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, 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 >

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

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