Recent comments

  • Reply to: Source-of-Source Again   2 hours 7 min ago

    c0r8g30, I'm assuming you've checked to see if there is a catalog description online at their website. Do let us know what response you get in response to a "how to cite" question. It will be interesting to compare their response to those elsewhere.

  • Reply to: Source-of-Source Again   11 hours 59 min ago

    Thank you for your clarity. I think what I need to do next is reach out to the Hungarian National Archive and determine how they reference their holdings and the actual reference they have for these birth records from the town of Tokaj, for someone wanting to research on-site. This probably also satisfies GPS 2 more fully. I appreciate your comments.

  • Reply to: Source-of-Source Again   12 hours 32 min ago

    c0r8g30, "wordiness" is a concern for researchers at the output stage, not at the input stage. At input, we can add as much to our citation as we need to explain the source so we can better understand it and make valid judgments about the reliability of the information we're taking from it. We can add whole sentences or even whole paragraphs, if an explanation warrants it. At publication, with both research notes and source notes, we rethink how much detail is necessary to present our conclusions and the evidence that supports it. In that version, we edit with the benefit of hindsight that we did not have when we first used a source.

    As for the use of quote marks in that explanatory sentence you added, we use quote marks only when we're quoting--i.e., copying exactly--what our source says. If our source offers a long description of its own source and we want to summarize that, then we use quote marks only around the phrases we copy exactly.

    As for using parentheses around the year, as opposed to the manner in which you present it above: parentheses are a punctuation tool we use to set off certain items whose nature or relatedness might be otherwise confused with the main set of details. In this case, there's no need for parentheses.

  • Reply to: Source-of-Source Again   1 day 2 min ago

    The last part, beginning from the period seems wordy. Also, typically my citations are layered using a semi-colon, but I was not sure if the part after the period was another layer, and if so, what phrase to use. Perhaps a semicolon and then "imaged from ....". Also would I be placing the year imaged in paranthesis (1965)? Is there a real title that would need to be in quotes for that scannng in 1965? I could not tell by reading the FHL Catalog entry. And if there is a real title, is there another portion that is not the title that should be in italics? 

    Hence, my posting of the question. Any feedback/opinion would be welcome. I know it is art not science. Just want to be precise and consistent in my artwork.

  • Reply to: Source-of-Source Again   1 day 2 hours ago

    c0r8g30, may I ask why you think it might not be "valid"? What do you think might be wrong with it?