I am not sure there is a distinction between footnotes and endnotes; just where they are placed in the document.

Dave wrote: >Well, I guess that's a matter of reading style. When I read something (such as in the NGS Quarterly) I want to read it once without worrying about the specific citations, because I want to concentrate on the technique and the flow of the narrative. The second time through I'll be more interested in the citations. Or, to put it in other words, the first time through is to read it, the second time is to study it. >Naturally, I reserve the right to contradict myself when reading, say, a 700-page book as opposed to a 7-page article! Life's too short to read /War and Peace/ twice without a good reason. You have a point, Dave. Even though we know that no work can be perfect and that any person can err, there is a tremendous difference in the degree of trust we tend to place in a quality, peer-reviewed journal such as NGSQ and, say, Joe Schmoe's _History of the Schmoe Family_. Elizabeth --------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG www.HistoricalPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com www.Facebook.com/EvidenceExplained

Kathy wrote: >*My opinion* is that the author's responsibility is to be forthcoming and inform the reader; it is not the reader's responsbility to reconstruct the reasoning (the sum of the evidence) for the author's conclusion from bits and pieces of information scattered around various pages, footnotes, and endnotes. Amen. Oyez. Hear ye, all ye writers! Elizabeth ---------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG www.HistoricPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com www.Facebook.com/EvidenceExplained

A combination of footnotes and endnotes would be nightmarishly unwieldy for me; but to each, his own. *My opinion* is that endnotes in books and lengthy scholarly articles are tremendously tedious for readers (nevertheless, I do the tedious chore with material worth the effort). When reading any statement of fact, I require a cited source. Otherwise, I feel abandoned with the question, "How It Know?" (Punch line to an ancient old joke.) When reading a conclusion in a case study or research report or news article, I want to be informed--right there within the text--of the how and why of that conclusion. *My opinion* is that the author's responsibility is to be forthcoming and inform the reader; it is not the reader's responsbility to reconstruct the reasoning (the sum of the evidence) for the author's conclusion from bits and pieces of information scattered around various pages, footnotes, and endnotes. Kathy

Thank you, Tom. I do look forward to see it my mailbox. Laurie On 10/2/2012 4:39 PM, Tom wrote: > It's always gratifying to hear that someone is looking forward > to/NGSQ/'s next issue or misses seeing an issue. I believe the printer > mailed the September issue yesterday --- not in September but close. > Mailed (domestic) or shipped (international) from Hanover, Pennsylvania, > they should arrive in mailboxes on different days in different parts of > the country (and world) over the next week or so. Each issue typically > appears online (in the members-only area of the NGS website) on or > around the mail date, before the physical copy arrives in mailboxes. > ---- Tom Jones > > >

It's always gratifying to hear that someone is looking forward to/NGSQ/'s next issue or misses seeing an issue. I believe the printer mailed the September issue yesterday --- not in September but close. Mailed (domestic) or shipped (international) from Hanover, Pennsylvania, they should arrive in mailboxes on different days in different parts of the country (and world) over the next week or so. Each issue typically appears online (in the members-only area of the NGS website) on or around the mail date, before the physical copy arrives in mailboxes. ---- Tom Jones On 10/2/2012 4:22 PM, Laurie Huey wrote: > Speaking of the NGSQ, I see the September issue is online at the NGS > website. I haven't received mine yet. Has anyone? > > Thanks, > Laurie Huey > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive 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 TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

No I haven't Chris Green -----Original Message----- From: Laurie Huey <flhueys@gmail.com> To: transitional-genealogists-forum <transitional-genealogists-forum@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tue, Oct 2, 2012 1:23 pm Subject: [TGF] NGSQ September issue Speaking of the NGSQ, I see the September issue is online at the NGS website. I haven't received mine yet. Has anyone? Thanks, Laurie Huey The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive 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 TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Speaking of the NGSQ, I see the September issue is online at the NGS website. I haven't received mine yet. Has anyone? Thanks, Laurie Huey

Dave wrote: > as a reader ... I prefer citations to be in endnotes, with footnotes reserved for useful but non-essential information. ... When I read I feel compelled to look at footnotes, whereas an endnote is not something that is critical to understanding the narrative. Of course, on a second reading I might be interested in the endnotes, depending on the content and my reason for reading it. Ah, Dave! This doesn't happen often, but right now our viewpoints are about 539 nautical miles apart! I can't imagine reading ANY genealogical essay without checking the reference note at each assertion to understand how the author supports the assertion! (And, yes, I know I just used three exclamation points in a professional forum. That means I feel very, very VERY strongly!) Elizabeth ---------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG www.HistoricPathways.com www.EvidenceExplained.com www.Facebook.com/EvidenceExplained

I don't think /Evidence Explained /and /NGSQ/ differ on this point (or almost any point). There is a hard and fast rule, at least in scholarly venues, but it is often broken. The rule is "the story belongs in your narrative text, and your documentation belongs in your footnotes." This documentation includes source citations and comments about the cited sources. If an event is an important part of your story or the case you're building, you want it in your narrative ---- many readers will skip over your footnotes, and those who don't skip will be annoyed by having to read different parts of the story on two parts of the page. By implication, digressions --- events that are interesting but will interfere with your story or case study --- belong in other articles. Occasionally, however, digressions are so compelling that they will appear in footnotes, and the rule is more an ideal than a reality. For more specifics, see /The Chicago Manual of Style/, 16th edition, sections 14.34, 14.40, 14.51, and elsewhere. An early stage of the /NGSQ/ editing process is to move up to the text any needless narrative in footnotes or to cut it altogether. (I'd like to hear ----privately --- about the "lots of footnotes which contain explanations of reasoning for conclusions stated in the main body of the article" in /NGSQ/. As one of its editors, my sense is that many of its discursive notes provide information about the sources, not amplifications of the author's argument.) --- Tom Jones On 10/2/2012 3:18 PM, Harold Henderson wrote: > Greg -- > > Good question. So-called "discursive notes" go beyond discussing the > sources themselves (citation, provenance, evaluation of reliability) and > discuss the subject of the article. In _Evidence Explained_ (1st ed.), p. > 45, section 2.7, Elizabeth Shown Mills writes that discursive notes fall > short of the ideal. > > The point as I understand it is that what we have to say about the subject > is either important enough to be integrated into the text, or not. > Splitting the difference and putting uncertain bits into footnotes just > makes us sloppy and requires to reader to read all the fine print for stray > bits of the argument. In my experience, the commonest reason to do this is > trying to keep the story flowing and hiding the proof arguments elsewhere. > If the argument is important, I would make it a separate section or a > sidebar. So in your case I would explain the reasoning in the article and > discuss the source issues in the reference note. > > With Elizabeth on one side and NGSQ allegedly on the other I feel like a > quarterback about to be sacked -- nowhere to go! > > Sometimes there may be a gray area as to what pertains to the source and > what pertains to the subject. If you want to share an example, that would > be the best way to grapple with the situation. > > The wise writer will adapt (within reason) to the practices of the intended > editor. > > Harold > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Greg Lovelace <greglovelace@comcast.net>wrote: > >> Greetings. >> >> >> >> I have a question about footnotes. Is there a hard and fast rule about >> including explanations/discussions in footnotes instead of the main >> article? >> If I state that an ancestor in the late 1700s was accused of a crime and >> apparently fled the authorities and disappeared, would I explain my >> reasoning in the article? Or would I cite the arrest record and explain >> that no further records have been discovered to show the outcome of the >> case, and that it is assumed the accused fled? In this case, the court >> records were destroyed in a fire. Should this also be in a footnote? >> >> >> >> As you can see, I am confused. In the latest NGS Quarterly I see lots of >> footnotes which contain explanations of reasoning for conclusions stated in >> the main body of the article. Can someone give me some guidance on what >> goes where? >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Peace, >> >> Part of the Tree, >> >> Greg >> >> The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive >> 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 >> TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > >

Ultimately it depends on what you're writing and who you're writing for. If you are writing a case study that is focused on the methodology, then you would put all of the explanation in the text. If you are writing a "family history" to be read by your family, then you can use your judgment. If you can seamlessly work the explanation into the story, then by all means put it in the text--it could add another dimension to the story itself. But if it sticks out like a sore thumb, then put it in the footnotes. You don't want the explanation to get in the way of the "story"--you want the explanation there so that your reasoning can be understood (or refuted--or built upon) by those who might be interested. Michael Hait, CG(sm) michael.hait@hotmail.com http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com "Planting the Seeds" Blog: http://michaelhait.wordpress.com CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in the US Patent & Trademark Office. -----Original Message----- From: Harold Henderson Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 3:18 PM To: Greg Lovelace Cc: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [TGF] Footnotes with explanations Greg -- Good question. So-called "discursive notes" go beyond discussing the sources themselves (citation, provenance, evaluation of reliability) and discuss the subject of the article. In _Evidence Explained_ (1st ed.), p. 45, section 2.7, Elizabeth Shown Mills writes that discursive notes fall short of the ideal. The point as I understand it is that what we have to say about the subject is either important enough to be integrated into the text, or not. Splitting the difference and putting uncertain bits into footnotes just makes us sloppy and requires to reader to read all the fine print for stray bits of the argument. In my experience, the commonest reason to do this is trying to keep the story flowing and hiding the proof arguments elsewhere. If the argument is important, I would make it a separate section or a sidebar. So in your case I would explain the reasoning in the article and discuss the source issues in the reference note. With Elizabeth on one side and NGSQ allegedly on the other I feel like a quarterback about to be sacked -- nowhere to go! Sometimes there may be a gray area as to what pertains to the source and what pertains to the subject. If you want to share an example, that would be the best way to grapple with the situation. The wise writer will adapt (within reason) to the practices of the intended editor. Harold On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Greg Lovelace <greglovelace@comcast.net>wrote: > Greetings. > > > > I have a question about footnotes. Is there a hard and fast rule about > including explanations/discussions in footnotes instead of the main > article? > If I state that an ancestor in the late 1700s was accused of a crime and > apparently fled the authorities and disappeared, would I explain my > reasoning in the article? Or would I cite the arrest record and explain > that no further records have been discovered to show the outcome of the > case, and that it is assumed the accused fled? In this case, the court > records were destroyed in a fire. Should this also be in a footnote? > > > > As you can see, I am confused. In the latest NGS Quarterly I see lots of > footnotes which contain explanations of reasoning for conclusions stated > in > the main body of the article. Can someone give me some guidance on what > goes where? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Peace, > > Part of the Tree, > > Greg > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > 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 > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > message > -- Harold Henderson midwestroots.net Research, Writing, and Brickwall Dismantling from Northwest Indiana Regularly Researching at the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center 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 competencyevaluation and used under license by the Board’s associates. The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive 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 TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Well, I guess that's a matter of reading style. When I read something (such as in the NGS Quarterly) I want to read it once without worrying about the specific citations, because I want to concentrate on the technique and the flow of the narrative. The second time through I'll be more interested in the citations. Or, to put it in other words, the first time through is to read it, the second time is to study it. Naturally, I reserve the right to contradict myself when reading, say, a 700-page book as opposed to a 7-page article! Life's too short to read /War and Peace/ twice without a good reason. Dave Liesse On 10/2/2012 13:46, eshown wrote: > Ah, Dave! This doesn't happen often, but right now our viewpoints are > about 539 nautical miles apart! I can't imagine reading ANY > genealogical essay without checking the reference note at each > assertion to understand how the author supports the assertion! (And, > yes, I know I just used three exclamation points in a professional > forum. That means I feel very, very VERY strongly!)

Greetings. I have a question about footnotes. Is there a hard and fast rule about including explanations/discussions in footnotes instead of the main article? If I state that an ancestor in the late 1700s was accused of a crime and apparently fled the authorities and disappeared, would I explain my reasoning in the article? Or would I cite the arrest record and explain that no further records have been discovered to show the outcome of the case, and that it is assumed the accused fled? In this case, the court records were destroyed in a fire. Should this also be in a footnote? As you can see, I am confused. In the latest NGS Quarterly I see lots of footnotes which contain explanations of reasoning for conclusions stated in the main body of the article. Can someone give me some guidance on what goes where? Thanks. Peace, Part of the Tree, Greg

A variant of Michael's good point: some authors use footnotes for substance and endnotes for reference. Harold On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Michael Hait <michael.hait@hotmail.com>wrote: > Ultimately it depends on what you're writing and who you're writing for. > > If you are writing a case study that is focused on the methodology, then > you would put all of the explanation in the text. > > If you are writing a "family history" to be read by your family, then you > can use your judgment. If you can seamlessly work the explanation into the > story, then by all means put it in the text--it could add another dimension > to the story itself. But if it sticks out like a sore thumb, then put it in > the footnotes. You don't want the explanation to get in the way of the > "story"--you want the explanation there so that your reasoning can be > understood (or refuted--or built upon) by those who might be interested. > > Michael Hait, CG(sm) > michael.hait@hotmail.com > http://www.haitfamilyresearch.**com <http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com> > "Planting the Seeds" Blog: http://michaelhait.wordpress.**com<http://michaelhait.wordpress.com> > > CG and Certified Genealogist are service marks of the Board for > Certification of Genealogists, used under license by board certificants > after periodic competency evaluation, and the board name is registered in > the US Patent & Trademark Office. > -----Original Message----- From: Harold Henderson > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 3:18 PM > To: Greg Lovelace > Cc: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-**FORUM@rootsweb.com<TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [TGF] Footnotes with explanations > > > Greg -- > > Good question. So-called "discursive notes" go beyond discussing the > sources themselves (citation, provenance, evaluation of reliability) and > discuss the subject of the article. In _Evidence Explained_ (1st ed.), p. > 45, section 2.7, Elizabeth Shown Mills writes that discursive notes fall > short of the ideal. > > The point as I understand it is that what we have to say about the subject > is either important enough to be integrated into the text, or not. > Splitting the difference and putting uncertain bits into footnotes just > makes us sloppy and requires to reader to read all the fine print for stray > bits of the argument. In my experience, the commonest reason to do this is > trying to keep the story flowing and hiding the proof arguments elsewhere. > If the argument is important, I would make it a separate section or a > sidebar. So in your case I would explain the reasoning in the article and > discuss the source issues in the reference note. > > With Elizabeth on one side and NGSQ allegedly on the other I feel like a > quarterback about to be sacked -- nowhere to go! > > Sometimes there may be a gray area as to what pertains to the source and > what pertains to the subject. If you want to share an example, that would > be the best way to grapple with the situation. > > The wise writer will adapt (within reason) to the practices of the intended > editor. > > Harold > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Greg Lovelace <greglovelace@comcast.net>** > wrote: > > Greetings. >> >> >> >> I have a question about footnotes. Is there a hard and fast rule about >> including explanations/discussions in footnotes instead of the main >> article? >> If I state that an ancestor in the late 1700s was accused of a crime and >> apparently fled the authorities and disappeared, would I explain my >> reasoning in the article? Or would I cite the arrest record and explain >> that no further records have been discovered to show the outcome of the >> case, and that it is assumed the accused fled? In this case, the court >> records were destroyed in a fire. Should this also be in a footnote? >> >> >> >> As you can see, I am confused. In the latest NGS Quarterly I see lots of >> footnotes which contain explanations of reasoning for conclusions stated >> in >> the main body of the article. Can someone give me some guidance on what >> goes where? >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Peace, >> >> Part of the Tree, >> >> Greg >> >> The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive >> 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 >> TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-**FORUM-request@rootsweb.com<TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com>with the word >> 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the >> message >> >> > > > -- > Harold Henderson midwestroots.net > Research, Writing, and Brickwall Dismantling from Northwest Indiana > Regularly Researching at the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center > > 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 competencyevaluation > and used under license by the Board’s associates. > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > 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 > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-**FORUM-request@rootsweb.com<TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com>with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body > of the message > -- Harold Henderson midwestroots.net Research, Writing, and Brickwall Dismantling from Northwest Indiana Regularly Researching at the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center 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 competencyevaluation and used under license by the Board’s associates.

Greg -- Good question. So-called "discursive notes" go beyond discussing the sources themselves (citation, provenance, evaluation of reliability) and discuss the subject of the article. In _Evidence Explained_ (1st ed.), p. 45, section 2.7, Elizabeth Shown Mills writes that discursive notes fall short of the ideal. The point as I understand it is that what we have to say about the subject is either important enough to be integrated into the text, or not. Splitting the difference and putting uncertain bits into footnotes just makes us sloppy and requires to reader to read all the fine print for stray bits of the argument. In my experience, the commonest reason to do this is trying to keep the story flowing and hiding the proof arguments elsewhere. If the argument is important, I would make it a separate section or a sidebar. So in your case I would explain the reasoning in the article and discuss the source issues in the reference note. With Elizabeth on one side and NGSQ allegedly on the other I feel like a quarterback about to be sacked -- nowhere to go! Sometimes there may be a gray area as to what pertains to the source and what pertains to the subject. If you want to share an example, that would be the best way to grapple with the situation. The wise writer will adapt (within reason) to the practices of the intended editor. Harold On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Greg Lovelace <greglovelace@comcast.net>wrote: > Greetings. > > > > I have a question about footnotes. Is there a hard and fast rule about > including explanations/discussions in footnotes instead of the main > article? > If I state that an ancestor in the late 1700s was accused of a crime and > apparently fled the authorities and disappeared, would I explain my > reasoning in the article? Or would I cite the arrest record and explain > that no further records have been discovered to show the outcome of the > case, and that it is assumed the accused fled? In this case, the court > records were destroyed in a fire. Should this also be in a footnote? > > > > As you can see, I am confused. In the latest NGS Quarterly I see lots of > footnotes which contain explanations of reasoning for conclusions stated in > the main body of the article. Can someone give me some guidance on what > goes where? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Peace, > > Part of the Tree, > > Greg > > The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive > 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 > TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word > 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > -- Harold Henderson midwestroots.net Research, Writing, and Brickwall Dismantling from Northwest Indiana Regularly Researching at the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center 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 competencyevaluation and used under license by the Board’s associates.

I will say that as a reader -- /regardless of what I'm reading/ -- I prefer citations to be in endnotes, with footnotes reserved for useful but non-essential information (essentially a step beyond a parenthetical remark). When I read I feel compelled to look at footnotes, whereas an endnote is not something that is critical to understanding the narrative. Of course, on a second reading I might be interested in the endnotes, depending on the content and my reason for reading it. An example of a valid (to me) footnote would be an explanation of something someone says when being quoted -- perhaps a historical reference, or an explanation of the context of the quotation. A reference to another location in the same work ("see Chapter 35") is also acceptable. In the end, of course, the rule to follow is whatever the publisher says, be it the Chicago Manual of Style, (perish the thought) the APA Manual, or any other guide. If you're publishing your own work you set the rules, hopefully keeping the intended reader in mind. Dave Liesse

I'll let the footnote folks answer; however, I do have a comment about the assumption. It is safer to not assume he fled. The destroyed records might well contain a resolution to the case that did not include his fleeing. Have you checked newspaper accounts to see if the crime made the news? There might be follow up articles as well. I'd simply state that no records have been found subsequent to the arrest [for which you've kept the research log], mention the court records being destroyed, and not mention assumptions. best regards, Dee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Lovelace" <greglovelace@comcast.net> To: TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM@rootsweb.com Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:34:52 PM Subject: [TGF] Footnotes with explanations Greetings. I have a question about footnotes. Is there a hard and fast rule about including explanations/discussions in footnotes instead of the main article? If I state that an ancestor in the late 1700s was accused of a crime and apparently fled the authorities and disappeared, would I explain my reasoning in the article? Or would I cite the arrest record and explain that no further records have been discovered to show the outcome of the case, and that it is assumed the accused fled? In this case, the court records were destroyed in a fire. Should this also be in a footnote? As you can see, I am confused. In the latest NGS Quarterly I see lots of footnotes which contain explanations of reasoning for conclusions stated in the main body of the article. Can someone give me some guidance on what goes where? Thanks. Peace, Part of the Tree, Greg The Transitional Genealogists List was created to provide a supportive 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 TRANSITIONAL-GENEALOGISTS-FORUM-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

That's a great example to have. My grandmother (b 1889) also had a delayed birth certificate issued, possibly for the same reason. I have the document now. Her brother attested as witness to the facts. Karen Packard Rhodes currently residing in Pinellas Park, Pinellas County, Florida On 10/2/2012 9:08 AM, LDTA@aol.com wrote: > My grandmother, born 1896 in PA, got her delayed birth certificate in 1942 > when she needed to go to work due to her husband's health. She needed the > certificate to apply for a Social Security card. When they issued the > first one, her birth year was listed as 1942. She returned to the office and > had a new one issued with the correct year. > > They proceeded to gave her back the incorrect one too!!! I use the use > the two side by side to show how easily transcription errors can be made. > And how carefully one must read the documents to locate the correct one. > > Linda Templer Alexander >

Karen: "My grandmother (b 1889) also had a delayed birth certificate issued" Delayed birth certificates are not at all uncommon. Delayed death certificates (the subject) are. Since the delayed birth certificates have come up, let me give you a hint. They could have been filed in the state of birth but do not count out that they were filed where the family had moved to at the time. Example, my husband's family. Parents and four of the five living brothers were all born in Alabama. When social security came into being, the most common reason for delayed birth certificates, they could not afford to return to Alabama so they were filed in Texas. However, on the TX Birth Index you will see all the usual information but instead of the Texas county, it will say Alabama. When ordering a delayed birth certificate, always ask for the affidavits that are attached. They may have been signed by a relative, but not always, and sometimes you get additional genealogical clues. So when looking for birth certificates, look for delayed filings not only in the state of birth but any state where the family lived. Example, the family may have all been born in AL, moved to MS for a while and filed there, and maybe even one child born in LA before they then moved on to TX. So the search is on! Isn't it fun? ~ Trevia Trevia Wooster Beverly Houston, Texas 713-864-6862 Harris County Historical Commission (1995-) - http://www.historicalcommission.hctx.net/ Clayton Library Friends (1987-) - http://www.claytonlibraryfriends.org/ Advisory Board, Baytown Historical Preservation Assoc. - http://www.baytownhistory.org/ Association of Professional Genealogists - http://www.apgen.org/ (Conference Coordinator) Angelina College Genealogy Conference - http://www.angelina.edu/genealogy/genealogy.html -----Original Message-----

My grandmother, born 1896 in PA, got her delayed birth certificate in 1942 when she needed to go to work due to her husband's health. She needed the certificate to apply for a Social Security card. When they issued the first one, her birth year was listed as 1942. She returned to the office and had a new one issued with the correct year. They proceeded to gave her back the incorrect one too!!! I use the use the two side by side to show how easily transcription errors can be made. And how carefully one must read the documents to locate the correct one. Linda Templer Alexander P. O. Box 266 Fairport, New York 14450-0266 LDTA@aol.com 585-223-8702 585-223-7455 (Fax)