage to
using the source of source capability? Don't you end up with the same
effort creating the CDs as without the source of source?

> or you can establish a separate source
>listing for your immediate source for each original source.

That is what I was trying to do in the first place, but found the
limitation of source element groups was making that rather difficult, which
is how this thread got started. I'm still thinking some variation of this
approach is the best answer for me, at least where I have sources that
clearly show original sources for many individual facts. If it's only a
few, probably just putting it all in the CD is easier.

> In a word
>processor, you would edit the note to the form "'Original source', p xxx,
>not seen, cited in 'derivative source', p xxx."

I'd think one would want to edit the source templates in TMG rather than
making hundreds or thousands of edits in a word processor. But then that
was were I got into this discussion in the first place <g>.

> If you _had_ seen it,
>presumably you'd just cite it directly.

Yes, that would be my thinking.

Thanks to both Lee and Will for your help.

Terry Reigel
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMG-L The Internet Mailing List for The Master Genealogist
To unsubscribe: Send an e-mail to with 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L'
or... if you get the digest version: 'UNSUBSCRIBE TMG-L-DIGEST'
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread: