TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2008-09 > 1221926034


From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] NARA as a publsher - was RE: Death Reg. Sourcing Sorrowsfrom a Long Time Lurker
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:53:54 -0400
References: <200809201513.m8KFDU7c001927@mail.rootsweb.com><200892011281.299017@Terry3>
In-Reply-To: <200892011281.299017@Terry3>


Terry Reigel wrote:
>Lee Hoffman wrote:
> > As to the "publisher" of the census data, the NARA is the
> > Repository of the _actual_ census data. On the other
> > hand, it produces the films that we use and in that
> > sense, is also the publisher. If you look at the actual
> > census page then you should cite the NARA as the
> > repository. But, if you view a film produced by the NARA
> > then you would cite the NARA as the publisher.
>
>For the most the originals are destroyed from what I've read, so we
>only can see the films or an image made from them. <g>

This is becoming more common than before. A few originals were
destroyed after filming but that was later determined to have been a
mistake. More recently, the NARA has published a notice of proposed
rule-making that would allow destruction of some (all?) documents
once they had been filmed or otherwise recorded (e.g., digital
scanning). My recollection is that this destruction would not occur
until after a certain period of time. What that period of time is, I
don't remember.


> > I prefer the publisher route myself, but (for the reader
> > of a printed citation) --- is the NARA a repository or a
> > publisher? In printed form, you can't tell the
> > difference (although possibly you could infer one or the
> > other). So it really doesn't make a lot of difference.
>
>That's what I was trying to say in my previous post - mostly it's
>the way I enter the data in TMG, which you can't tell the difference
>in the finished footnotes. Although, if you really think the
>Archives are the publisher, I'd think one would use the convention
>of placing the publisher's name in parens, which I've never seen
>done for census cites.

If one were to follow the citation model (there was only one) that we
learned in school, then I would agree that parentheses would be used
in that context. Truthfully, that one citation style pretty much
takes care of most needs. It answers the "W" questions of who
(author, publisher, &/or repository data), what (title data), when
(publication date), and where (where published or found). That one
style can (and is, in Lackey, Mills, etc.) be adjusted to fit most
any kind of source material although, I admit that it takes a bit of
thought to ensure that the resulting citation is optimum.

Stuart Armstrong wrote an article on this as shown at
<http://www.tmgtips.com/Source%20Cite%20Lesson.htm>;.
I don't know that I would come up with the same citations as Stuart
in all cases but the differences would be minor in most cases.


Lee Hoffman/KY
TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)


This thread: