G'day all, This may seem an elementary question but it's been troubling me for a while with no clear answer appearing so I though I'd ask the experts! 8-) I have six sources that are all Daughters of the American Revolution membership applications. Presently I have them each listed separately as: DAR Application by xxx, DAR Application by yyy, etc . . . I'm wondering if this is the best or most appropriate way. Another example: I have several newspaper obituaries from the same paper on different dates. Presently, they each listed separately, but I'm wondering that's best or 'standard practice.' The part that throws me off is all the different fields in the Source records, particularly Source Text, which would seem to suggest each source is listed individually. On the other hand, there is hardly enough space to list ALL of the source text. So what does that mean, anyway? Thoughts, suggestions? Peter Morris Vista, CA USA

The standard for source citation is for a researcher to be detailed enough in their documentation to enable proof and validation of the work. It should provide exact information regarding where the information was found. The whole idea of citing sources is for someone after you to be able to find the same sources. Entering the word "Obituary" as a source really isn't a source, because it doesn't tell whose obituary it is, nor in which newspaper, or in whose clipping collection it is found. The words "Birth Certificate" aren't really a source either, because it doesn't tell you whose birth certificate it is nor where it is recorded. No one can substantiate one's research from such citations. You'll get a wide variety of answers from different individuals, depending on the extent that one wishes to document their research. Some folks are very detailed in documentation and others less so. Some do the barest amount, while others don't do any. I'm a detail oriented person who used to produce technical documentation for a living. I want all of my research digitized and immediately at hand, without having to go look up something in my files somewhere. So I'm just telling you how I do it, from the that perspective. I want it to meet appropriate research standards. As I said, one of my goals is also to have as much of my research digitized as possible. FO provides means to do a lot of that, so I avail myself of its incredible features and capabilities to accomplish that. With DAR applications, I do enter them separately, as you said you have done. Six applications isn't that many. Then, in the "source text" field, I have entered an abstract of what's contained in each of the applications. For obituaries, I enter each separately, and have also entered the text for each obituary in the "source text" field. It is so often that one has occasion to re-review the contents of an obituary because of details contained in it. It's handy to have it right there and not have to go find it in my files. For census records, I enter a county as one source, such as: "1910 U.S. Census, St. Clair Co. MO, NARA T624_801" and reuse it multiple times. In the source citation field, I enter the specific citation, such as: ED135, sht 6B, lines 60-66, dwlg 100, fam 114". Then I include an abstract of the census record in the "source text" field in case I want to review it at a later date (which I often do when I run into conflicts in other data). It's just easier. There usually is enough room to include all text of a source in the source text field. The exceptions are usually pension records (which contain several documents), military records (which contain several documents), complete probate files (which also contain several documents), etc. In those cases, I will title the source as, for example: "Military Pension Record for Samuel N. Straube, General Index to Pension Files, 1861-1934; NARA T288_456, Application No. 1173614, Certificate No. 922374." In the source text field, I include an abstract for each of the documents in the file. There's enough room in the field to do that. You'll get many different responses to your question. Only you can decide how detailed you want to be, and how much time you are willing to spend documenting your research and including that documentation in your database. Another reason I tend to be so detailed in documentation and in wanting to digitize everything is that when I pass from this earth, someone may throw out all the file cabinets and paper files that accompany this work, but they won't throw out the database, which takes only some space on their computer. And I can easily leave that to many people. Patricia At 11:51 AM 8/11/02 -0700, Peter M. Morris wrote: >This may seem an elementary question but it's been troubling me for a while >with no clear answer appearing so I though I'd ask the experts! 8-) > >I have six sources that are all Daughters of the American Revolution >membership applications. Presently I have them each listed separately as: >DAR Application by xxx, DAR Application by yyy, etc . . . > >I'm wondering if this is the best or most appropriate way. Another example: >I have several newspaper obituaries from the same paper on different dates. >Presently, they each listed separately, but I'm wondering that's best or >'standard practice.' > >The part that throws me off is all the different fields in the Source >records, particularly Source Text, which would seem to suggest each source >is listed individually. On the other hand, there is hardly enough space to >list ALL of the source text. So what does that mean, anyway? > >Thoughts, suggestions?

Lengthy "source text" or event notes may be okay in one genealogy program and cut short if a GEDCOM is shared with a relative using another program. PAF 5 keeps one line from the PAGE field of Family Origins, for example, and leaves marriage or family notes out of a book report. With scanned images of sources, relatives can *see* what was found at the library, on the Internet or in the family shoe box of papers and pictures. Census index on CD for 1881 (Britain or Canada) is helpful to locate individuals but doesn't replace the microfilm copy that can be scanned to show difficult handwriting and spelling variations. Some regions have a confusing tangle of same-name relatives and not enough source details to identify the "right" John Surname. An image is easier to move than citations for many details for a household if it turns out there were cousins called John and not one John married twice. Sometimes a child is raised by another family and known by a different name, even if not officially adopted. Two page wide marriage registrations do not combine easily in FO scrapbooks with the full page high columns of registrations from other time periods or newspaper obits. Solution was to overlap the two pages and remove in-between names of non-relatives. FO 10 Journals must be planned in advance to have items printed with the same layout eg. tall registrations in the descendant scrapbook and wide sources in the spouse scrapbook, or perhaps 2x2 layout for small pictures in one scrapbook and 1x1 layout for groups, detailed sources and maps in another. A word processor file is okay for "finished" research but requires too much editing for a book-in-progress used to organize information and pictures to share with relatives who may remember more stories as they read. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- From: "P SummersSmith" > You'll get a wide variety of answers from different individuals, depending > on the extent that one wishes to document their research. Some folks are > very detailed in documentation and others less so. Some do the barest > amount, while others don't do any.

Hi Here is a copy of one of my sources, that has 704 citations to it. I only printed a few. SOURCE Owen, William Arthur. "George Mains and Some of His Descendants", Wm & Mary Quarterly Series 2 July 1937 Vol 17 No 3. Original copy sent in 1927 to Catherine Emma Ellis DeCourcy, . Wm & Mary College, Williamsburg VA. SOURCE TEXT pages 399-408 SOURCE COMMENTS Author has onion skin carbon of this information, sent in 1925 to Catherine Emma Ellis DeCourcy. REPOSITORY St. Cloud State University Library St. Cloud, MN__ CITATIONS 1. Sarah HAMILTON-264 (Death). 2. Elizabeth LEWIS-280 (general). p397-408 3. Sarah MAINS-1184 (general). 4. Alfred MAINS-1254 (general). page 403 no X 5. Joseph LEWIS-1472 (general). 6. Peter MAINS-1583 (general). page 401 no. 2 7. Onan MAINS-1773 (Birth). page 402 no V. 8. Robert Wallace OWEN-1845 (general). page 406 ,IV 9. Samuel WOOD-375 and Sarah HAMILTON-264 (family). 10. Reverend Peter MAINS-1673 and Elizabeth WOOD-374 (family). 11. Thomas COOK-1635 and Delilah MAINS-444 (family). 12. Abraham THORPE-511 and Mary MAINS-1022 (family). 13. John MAINS-1639 and Margaret JUDD-896 (family). 14. William Wood MAINS-904 and Maria JUDD-1584 (family). 15. [UNKNOWN] and [UNKNOWN] (family). 16. Onan MAINS-1773 and Sarah MAINS-1136 (family). 17. Littleton LANCASTER-1257 and Jeanette MAINS-1256 (family). 18. Peter MAINS-1583 and Catherine LEWIS-281 (family). 19. Philip MAINS-889 and Mary WOOD-1665 (family). 20. George MAINS-1533 and Mary VANE-1534 (family). 21. Henry W. SHINKLE-1615 and Maria JUDD-1584 (family). 22. Mark WEATHERINGTON-1676 and Elizabeth MAINS-1675 (family). 23. Onan MAINS-1773 and Amanada Catherine JUDD-520 (family). 24. Samuel MAINS-1792 and Arrena MCDONALD-521 (family). 25. Peter MAINS-1583 (Birth). p405 no 5 26. Peter MAINS-1583 and Catherine LEWIS-281 (Marriage). page 405 no 5 27. Peter MAINS-1583 (Death). page 405 28. Mark WEATHERINGTON-1676 and Elizabeth MAINS-1675 (Marriage). page 401 29. Reverend Peter MAINS-1673 (Obituary). page 402 footnotes 30. Jacob MAINS-1037 and Susanna BYPHER-515 (Marriage). page 401 31. Jacob MAINS-1037 (general). page 401 32. John MAINS-1639 (Birth). page 404 33. John MAINS-1639 and Almira SCOTT-899 (Marriage). page 404 34. John MAINS-1639 (Death). page 404 35. Peter MAINS-1583 (Burial). page 405 36. Delilah MAINS-444 (Birth). page 407 no 6 37. Thomas COOK-1635 and Delilah MAINS-444 (Marriage). page 407 38. Delilah MAINS-444 (Death). page 407 Annette DeCourcy Towler Home page for DeCourcy & Pack http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~decourcy/ Web page for St. Cloud Area Genealogists, Inc. http://www.rootsweb.com/~mnscag/SCAG/index.htm Family Researching in SE KY PACK, CHANDLER, WHEELER, FAIRCHILD, RAMEY, MILLER/MILAM/MILLAM, JAYNE, McSPADDEN Researching in NE KY DeCOURCY, ELLIS, BALL, MAINS, LEWIS, EVANS, SPILMAN, HUTCHINS, HAMILTON Researching in PA, IL WESSLING, SOMERS, SCHULER, PLAGGEE -----Original Message----- From: Peter M. Morris [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 1:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [FO] Sources question G'day all, This may seem an elementary question but it's been troubling me for a while with no clear answer appearing so I though I'd ask the experts! 8-) I have six sources that are all Daughters of the American Revolution membership applications. Presently I have them each listed separately as: DAR Application by xxx, DAR Application by yyy, etc . . . I'm wondering if this is the best or most appropriate way. Another example: I have several newspaper obituaries from the same paper on different dates. Presently, they each listed separately, but I'm wondering that's best or 'standard practice.' The part that throws me off is all the different fields in the Source records, particularly Source Text, which would seem to suggest each source is listed individually. On the other hand, there is hardly enough space to list ALL of the source text. So what does that mean, anyway? Thoughts, suggestions? Peter Morris Vista, CA USA ==== FAMILY-ORIGINS-USERS Mailing List ==== Family Origins GenForum - http://genforum.genealogy.com/fo/ Tech Support Knowledge Base http://www.familyorigins.com/support/