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.