Thea, I'll be interested to read what others think about the official date of divorce, because I found a somewhat similar situation for a divorce that occurred in Minnesota. In that case on 9 September 1896 the wife's attorney filed a Note of Issue and requested that the case be entered on the Court's calendar for the September 1896 Term, which began on Monday, 21 September 1896, as reported in the local weekly newspaper on 25 September 1896. The divorce was set for "trial by court" [as opposed to "trial by jury") on Saturday, 26 September 1896, as reported in same issue of the newspaper. The Judge announced on that Saturday morning that a recess would be taken until December 8 and that all the court cases were continued until that time, as were a number of jury cases, as reported in the newspaper on 9 October 1896. It is unclear from this account whether the court was recessed on 26 September or 3 October. However, the last paragraph states that the divorce I was interested in wa! s granted. Perhaps some cases were tried early Saturday morning, before the recess was declared. The Minnesota Historical Society, which has custody of the county's District Court records of that period, reports that no Decree of Divorce or similar court Order was found in the divorce file or in the judgment book for the September 1896 Term of Court. For me the newspaper accounts are the only evidence I have that the divorce was granted, so I'd advise you to read the local papers carefully to see if you can glean additional information about the relevant dates. As an aside, the reporter who wrote the articles provided all the juicy details about another case that was heard during the same Court session. Unfortunately his doing so left little space to elaborate on my ancestor's divorce :-) Linda Johnson

I emailed the Harris County District Court. I had only asked for instructions for the proper procedure to make the request. They emailed me right back and asked for the details. I gave the lady the details of what I am looking for and she emailed right back again with a form they needed me to fill out. I just completed it and I have faxed it to them. She made it sound like this was no big deal at all. Maybe they have hired some new clerks :) :) :) Time will tell! Michele Lewis [email protected] http://ancestoring.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 9:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TGF] name change There is parking? :-) > On March 23, 2015 at 8:06 AM Lynn Parent <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, the parking is horrible!!! > Lynn Parent > > > On Mar 23, 2015, at 8:01 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Good luck in Harris Co., infamous for difficulty in obtaining records. > > Unless ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4311/9342 - Release Date: 03/20/15

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine this morning, Dee Dee :) :) :) The only thing I have every requested from Harris County are 2 marriage records. I was able to get them without difficulty but court records are a totally different ballgame. Michele Lewis [email protected] http://ancestoring.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 9:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TGF] name change Good luck in Harris Co., infamous for difficulty in obtaining records. Unless it is online, you'll have to visit the Clerk's office, look through badly imaged, badly degraded microfiche or film of indexes to know which microfiche or film you need, then look through badly imaged, badly degraded images provided by staff whose sole purpose in being there is to draw a paycheck. d -- Dee Dee King, Certified Genealogist (sm), Certificate 903 Forensic Genealogy Services LLC and Contract Genealogist, US Navy Casualty, POW/MIA Branch Mail address - PO Box 1085, Manvel TX 77578 Telephone/fax 281-595-3090 www.forensicgenealogyservices.com www.facebook.com/forensicgenealogist Certified Genealogist (CG) is a service mark (sm) of the Board for Certification of Genealogists®, conferred to associates who consistently meet ethical and competency standards in accord with peer-reviewed evaluations every five years, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office.

There is parking? :-) > On March 23, 2015 at 8:06 AM Lynn Parent <[email protected]> wrote: > Also, the parking is horrible!!! > Lynn Parent > > > On Mar 23, 2015, at 8:01 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Good luck in Harris Co., infamous for difficulty in obtaining records. > > Unless

Also, the parking is horrible!!! Lynn Parent Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 23, 2015, at 8:01 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Good luck in Harris Co., infamous for difficulty in obtaining records. Unless > it is online, you'll have to visit the Clerk's office, look through badly > imaged, badly degraded microfiche or film of indexes to know which microfiche or > film you need, then look through badly imaged, badly degraded images provided by > staff whose sole purpose in being there is to draw a paycheck. > > d > > > -- > Dee Dee King, Certified Genealogist (sm), Certificate 903 > Forensic Genealogy Services LLC > and Contract Genealogist, US Navy Casualty, POW/MIA Branch > > Mail address - PO Box 1085, Manvel TX 77578 > Telephone/fax 281-595-3090 > www.forensicgenealogyservices.com www.facebook.com/forensicgenealogist > > Certified Genealogist (CG) is a service mark (sm) of the Board for Certification > of Genealogists®, conferred to > associates who consistently meet ethical and competency standards in accord with > peer-reviewed evaluations every > five years, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark > Office. > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Good luck in Harris Co., infamous for difficulty in obtaining records. Unless it is online, you'll have to visit the Clerk's office, look through badly imaged, badly degraded microfiche or film of indexes to know which microfiche or film you need, then look through badly imaged, badly degraded images provided by staff whose sole purpose in being there is to draw a paycheck. d -- Dee Dee King, Certified Genealogist (sm), Certificate 903 Forensic Genealogy Services LLC and Contract Genealogist, US Navy Casualty, POW/MIA Branch Mail address - PO Box 1085, Manvel TX 77578 Telephone/fax 281-595-3090 www.forensicgenealogyservices.com www.facebook.com/forensicgenealogist Certified Genealogist (CG) is a service mark (sm) of the Board for Certification of Genealogists®, conferred to associates who consistently meet ethical and competency standards in accord with peer-reviewed evaluations every five years, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office.

Linda, This helps A LOT. He lived in Houston (Harris County) the entire time he lived in Texas so now I know where to start looking. Michele Lewis [email protected] http://ancestoring.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Linda Johnson via Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 10:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [TGF] name change Michelle, in Texas a name may be changed only by court order. The applicant must be a resident of the county where he files the application for the name change, so knowledge of his residence is essential. The Texas courts having jurisdiction over name changes are the District Court and (in recent times) the County Court at Law. If the person lives within the jurisdiction of both a County Court at Law and a District Court, an application for a name change may be filed in either court. Not all counties have County Courts at Law (Statutory County Courts), and not all County Courts at Law have jurisdiction concurrent with that of the District Court. Again, knowledge of the person’s residence is essential for determining which court might have the record. If there's any doubt, check both. An internet search of a particular county will reveal whether the county has both courts, and perhaps it will show the jurisdiction of the CC at Law. Each court’s web site should list any available on-line searches and/or provide instructions for ordering an in-person search. Some searches may require a case number; others, such as case indexes and/or dockets, may be accessible by name, either on-line or in person. In addition, many County Clerks offer on-line searching of various records, including deed records. If John Doe obtains a name-change order, has it certified and then goes to the trouble and expense of recording it, a search of the County Clerk's deed records under Doe, John, will reveal any recorded order changing his name. I hope this helps, but keep in mind that many people--including some of my ancestors--changed their names unofficially, without any court involvement. Linda --------------- Michelle wrote: I am researching whether a person changed his name legally within the court system or did not. This would be in Texas in the 1970s. I am not familiar with the Texas court system. Does anyone know which court in Texas would handle a name change and would this be something that would be indexed where it would be easily found by the clerk. Unfortunately, I can't narrow the dates much. I know he used his new name in 1979 on a Texas marriage license. He was using his old name though at least 1969 so I am looking at a 10 year time period. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5751 / Virus Database: 4311/9342 - Release Date: 03/20/15

Michelle, in Texas a name may be changed only by court order. The applicant must be a resident of the county where he files the application for the name change, so knowledge of his residence is essential. The Texas courts having jurisdiction over name changes are the District Court and (in recent times) the County Court at Law. If the person lives within the jurisdiction of both a County Court at Law and a District Court, an application for a name change may be filed in either court. Not all counties have County Courts at Law (Statutory County Courts), and not all County Courts at Law have jurisdiction concurrent with that of the District Court. Again, knowledge of the person’s residence is essential for determining which court might have the record. If there's any doubt, check both. An internet search of a particular county will reveal whether the county has both courts, and perhaps it will show the jurisdiction of the CC at Law. Each court’s web site should list any available on-line searches and/or provide instructions for ordering an in-person search. Some searches may require a case number; others, such as case indexes and/or dockets, may be accessible by name, either on-line or in person. In addition, many County Clerks offer on-line searching of various records, including deed records. If John Doe obtains a name-change order, has it certified and then goes to the trouble and expense of recording it, a search of the County Clerk's deed records under Doe, John, will reveal any recorded order changing his name. I hope this helps, but keep in mind that many people--including some of my ancestors--changed their names unofficially, without any court involvement. Linda --------------- Michelle wrote: I am researching whether a person changed his name legally within the court system or did not. This would be in Texas in the 1970s. I am not familiar with the Texas court system. Does anyone know which court in Texas would handle a name change and would this be something that would be indexed where it would be easily found by the clerk. Unfortunately, I can't narrow the dates much. I know he used his new name in 1979 on a Texas marriage license. He was using his old name though at least 1969 so I am looking at a 10 year time period.

You will need to find the laws for the time. Some states have a waiting period of several days to several months before the divorce is "final". d > On March 22, 2015 at 3:20 PM Thea Baker via > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > All, > > I searched the archives back to 2008 and did not find an answer to these > questions. Perhaps I didn’t use specific enough search terms. > > I pulled an original file at a courthouse. The divorce decree was written in > pencil on ledger paper and it was not signed or dated, and not file marked. > However, I can determine from two separate documents in the packet that the > case was heard in court on 11-24-20, and on the back of one of those documents > (not the decree) the circuit clerk wrote “filed 11-24-20” and signed his name > and title. > > I went to the court book to have a look at the decree/judgment. It was not > dated individually, but a few pages over, there was a statement that court was > adjourned and it was signed by the Judge and dated 11-26-20. It appears the > Judge had heard a number of different kinds of cases and had signed off on ALL > of them with one signature at the adjournment statement. > > My first question: Which date, the 24th or the 26th, is the date of the decree > since it was undated on the specific document both in the packet and in the > court book? > > Second question: When was the divorce final? Was the decree made on the 24th, > but the divorce not final until the 26th since that’s when the Judge made his > signature in the court book and a date was written under that signature? > > It is my understanding that a divorce is not truly “final” until it is filed > and date stamped by the circuit clerk’s office. But, again, the only document > that was handwritten “filed” and dated and signed by the clerk was on a > document that was not the decree itself but on a document that was a statement > produced in court the day the case was heard. > > To further complicate matters, at the top of the ledger page in the book, was > written the”Thirteenth Day of Court, 1920.” The page following the adjournment > statement was handwritten at the top “Fourteenth Day of Court, 1920.” The > plaintiff’s complaint for divorce was dated 31 August 1920, and a subsequent > document shows “September Term of Court,” but the case was not heard until > Wednesday, 11-24-20. So, how long is a “day of court?” I cannot find an answer > to this, either. > > But, mainly, I need to know WHEN the divorce was final—the 24th as per the > only document marked “filed” and signed by the clerk, or the 26th when the > Judge signed off on that date? Thanks much for your knowledge and help on > this. > > Best, > > Thea > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > I am a genealogist. I collect people. > > Thea Walden Baker, M.A. > Full House Genealogy > Boston University Certificate in Genealogical Research > Member, Association of Professional Genealogists > Co-editor, Arkansas Family Historian, a publication of the Arkansas > Genealogical Society > 501-230-3603 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message -- Dee Dee King, Certified Genealogist (sm), Certificate 903 Forensic Genealogy Services LLC and Contract Genealogist, US Navy Casualty, POW/MIA Branch Mail address - PO Box 1085, Manvel TX 77578 Telephone/fax 281-595-3090 www.forensicgenealogyservices.com www.facebook.com/forensicgenealogist Certified Genealogist (CG) is a service mark (sm) of the Board for Certification of Genealogists®, conferred to associates who consistently meet ethical and competency standards in accord with peer-reviewed evaluations every five years, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office.

All, I searched the archives back to 2008 and did not find an answer to these questions. Perhaps I didn’t use specific enough search terms. I pulled an original file at a courthouse. The divorce decree was written in pencil on ledger paper and it was not signed or dated, and not file marked. However, I can determine from two separate documents in the packet that the case was heard in court on 11-24-20, and on the back of one of those documents (not the decree) the circuit clerk wrote “filed 11-24-20” and signed his name and title. I went to the court book to have a look at the decree/judgment. It was not dated individually, but a few pages over, there was a statement that court was adjourned and it was signed by the Judge and dated 11-26-20. It appears the Judge had heard a number of different kinds of cases and had signed off on ALL of them with one signature at the adjournment statement. My first question: Which date, the 24th or the 26th, is the date of the decree since it was undated on the specific document both in the packet and in the court book? Second question: When was the divorce final? Was the decree made on the 24th, but the divorce not final until the 26th since that’s when the Judge made his signature in the court book and a date was written under that signature? It is my understanding that a divorce is not truly “final” until it is filed and date stamped by the circuit clerk’s office. But, again, the only document that was handwritten “filed” and dated and signed by the clerk was on a document that was not the decree itself but on a document that was a statement produced in court the day the case was heard. To further complicate matters, at the top of the ledger page in the book, was written the”Thirteenth Day of Court, 1920.” The page following the adjournment statement was handwritten at the top “Fourteenth Day of Court, 1920.” The plaintiff’s complaint for divorce was dated 31 August 1920, and a subsequent document shows “September Term of Court,” but the case was not heard until Wednesday, 11-24-20. So, how long is a “day of court?” I cannot find an answer to this, either. But, mainly, I need to know WHEN the divorce was final—the 24th as per the only document marked “filed” and signed by the clerk, or the 26th when the Judge signed off on that date? Thanks much for your knowledge and help on this. Best, Thea ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I am a genealogist. I collect people. Thea Walden Baker, M.A. Full House Genealogy Boston University Certificate in Genealogical Research Member, Association of Professional Genealogists Co-editor, Arkansas Family Historian, a publication of the Arkansas Genealogical Society 501-230-3603

I am researching whether a person changed his name legally within the court system or did not. This would be in Texas in the 1970s. I am not familiar with the Texas court system. Does anyone know which court in Texas would handle a name change and would this be something that would be indexed where it would be easily found by the clerk. Unfortunately, I can't narrow the dates much. I know he used his new name in 1979 on a Texas marriage license. He was using his old name though at least 1969 so I am looking at a 10 year time period. Michele

Judy Kellar Fox profiles the newest BCG associate on the blog Springboard ( http://bcgcertification.org/blog/2015/03/welcome-cari-taplin-cg/). Taplin "prepared her BCG portfolio in the midst of moving her family from Colorado to Texas. If she can do that, she can do anything." Harold Henderson, CG midwestroots.net *Finding Ancestors in Fort Wayne: The Genealogist's Unofficial One-Stop Guide to the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center * http://www.midwestroots.net/ <http://www.midwestroots.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ACPLGC-April-2013.pdf> Certified Genealogist (SM) No. 1029 Certified Genealogist and CG are proprietary service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists® used by the Board to identify its program of genealogical competency evaluation and used under license by the Board’s associates.

I was using bibliography form. Is my form not correct in that case? But, you are right that this will be used as reference note, so thanks for pointing this out! Big detail I'm indebted to your for, Kathy. Cynthia On 3/19/15 3:45 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Cynthia, > > One niggling issue is that your proposed citations show the author's > name as "Jones, Bill." A *reference note *cites an author as "Bill > Jones," which is how both Harold Henderson and Elizabeth Mills reflect > it in their suggestions. > > > Cynthia Swope wrote: > > 1) Jones, Bill, "Webpage", Website (in italics), Bill Jones, n.d. 2003. > Web. 18 March 2015, URL to page (which citemachine mentions optional) > [MLA format] > > I had had it: > 2) Jones, Bill, "webpage", Website (in italics), Web: Bill Jones, n.d. > 2003 (URL; date accessed). > > Thanks again for any response(s) > Cynthia > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Ah, yes, Cynthia. That "overthinking" does tend to happen with citations. :) Elizabeth -----Original Message----- From: Cynthia Swope [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 3:45 PM To: eshown; TGF Subject: Re: [TGF] Fwd: Sourcing old Website marked '2003' Elizabeth, In answer to your question "what is the purpose of the n.d."... I guess I was thinking 12 months is a long time, and that no date in 2003 was what I was trying to convey. But of course you are right that books are always to year, when known, so I was maybe over thinking. Thank you, Elizabeth for this detailed reply. It's both instructional and enlightening for me. Cynthia On 3/19/15 10:39 AM, eshown via wrote: > Cynthia wrote: >> Thanks Harold for your thoughtful reply, I'm afraid this makes the citation too long, in my opinion, as the publishing date should be addressed concisely as it is confirmed as 2003. >> So my real question, as I want to put publication date just as I would with conventionally published material, how to do that, and then the vehicle is the Web (instead of say Harper and Row. I don't like all the periods in the MLA one regarding publisher, normally I put place first, then publisher, then date in conventional publications for instance Chicago: Warner, Beers & Company, 1886. As the publisher is the the author...'Self Published' I guess would work too. > Cynthia, citing a website in the same format as a published book is a good practice. Most people recognize the basic elements and the format as well, so there's little confusion about what something means. It's also good when using genealogical software, because basic book format tends to be the starting point for all their templates. > > Your points about (a) preserving the original publication dates; and (b) sticking with the basic book format of putting the publication date within the parentheses that carry publication data are both valid. I don't disagree with Harold, at all; but there multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal. > > You could, just as easily, substitute the publication date in the > place where Harold cited the access date--i.e., > > Bill Jones, "The Ancestry of Jesse James," _James History and Family_ (www.yzzx.urp : published 2003), para. 13. > > This does leave the access date unstated. If and when this site goes dead, having that access date would enable you or others to relocate the material via the WayBack Machine. The situation could be handled this way: > > Bill Jones, "The Ancestry of Jesse James," _James History and Family_ (www.yzzx.urp : published 2003; viewed 30 February 2015). > > Citing both dates within the parentheses used for publication data would be analogous to situations in which reprinted editions carry two dates within the parentheses: the original publication year and the subsequent publication year. > > However, there is also another issue: How can we, as a user of a website, tell that the creator has made absolutely no alteration in the text since 2003? With some websites, yes, we can do this--as, say, many postings in RootsWeb archives or postings in forums. But many websites make silent alterations through the years; only the person who manages the site will know. > > > You also wrote: >> So I'm still back to choosing between these two, and I guess in the end I'll go with the second. I've just never seen it as "Web: publisher, n.d. 2003" > Nor have I seen it that way either, and there are at least two good reasons: > > (1) Explicitly stating "Web" as the place of publication is pointless if a URL is cited. Second, citing "Web" as the place of publication is tantamount to citing the World as the place of publication for a book. Instead of citing the world, we cite the city and state. By extension, instead of citing the "Web" as the place of publication, we cite the URL. > > (2) The "publisher" of the website is typically the author/creator of the website. It's not the same situation as with most books in which the author creates the book but then someone else does the publishing. Yes, we could say that it's privately published (p.p.), but that, too, would be redundant for a personal website. > > One question: What is the "n.d." before 2003? N.d., of course, means "no date," but that's used for print books when the year of publication is not known. If, here, it is meant to say that the exact date in 2003 is not known, then the "n.d." is not needed because book citations do not cite a month and day; they only cite the year. > > Hope this helps, > Elizabeth > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG > BCG trustee & past president > > www.HistoricPathways.com > www.EvidenceExplained.com > > & for everyday tips on records and record usage > QuickTips: The Blog at Evidence Explained > https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/ee > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message

Elizabeth, In answer to your question "what is the purpose of the n.d."... I guess I was thinking 12 months is a long time, and that no date in 2003 was what I was trying to convey. But of course you are right that books are always to year, when known, so I was maybe over thinking. Thank you, Elizabeth for this detailed reply. It's both instructional and enlightening for me. Cynthia On 3/19/15 10:39 AM, eshown via wrote: > Cynthia wrote: >> Thanks Harold for your thoughtful reply, I'm afraid this makes the citation too long, in my opinion, as the publishing date should be addressed concisely as it is confirmed as 2003. >> So my real question, as I want to put publication date just as I would with conventionally published material, how to do that, and then the vehicle is the Web (instead of say Harper and Row. I don't like all the periods in the MLA one regarding publisher, normally I put place first, then publisher, then date in conventional publications for instance Chicago: Warner, Beers & Company, 1886. As the publisher is the the author...'Self Published' I guess would work too. > Cynthia, citing a website in the same format as a published book is a good practice. Most people recognize the basic elements and the format as well, so there's little confusion about what something means. It's also good when using genealogical software, because basic book format tends to be the starting point for all their templates. > > Your points about (a) preserving the original publication dates; and (b) sticking with the basic book format of putting the publication date within the parentheses that carry publication data are both valid. I don't disagree with Harold, at all; but there multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal. > > You could, just as easily, substitute the publication date in the place where Harold cited the access date--i.e., > > Bill Jones, "The Ancestry of Jesse James," _James History and Family_ (www.yzzx.urp : published 2003), para. 13. > > This does leave the access date unstated. If and when this site goes dead, having that access date would enable you or others to relocate the material via the WayBack Machine. The situation could be handled this way: > > Bill Jones, "The Ancestry of Jesse James," _James History and Family_ (www.yzzx.urp : published 2003; viewed 30 February 2015). > > Citing both dates within the parentheses used for publication data would be analogous to situations in which reprinted editions carry two dates within the parentheses: the original publication year and the subsequent publication year. > > However, there is also another issue: How can we, as a user of a website, tell that the creator has made absolutely no alteration in the text since 2003? With some websites, yes, we can do this--as, say, many postings in RootsWeb archives or postings in forums. But many websites make silent alterations through the years; only the person who manages the site will know. > > > You also wrote: >> So I'm still back to choosing between these two, and I guess in the end I'll go with the second. I've just never seen it as "Web: publisher, n.d. 2003" > Nor have I seen it that way either, and there are at least two good reasons: > > (1) Explicitly stating "Web" as the place of publication is pointless if a URL is cited. Second, citing "Web" as the place of publication is tantamount to citing the World as the place of publication for a book. Instead of citing the world, we cite the city and state. By extension, instead of citing the "Web" as the place of publication, we cite the URL. > > (2) The "publisher" of the website is typically the author/creator of the website. It's not the same situation as with most books in which the author creates the book but then someone else does the publishing. Yes, we could say that it's privately published (p.p.), but that, too, would be redundant for a personal website. > > One question: What is the "n.d." before 2003? N.d., of course, means "no date," but that's used for print books when the year of publication is not known. If, here, it is meant to say that the exact date in 2003 is not known, then the "n.d." is not needed because book citations do not cite a month and day; they only cite the year. > > Hope this helps, > Elizabeth > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG > BCG trustee & past president > > www.HistoricPathways.com > www.EvidenceExplained.com > > & for everyday tips on records and record usage > QuickTips: The Blog at Evidence Explained > https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/ee > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Cynthia, One niggling issue is that your proposed citations show the author's name as "Jones, Bill." A *reference note *cites an author as "Bill Jones," which is how both Harold Henderson and Elizabeth Mills reflect it in their suggestions. Cynthia Swope wrote: 1) Jones, Bill, "Webpage", Website (in italics), Bill Jones, n.d. 2003. Web. 18 March 2015, URL to page (which citemachine mentions optional) [MLA format] I had had it: 2) Jones, Bill, "webpage", Website (in italics), Web: Bill Jones, n.d. 2003 (URL; date accessed). Thanks again for any response(s) Cynthia

Thanks, Elizabeth, for the wider view and for nailing down the thing that was bothering my subconscious: how to know that the site hasn't changed in 12 years. Harold Harold Henderson, CG midwestroots.net *Finding Ancestors in Fort Wayne: The Genealogist's Unofficial One-Stop Guide to the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center * http://www.midwestroots.net/ <http://www.midwestroots.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ACPLGC-April-2013.pdf> Certified Genealogist (SM) No. 1029 Certified Genealogist and CG are proprietary service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists® used by the Board to identify its program of genealogical competency evaluation and used under license by the Board’s associates. On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:39 AM, eshown via < [email protected]> wrote: > Cynthia wrote: > >Thanks Harold for your thoughtful reply, I'm afraid this makes the > citation too long, in my opinion, as the publishing date should be > addressed concisely as it is confirmed as 2003. > >So my real question, as I want to put publication date just as I would > with conventionally published material, how to do that, and then the > vehicle is the Web (instead of say Harper and Row. I don't like all the > periods in the MLA one regarding publisher, normally I put place first, > then publisher, then date in conventional publications for instance > Chicago: Warner, Beers & Company, 1886. As the publisher is the the > author...'Self Published' I guess would work too. > > Cynthia, citing a website in the same format as a published book is a good > practice. Most people recognize the basic elements and the format as well, > so there's little confusion about what something means. It's also good when > using genealogical software, because basic book format tends to be the > starting point for all their templates. > > Your points about (a) preserving the original publication dates; and (b) > sticking with the basic book format of putting the publication date within > the parentheses that carry publication data are both valid. I don't > disagree with Harold, at all; but there multiple ways of accomplishing the > same goal. > > You could, just as easily, substitute the publication date in the place > where Harold cited the access date--i.e., > > Bill Jones, "The Ancestry of Jesse James," _James History and > Family_ (www.yzzx.urp : published 2003), para. 13. > > This does leave the access date unstated. If and when this site goes dead, > having that access date would enable you or others to relocate the material > via the WayBack Machine. The situation could be handled this way: > > Bill Jones, "The Ancestry of Jesse James," _James History and > Family_ (www.yzzx.urp : published 2003; viewed 30 February 2015). > > Citing both dates within the parentheses used for publication data would > be analogous to situations in which reprinted editions carry two dates > within the parentheses: the original publication year and the subsequent > publication year. > > However, there is also another issue: How can we, as a user of a website, > tell that the creator has made absolutely no alteration in the text since > 2003? With some websites, yes, we can do this--as, say, many postings in > RootsWeb archives or postings in forums. But many websites make silent > alterations through the years; only the person who manages the site will > know. > > > You also wrote: > >So I'm still back to choosing between these two, and I guess in the end > I'll go with the second. I've just never seen it as "Web: publisher, n.d. > 2003" > > Nor have I seen it that way either, and there are at least two good > reasons: > > (1) Explicitly stating "Web" as the place of publication is pointless if a > URL is cited. Second, citing "Web" as the place of publication is > tantamount to citing the World as the place of publication for a book. > Instead of citing the world, we cite the city and state. By extension, > instead of citing the "Web" as the place of publication, we cite the URL. > > (2) The "publisher" of the website is typically the author/creator of the > website. It's not the same situation as with most books in which the author > creates the book but then someone else does the publishing. Yes, we could > say that it's privately published (p.p.), but that, too, would be redundant > for a personal website. > > One question: What is the "n.d." before 2003? N.d., of course, means "no > date," but that's used for print books when the year of publication is not > known. If, here, it is meant to say that the exact date in 2003 is not > known, then the "n.d." is not needed because book citations do not cite a > month and day; they only cite the year. > > Hope this helps, > Elizabeth > > > ---------------------------------------------- > Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG > BCG trustee & past president > > www.HistoricPathways.com > www.EvidenceExplained.com > > & for everyday tips on records and record usage > QuickTips: The Blog at Evidence Explained > https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/ee > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Cynthia wrote: >Thanks Harold for your thoughtful reply, I'm afraid this makes the citation too long, in my opinion, as the publishing date should be addressed concisely as it is confirmed as 2003. >So my real question, as I want to put publication date just as I would with conventionally published material, how to do that, and then the vehicle is the Web (instead of say Harper and Row. I don't like all the periods in the MLA one regarding publisher, normally I put place first, then publisher, then date in conventional publications for instance Chicago: Warner, Beers & Company, 1886. As the publisher is the the author...'Self Published' I guess would work too. Cynthia, citing a website in the same format as a published book is a good practice. Most people recognize the basic elements and the format as well, so there's little confusion about what something means. It's also good when using genealogical software, because basic book format tends to be the starting point for all their templates. Your points about (a) preserving the original publication dates; and (b) sticking with the basic book format of putting the publication date within the parentheses that carry publication data are both valid. I don't disagree with Harold, at all; but there multiple ways of accomplishing the same goal. You could, just as easily, substitute the publication date in the place where Harold cited the access date--i.e., Bill Jones, "The Ancestry of Jesse James," _James History and Family_ (www.yzzx.urp : published 2003), para. 13. This does leave the access date unstated. If and when this site goes dead, having that access date would enable you or others to relocate the material via the WayBack Machine. The situation could be handled this way: Bill Jones, "The Ancestry of Jesse James," _James History and Family_ (www.yzzx.urp : published 2003; viewed 30 February 2015). Citing both dates within the parentheses used for publication data would be analogous to situations in which reprinted editions carry two dates within the parentheses: the original publication year and the subsequent publication year. However, there is also another issue: How can we, as a user of a website, tell that the creator has made absolutely no alteration in the text since 2003? With some websites, yes, we can do this--as, say, many postings in RootsWeb archives or postings in forums. But many websites make silent alterations through the years; only the person who manages the site will know. You also wrote: >So I'm still back to choosing between these two, and I guess in the end I'll go with the second. I've just never seen it as "Web: publisher, n.d. 2003" Nor have I seen it that way either, and there are at least two good reasons: (1) Explicitly stating "Web" as the place of publication is pointless if a URL is cited. Second, citing "Web" as the place of publication is tantamount to citing the World as the place of publication for a book. Instead of citing the world, we cite the city and state. By extension, instead of citing the "Web" as the place of publication, we cite the URL. (2) The "publisher" of the website is typically the author/creator of the website. It's not the same situation as with most books in which the author creates the book but then someone else does the publishing. Yes, we could say that it's privately published (p.p.), but that, too, would be redundant for a personal website. One question: What is the "n.d." before 2003? N.d., of course, means "no date," but that's used for print books when the year of publication is not known. If, here, it is meant to say that the exact date in 2003 is not known, then the "n.d." is not needed because book citations do not cite a month and day; they only cite the year. Hope this helps, Elizabeth ---------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG BCG trustee & past president www.HistoricPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com & for everyday tips on records and record usage QuickTips: The Blog at Evidence Explained https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/ee

Thanks Harold for your thoughtful reply, I'm afraid this makes the citation too long, in my opinion, as the publishing date should be addressed concisely as it is confirmed as 2003. So my real question, as I want to put publication date just as I would with conventionally published material, how to do that, and then the vehicle is the Web (instead of say Harper and Row. I don't like all the periods in the MLA one regarding publisher, normally I put place first, then publisher, then date in conventional publications for instance Chicago: Warner, Beers & Company, 1886. As the publisher is the the author...'Self Published' I guess would work too. So I'm still back to choosing between these two, and I guess in the end I'll go with the second. I've just never seen it as "Web: publisher, n.d. 2003" 1) Jones, Bill, "Webpage", Website (in italics), Bill Jones, n.d. 2003. Web. 18 March 2015, URL to page (which citemachine mentions optional) [MLA format] I had had it: 2) Jones, Bill, "webpage", Website (in italics), Web: Bill Jones, n.d. 2003 (URL; date accessed). Thanks again for any response(s) Cynthia On 3/18/15 3:08 PM, Harold Henderson via wrote: > Cynthia -- > > Assuming that Bill Jones is the author of the material being cited > (webmaster is irrelevant) and that this is a reference note: > > Bill Jones, "The Ancestry of Jesse James," *James History and Family* > (www.yzzx.urp : viewed 30 February 2015). > > Depending on the relevance, you might then add any helpful comments for > those trying assess the credibility of the material, such as "The page > appears untouched since its 2003 copyright, so it may be accurate in its > statements about earlier events, even though it does not mention Mr. > James's 2010 exhumation." > > Hope this helps! > > Harold > > Harold Henderson, CG midwestroots.net > > *Finding Ancestors in Fort Wayne: The Genealogist's Unofficial One-Stop > Guide to the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center * > http://www.midwestroots.net/ > <http://www.midwestroots.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ACPLGC-April-2013.pdf> > > Certified Genealogist (SM) No. 1029 > Certified Genealogist and CG are proprietary service marks > of the Board for Certification of Genealogists® used by the > Board to identify its program of genealogical competency evaluation > and used under license by the Board’s associates. > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Cynthia Swope via < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Is this the proper format for a website managed by the author showing >> publication 2003, untouched since being placed on web? >> >> The hypothetical author/ webmaster is Bill Jones--the publishing portion >> is the one i'm having trouble with >> The first is what came in 'Citation Machine' utilizing MLA >> ( >> http://old.citationmachine.net/index2.php?reqstyleid=1&mode=form&reqsrcid=MLAWebDocument >> ), >> but unless giving a month and day the year doesn't show. So I added >> 'n.d.' before year. >> >> Which if either is most correct or the form others use? >> >> 1) Jones, Bill, "Webpage", Website (in italics), Bill Jones, n.d. 2003. >> Web. 18 March 2015, URL to page (which site mentions optional) >> >> I had had it: >> 2) Jones, Bill, "webpage", Website (in italics), Web: Bill Jones, n.d. >> 2003 (URL; date accessed). >> >> Thanks for your opinions, >> Cynthia >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Is this the proper format for a website managed by the author showing publication 2003, untouched since being placed on web? The hypothetical author/ webmaster is Bill Jones--the publishing portion is the one i'm having trouble with The first is what came in 'Citation Machine' utilizing MLA (http://old.citationmachine.net/index2.php?reqstyleid=1&mode=form&reqsrcid=MLAWebDocument), but unless giving a month and day the year doesn't show. So I added 'n.d.' before year. Which if either is most correct or the form others use? 1) Jones, Bill, "Webpage", Website (in italics), Bill Jones, n.d. 2003. Web. 18 March 2015, URL to page (which site mentions optional) I had had it: 2) Jones, Bill, "webpage", Website (in italics), Web: Bill Jones, n.d. 2003 (URL; date accessed). Thanks for your opinions, Cynthia