TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2007-03 > 1172864971
From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Long footnotes
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:49:31 -0500
>Does everyone check the bibliography as much as I do? (Not
>pertaining to TMGer's - I know you all do)
I haven't checked ahead, as others have probably answered this. But
in case all others are offline.... Let me be facetious and ask
"what's a bibliography?" There are many people that _NEVER_EVER_ use
one. We can probably start a thread here as to the pros and cons of
having or needing a bibliography. Some would state that one is not
needed if the footnotes are done properly. Others would argue that
it is so convenient to use. Still others.... ad infinitum.
Bottom line, when finding a paper by someone else, you cannot be sure
if you will have footnotes or bibliography -- either or both.
>So often there's a new reference to check. That's why having the
>entire data on a source in the bibliography is important - but it
>needn't be in the footnote too. Unless the writer is prolific, just
>the writer's name and perhaps a pertinent word of the title could do
>in the footnote because the information needed is in the bibliography.
Yes, IF the footnotes are there AND the bibliography is there, I
would agree. But if you are going to be consistent (and there is a
lot to be said for that), you should follow the accepted style
guides. Of course, there is that old saying about "consistency for
the sake of consistency". But, your point is well taken -- by
me. Still, I doubt the authors of style guides are going to change
> I find, when reading books, that it is trully irritating to stop
> in the middle of a line, check the footnote (I usually assume it's
> something I care about - often it's not) and then try to find my place again.
I often start out interrupting my reading like that. but after ten
or a dozen if the footnotes are all just citations, I seldom look
again. That is why I use endnotes for all my citations and footnotes
for comments. The reader doesn't have to look at either, but there
are fewer comments and those may be interesting reading. A
researcher, on the other hand, will find what they need in the endnotes easily.
>At present, I'm putting information that enhances the data in the
>paragraph (such as an explanation of cultural conditions in the
>mother country) in footnotes and references in the endnotes. There
>are times when some data needs to be said, cannot be brought
>coherently into the text, or would take the story off in a
>tangent. That's when it goes into the footnote. This can interrupt
>the flow of the story - but at least you're getting something out of it.
>I'm also wondering if the "source within a source" couldn't be put
>in the CM? To me, there are 3 purposes for TMG: 1) to keep track of
>everything I've found, 2) to help in research plans and 3)
>publication. My priorities are 2) and 1). #3 is way last (I know,
>it shouldn't be). Thus, if Ancestry is quoting from a primary
>source, I would put Ancestry i the CD, then the original source in
>the CM AND in the to-do list. When I've looked at the original
>source, then Ancestry comes out and the original source goes into the CD.
There are many places it can be placed IF it is needed and most of
the time it is not. I have no real argument against three or four
words tacked on to the end of a citation stating "quoted from Blah,
Blah, Blah" or the like. But to state the full citation of what I
saw online and then tack on the full citation of something that I did
not see and which has the full citation of where that came from which
cites the full citation of that source, ad infinitum is rediculous.
>And all of this is possible because TMG * IS* so flexible.....isn't
Yes, but it is still ridiculous. <g>
TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>
My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)