Dear Cousins, How do we document our information, reference it, and give citations for it? These concepts comprise the basis of our research. Many are confused by the differences in these terms, and most of all, how to actually accomplish what each implies. When we use these terms casually, they are almost interchangeable. Sometimes the term "the source" refers to the documentation we have for a fact, sometimes, data is the word used., and sometimes source means who the information was obtained from. Which is correct? What's the best way to refer to something? How is that different from a citation? Documentation means the proof we have for a fact. There are two kinds of documents: Primary and Secondary. Primary documents -- basically -- are those created contemporaneously, and secondary -- basically means those created after the fact. Naturally, more weight is given to primary documents. (That is not to say that in the creation of primary documents contemporary people did not make their share of human mistakes.) When we speak or write casually to one another, precision in these things is not a very great issue. But when we write a formal article, or present facts, (as in a gedcom) we need to follow standard formats which are instantly recognizable to the reader, and which offer reasons to trust the information. At this time, the format used is governed by what is called "The Chicago Style," of writing. This format also provides a standard style of referencing sources for the information we're presenting as gospel. As genealogists and historians we look for information which can prove our ideas concerning the truth of a circumstance or statement of fact. Usually we do not set out to prove someone is wrong and we are right, but sometimes that is what happens. Each fact builds up extended possibilities for other facts. When we see that a date or locality, or other fact is properly referenced and properly documented, we are reassured that the ensuing information is correct and trustworthy, and that the author has taken due care in presenting the information. Also, with references, we can check for ourselves to see whether the author has interpreted the documents properly. Conversely, information presented carelessly, without proper references and documentation should send up purple, red and green flares combined with loud submarine YAOOOOGAH's to warn us that this is untrustworthy information. A reference can be made in the body of the article, by just stating, "as found in Joe Dokes book, " Merry is the Day." You would want to follow this with more information in a Bibliography, or Annotations. You can also reference information by use of a footnote or an endnote. The footnote goes down at the bottom of the page, and endnotes follow the article, either after a chapter, or at the end of a book. There are advantages to each. The endnote does not interrupt the flow of the article as a footnote often does, but then you have to page through a book to find it, which is often inconvenient. Computer word processing software will format this as you wish. The footnote and endnote reference is made by giving the author's name, the exact name of the book in italics (not possible here in text format), the publisher and address, the year of publication, and the pages where the information is contained. This is a citation. All of this can be done using internet URL's as well. Improper references are ones which fail to give full, checkable information, for instance: Family Origins CD #517; LDS Ancestral File # AAW 446; or Susie Jones sent me this from her files. If you have a photocopy of the journal entry that Susie Jones' great-grandfather made after the birth of your ancestor Joe Dokes, and if there is documentation that Jimmie Jones' Journal was contemporaneously written at the time your ancestor Joe Dokes was born, then that certainly is documentation. But you would reference it very differently. Other highly improper documentation would be reprinting a photocopy of a document purporting to be a copy of a family Bible page, (or Jimmie Jones' Journal) without ascertaining and providing proof that it was in fact, such a page. A statement that one has made the photocopy from the Bible, owned by Susie Jones, address, and copied by you, 17th December 1999 is an authentication, and source. Merely stating this is the copy of so and so Bible page is neither proper documentation, nor a proper reference. This is getting long. If you would like to see some expansion on these interrelated topics, I will be getting up a page this weekend, using Christopher Gist as an example. This also will give substantiation of other of my ideas about Kinship connections. I also hope to have up the overview of the Northern Indian tribes, the French and Indian War, and the Christopher Gist, George Washington, and Daniel Boone article I promised. I hope you all have a blessed Easter and the beginning of a most hopeful Spring -- Love, Your Cousin, Carolyn Carolyn McDaniel cmacdee@teleport.com --- Visit American Crossroads --- http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~amxroads