Archiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2008-07 > 1216150214

From: Patti Hobbs <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Citation Question
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:30:14 -0500
References: <001a01c8e370$74be4cd0$5e3ae670$@com><><> <BLU144-DS62CA8045939C36BA95B07D7930@phx.gbl> <C07638EF8E8C49EF9EE52C8573D1BAF3@AmyComputer><><00d801c8e62f$c42e7710$4c8b6530$@net><><003501c8e6ab$deee3b90$9ccab2b0$@net>
In-Reply-To: <003501c8e6ab$deee3b90$9ccab2b0$@net>

Thanks, Elizabeth. I did realize I would cite the first portion as a
newspaper. My question only had to do with the second part of the
citation, but I wasn't very clear in what I said. I went to the BCG
workshop at Kansas City which Tom Jones taught, and I thought his
chart showing the first half to be the form of citation of the
original material and the second showing the new format to be very
helpful. I'm pretty clear on that, but the "preservation copy" idea
was new to me--not really since I knew about the FHL films--but I
blanked out on that and didn't apply it to this situation. I think
I'm getting a better view of the bigger picture.

I actually work better at things at night because I don't have nearly
so many interruptions, but then maybe my thinking skills start to

Thank you again.

On Jul 15, 2008, at 1:51 PM, <> <>

> Patti wrote:
>> So you are telling me by
> referencing this section that newspapers treated as preservation
> copies in a state historical society would be cited in a similar
> fashion as manuscripts? That makes sense actually.:-)
> Patti,
> If I'm understanding you correctly, there's a fundamental point that
> has to
> be considered. When you use a source in its native format, you have
> one
> basic format to cite. If you are citing a source that is reproduced
> in a new
> format, then you have two separate formats to identify and describe--
> the
> original and the reproduction. You'll find a discussion of this at
> EE 2.11.
> A newspaper is cited like a newspaper. It's a newspaper. It's not a
> manuscript.
> Beyond that, if you are using a microfilmed newspaper, then you have a
> second component that you may want to identify and discuss: the
> microfilm
> itself. The newspaper will typically be cited in the first part of the
> citation. The microfilm format will be covered in the second part of
> the
> citation. Some microfilm editions of newspapers are published film
> that can
> be purchased from a commercial entry; therefore the second part of the
> citation would identify the film as a publication. Some microfilm
> editions
> of newspapers are preservation copies made by a local library or a
> state
> archive. In those cases, the second part of the citation would say
> that it's
> unpublished microfilm created by, and accessed at, such-and-such a
> repository.
> This basic practice exists regardless of the type of material you
> are using.
> If your source is, say, a deed book from a courthouse that you
> consult on
> FHL microfilm, the first part of your citation is to the deed book
> itself;
> the second part will then identify/describe the microfilm that you
> used.
> Part of my problem is that I just haven't learned exactly how free I
> can be with how I judge categories of the citations, but I hope, with
> some more practice, I'll get better judgment.
> Yes, experience and focused study create good judgment-- in every
> aspect of
> genealogy! But, if we slight either one, we'll likely have holes in
> our
> judgment.
>> And this morning I found
> the missing page number listings in the index right away. I think I
> was just too tired to work on that last night and should have waited
> for morning before asking my questions.
> I understand. I find myself often answering all these questions late
> at
> night, when tiredness has set in here, too. :)
> Elizabeth
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
> the body of the message

This thread: