Even though we don't have to put the details of how the original was obtained, we so often do. We look at a census image on Ancestry, and we tell what NARA microfilm series and roll the records are on, and then we even tell what roll of FHL microfilm it was imaged from. I almost always tell something about the microfilm from which I scanned the newspaper item. I don't usually go as far as giving a roll number because often the roll numbers are specific to particular facilities, and are more easily found just by title and date. But I do give that it came from microfilm and where the microfilm came from, e.g., State Historical Society of Iowa microfilmed newspaper collection, Iowa City. If I scanned that, I wouldn't HAVE to provide that information about the microfilm, but generally most of us (I think!) assume it's a good practice and helps other researchers. Patti On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Patricia Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it might depend on how you perceived the person who obtained the > obituary. I agree that if you are having a "reliable" researcher or a > person who works for the facility from which the item is obtained that we > can treat it as something that is as reliable as the original. I did not > see that scenario in this case. Not only do we know nothing about the > reliability of the other researcher from whom Kathy obtained the obituary, > we don't know how she got it from the historical/genealogical society. Did > she access a filing card system that has them clipped out and arranged > alphabetically? Was the title of the newspaper handwritten on the card? Or > did she use the newspapers on microfilm at the genealogical society? > > So I saw the obituary more akin to something that you would have gotten in > a family collection of items of which all the details of how the obituary > was obtained is not known. > > Tom says that sometimes the second part of the citation is a courtesy ... > like a newspaper on microfilm. You can just put the essential information > at the beginning and leave off the specifics of the the microfilm. But > again, I don't see this newspaper obituary obtained by an unknown > researcher in an unknown manner under unknown circumstances to fit into the > same kind of category. > > And it certainly doesn't hurt to add the information giving the provenance. > > Patti > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Jill Morelli <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree with Michael. >> >> At the PMC 2015 class on citations taught by Tom Jones (a terrific class >> by the way) the approach taken was exactly as Michael has outlined. >> >> You cite the source of the information (the newspaper clipping) and since >> it is publically available you have no obligation to cite the email. In >> fact it would be confusing to do so. >> >> You may have to do a little work to get the column and page number, >> however, depending on whether your email sender gave you a partial or full >> citation information. >> >> Jill >> >> >> >> >> Professional genealogist >> Give the gift of family! >> >> > On Mar 5, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Michael Hait via < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > That’s really not standard operating procedure, though. Agents are >> almost never cited as a source in research reports or journal articles when >> dealing with published or public sources, if a digital image has been >> obtained. >> > >> > Michael Hait, CG(sm) >> > [email protected] >> > http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com >> > Author of *Online State Resources for Genealogy* ebook >> > More information at http://haitfamilyresearch.com/onlineStates.htm >> > >> > 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. >> > >> > >> > From: Patricia Hobbs >> > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:32 PM >> > To: Michael Hait >> > Cc: Kathie Fortner ; TGF List >> > Subject: Re: [TGF] Citation >> > >> > I think you'd cite the email and the repository because you are >> dependent on the person who sent the itme to be accurately identifying it >> (say the title or date of the newspaper is not in the copy, for example), >> but the person who sent it knows from obtaining it. Since you didn't get it >> yourself, you are letting the reader know that because the information was >> obtained from someone else, there may be errors that have crept in. >> > >> > Patti >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Michael Hait <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > Why is the email relevant at all to the citation of the newspaper? If >> the sender was functioning as an agent to obtain a publicly available >> record from the society library's microfilm collection, for example, then >> you would cite the repository information, but not the agent who obtained >> it. >> > >> > Michael Hait, CG(sm) >> > [email protected] >> > http://www.haitfamilyresearch.com >> > Author of *Online State Resources for Genealogy* ebook >> > More information at http://haitfamilyresearch.com/onlineStates.htm >> > >> > 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: Patricia Hobbs via >> > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 12:58 PM >> > To: Kathie Fortner >> > Cc: TGF List >> > Subject: Re: [TGF] Citation >> > >> > >> > Kathie, I'm not sure how you contacted the person (via Ancestry message >> > board) is material if you corresponded directly through email to get >> the >> > document(s). >> > >> > I'd refer to the attachment directly as you normally would for that >> kind of >> > document (newspaper if it's an obituary with identifying information). >> Then >> > after the semi-colon, you'd refer to the avenue of receipt as being >> sent by >> > email from the sender which would then cite the origin of the obituary >> as >> > being the Elgin County Genealogical Society. >> > >> > Patti >> > >> > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Kathie Fortner via < >> > [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > I'm trying to cite an email with attachments. The attachments are >> > identified by the sender. Am I on the right track with this? >> > >> > ​[Name of Sender], Via Ancestry Message Boards {senders email} To >> Kathie >> > Fortner, Email with attachments, 14 Aug 2014, "Hannah Bellowes >> Fortner >> > Obituary"; Attachments from "The St Thomas Evening Journal " 29 Aug >> 1908, 1 >> > Sep 1908, Elgin County Gealogical Society, -- >> > >> > * >> > Kathie Fortner* >> > * <[email protected]>* >> > >> > *www.fortner.50megs.com <http://www.fortner.50megs.com>* >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------- >> > 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 >> > >