TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-L ArchivesArchiver > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM > 2010-07 > 1278789635
From: Tom Jones <>
Subject: Re: [TGF] Placement of Note numbers
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:20:35 -0400
With all due respect to Rondina, I never said, nor would I ever say,
""all citations should come at the end of the sentence." What I teach is
that end-sentence note-number placement is preferable. Excessive
mid-sentence note numbers decrease readability, but the inviolable
standard is to avoid introducing confusion about exactly what a note
documents. Sometimes rewording the narrative or adding wording to the
note will both maintain a clear connection between note and statement
and achieve end-of-sentence placement. Sometimes the best option is a
mid-sentence note number. I'm sure I said all the above in the workshop
Rondina attended. You'll see mid-sentence note numbers in every issue,
if not every article, in NGSQ, but not to the extent that many family
historians use them. --- Tom
Rondina Muncy wrote:
> I'm torn about this. Although I have always followed the rule that the
> citation should be placed at the point in the sentence where the information
> is stated, I got a very different opinion from Tom Jones this last spring.
> He stated that all citations should come at the end of the sentence. In my
> opinion, he would take the citations and divide the information up. For
> example, if all information stated in a sentence (let's just stick with one
> sentence here, so not to confuse issues) was provided from a death
> certificate and grave marker, they would be cited at the end of the
> sentence. Conflicting or additional information would be added in separate
> sentence/s within that citation. For example: "For place of birth see ...."
> His point was that he did not like citations in the middle of sentences. He
> could be referring solely to how he likes them in the "Q." I'm in limbo on
> this issue. Not a good place to be.
> I did not see a follow up message, but it may have been sent privately to
> Thank you for your thoughts on this.
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 11:30 AM, <> wrote:
>> Lisa, the classical rule is to place a reference note at the end of the
>> information that came from that source. If anything after that does not
>> carry a citation, then it is deemed to come from some unidentified source.*
>> Beyond this, genealogy differs from some other disciplines where the
>> practice is to place the reference note at the end of a paragraph and then
>> cite all sources used for that paragraph. In those disciplines, references
>> almost never are found in the middle of a sentence, unless, perhaps, a
>> specific quotation is involved.
>> In genealogy, the recommended practice is to follow the 'classical rule'
>> precisely--i.e., to put the reference note exactly at the end of the
>> information that comes from the source we are citing. If part of the
>> information in a sentence comes from one source and part comes from a
>> different source, each part of that sentence is referenced separately. If
>> part of the information in a sentence comes from a source and part is our
>> interpretation, addition, or whatever, then the reference note specifically
>> flags what came from the source; we would not put it at the end of a
>> sentence where it might leave the impression that our
>> interpretation/whatever also appeared in that source.
>> *See follow-up message.
> The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a safe environment for genealogists to learn best practices as they transition to professional level work. Please respect the kind intentions of this list.
> 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