End of year report: Genealogy Do-over

Recently, Colleen Boyle posted about her accomplishments for the year on the Genealogy Do-Over Facebook group. [1] At times during the past year, I, too, felt overwhelmed by the enormity of my task.  Four family lines (my parents, my in-laws) comprise the bulk of my research efforts, with 300-400 persons in each family tree.   Families of my brother-in-law, my nephew’s father  and other Posten families who may be related to dad’s family are also part of my research.

When I compare the status of my digital and paper files in January, 2017 to their current status,  I have made a lot of progress.  Here’s my accomplishments for 2017:

 

checkmark

  1. Color-coded paper files for each family line – parents, parents-in-law + others.
  2. Recorded complete information in paper and digital files for both sets of parents + 2 generations.
  3. Adopted standard record-keeping system for individuals and families. Completed forms for all of Dad’s direct ancestors (my focus for 2017).  Partially completed forms for some individuals not in his direct line and for some individuals in other lines.
  4. Started notebooks for BMD certificates & records. Dad’s line:  BMD records for 5 generations placed in archival quality sleeves  + several  other people , including originals sent to me by  husband of 2nd cousin. notebooks2
  5. Obtained birth, death, marriage certificates for maternal grandparents (both born 1892, d. 1974 & 1984 respectively, married 1917). Originals placed in archival quality sleeves & appropriate notebook.
  6. Digital copies of original BMD certificates & records complete for 2-3 generations of direct ancestors in each family line.
  7. Created blog to describe experience and tell family stories. Made posts 2-3 times per month.  Connected to 1st cousin who I haven’t  talked to in years after she found my blog!  Added pedigrees for each major family line (Posten-Richards, Tucker-Maurer, Ellerbee-Simmons, Johnson-Reed)  to blog.
  8. Began using research logs on template created by Thomas MacAntee. Made a few changes in log format.   36 logs created to date.
  9. Bought Evidentia & Evernote.  Used each one 5-6 times. Continuing to explore how to use these tools.
  10. Bought Evidence Explained  book.  Using this extensively.
  11. Bought ‘Ancestry citations’ cheat sheet. Using this extensively.
  12. Created digital Research Toolbox.  22 websites/ blog posts added.
  13. Attended two online webinars – New York Vital Records (mom’s family) and Writing a family history. Now have specific plan for revision of Posten family history written in 2010.
  14. Genealogy research trip to Pennsylvania (dad’s family). Met with 90+ year-old aunt and other relatives, tramped 14 cemeteries, visited 2 county historical societies.  Found and photographed grave of my paternal grandparents!  Note:  paternal grandparents listed online as buried in 3 different cemeteries.  Placed them in correct cemetery on FindAGrave website.   Sent corrections to online cemetery managers.  Posted about this in blog.

    WIN_20170813_12_19_57_Pro

    LaCoe family reunion,  August 13, 2017.  Newton, Pennsylvania.

  15. Attended LaCoe family reunion in Pennsylvania. Dad’s maternal grandmother was Amelia Magdelenne LaCoe.
  16. Connected with 2nd cousin and her son through DNA testing. Used  skills & tools to help them search for her father’s family.   Convinced my brother to have his DNA done.
  17. Opted to stay with Roots Magic software.
  18. Began more extensive research on siblings of parents and grandparents. Almost complete for Dad’s siblings through their grandchildren.
  19. Created naming convention for digital media files. Changing file names as I work on each person/ family.
  20. Joined three facebook groups – Genealogy Do Over, Early PA families, Pittston PA families.  Already member of RootsMagic facebook group.
  21. Implemented data back-up plan for files – home computer, external hard drive, cloud servers x2, paper copies.  Discussed future with oldest son.
  22. Expanded list of online sources regularly used to obtain information.
  23. Still following BSOs at times.

  2018 Goals:

  1.  Continue  paper & digital file clean-up.  Focus on mom’s family as Dad’s family files are now fairly clean.
  2. Submit at least one article to a local genealogical society for publication in their newsletter. Use information from 2010 Posten family history.
  3. Revise at least 4 chapters of Posten family history book. Explore publication options with expected publication in 2019.
  4. Send copies of grandparents’ BMD certificates to cousin.
  5. Send for at least 6 BMD certificates. If budget permits, request one certificate per month.
  6. Blog-related goals:
    1. Post on more regular basis, optimally every 2 weeks.
    2. Expand to husband’s family, at least 4 stories about his family during the year.
    3. Explore options for posting family trees to blog.
  7. Learn more about DNA testing.  Join DNA Do-over Facebook group.
  8. Assist nephew to combine family trees of his parents (his mother is my sister).

reflection-swirl-green-color-hiReflection

Organization of paper and digital files greatly improved over last 12 months.  I learned new technical skills while creating blog.  Reconnecting with a cousin as direct result of my blog is an unexpected benefit.  Genealogy research trip was more organized than would have been otherwise. With limited time there,  I identified specific goals for the trip and met most of those goals.  Husband wants to plan a trip south (southern Georgia & Alabama) to explore his family lines.  I am more consistently using varied sources for online research.  Appropriate documentation of all sources is more consistent.

Blog itself changed.  Initial entries focused on tasks and results for a specific month of the Genealogy Do-Over.  Later entries apply lessons from Genealogy Do-Over as I tell the stories of various family members.  The informational/ educational posts include examples from my genealogy work.

Another way to look at the process:  “Give your genealogy an annual checkup”

To paraphrase a recent ad campaign:

Colored file folders, notebooks, ink for printer  = $159.00

Photocopying forms at office supply =  $79.50

Genealogy reference books & programs = $156.00

Backup external hard drive + subscription = $36.00

Continuing education = $129.00

Improved genealogical research skills + future-proofing  = priceless

[1] Colleen Boyle, “Genealogy Do-Over Group,” Facebook (https://www.Facebook.com/groups/genealogydoover  : accessed 10 December 2017), posting “I tend to set unrealistic goals. . . . “, 8 December 2017.

Writing & publishing a family history: Part 3. Evaluating sources & information

In two previous blog posts, I described format changes for the next edition of Dad’s family history and examined citation of sources.   This blog post, third in the series, presents evaluation of  sources and  the information in them   Get a cup of your favorite beverage and a snack because this is a long post!  You may even want to read it in 2 sittings!

Entering the facts in a database or research log is only the beginning!  “Oh, no,” you say, “there’s more?”  Oh, yes, there’s more!  Review the document itself.  Identify the document  (or source)   as original/ primary, derivative/ secondary, or authored / tertiary.  Classify the information found in the source as primary, secondary, or unknown.   A statement about both the source and its contents can be included in your citation of the source.

“The Evidence Analysis Process Map”, designed by Elizabeth Shown Mills, puts these concepts in perspective:

QL17-Gallery (1)

Elizabeth Shown Mills, “QuickLesson 17:  The Evidence Analysis Process Map”.  Evidence Explained (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-17-evidence-analysis-process-map  :  accessed 18 December 2017.

To begin, use one of the sources cited in the previous blog:

1790 U.S. Census, Bucks county, Pennsylvania, population schedule, township not stated, p. 112 (penned), col. 1, Peter Pofte [Poste]; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com  : accessed, viewed, downloaded 17 October 2017); citing National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C., microfilm publication M637, roll 8.

1790 United States Federal Census

The document is a scanned or microfilmed copy of the original document, held at National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C. (the repository).  An online database provided access to the document. Document is a primary source.

The writing is uniform, indicating that one person filled it out. Census takers received instructions about the report and what information to collect.  Recording the information at or near the time of the event, the census taker asked questions of a household member, possibly the head of household, Peter Poste, or a neighbor.  The number and ages of people in the family should be validated by other sources and serves as a base for future research.    Primary information.

Guidelines for Evaluating Sources & Documents

Sources

In genealogy, sources are classified as original, derivative or authored. [1] You may also see the terms primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. [2] , [3]  The concepts are essentially the same.  An original source is “material in its first oral or recorded form.”   [4]  Created at or near the time of the actual event, reports by someone who experienced or witnessed an event are  classified as original sources. [5]   This includes original materials from the time period, such as tax lists.

Examples include original birth & marriage certificates, physical objects (such as a cross-stitch sampler), autobiographies, personal diaries and audio recordings.  A map created at or near a specific date is an original source. [6]  Other examples are creative works, such as art, poetry and music and original articles or reports of research studies.  Are satellite images of the earth primary sources?  Yes, if the image has not been changed.  An exact photocopy , microfilm image, photograph or scanned image of a document [7]  are generally classified as primary sources.  However, the information may be either primary or secondary.

One of my prized items is an autograph book that belonged to my maternal great-grandmother, Anna Klee Maurer.   The small book contains notes from her friends and teachers.  The most significant entries (to me) are the notes written by Anna’s future husband, Hermann Maurer (dated October 21, 1883) and the notes written, in German, by her future in-laws,  Valentine and Katharina Maurer.

Anna Klee front pages_crop

Anna (Klee) Maurer .  “Autographs Album”  ( book,  Brooklyn, New York, ca 1883); privately held  by Susan M. Posten Ellerbee, [address for private use,], Yukon, Oklahoma, 2017.  Ms. Ellerbee is Anna’s great-granddaughter.  The book has multiple handwritten entries which appear to be from her friends and teachers as well as her future husband, Hermann Maurer, and his parents, Valentin & Katharina Maurer.  Entries by Valentin and Katharina are written in German.  Some entries are dated, varying  from April to October, 1883. Hermann and Anna married December, 1883. The book was found in the personal effects of Ms. Ellerbee’s mother, Eunice Bertha (Tucker) Posten and was probably given to her by her mother, Charlotte A. (Maurer) Tucker, daughter of Hermann and Anna.

The book itself is a primary source.  Translations of the German language entries are derivative sources.  A transcription of all entries in the book becomes a derivative source with secondary information.

In contrast, derivative or secondary sources are created after the event.  A copy of an original or original in which the content has been manipulated are examples.  Derivative sources interpret or evaluate evidence, especially when the original work was done by others.  Specific examples include delayed birth certificates, tombstones, county record books (which are transcriptions of original documents), databases, translations, transcriptions of personal diaries or audio recordings, and some family histories.

An image copy of an original birth, marriage, or death certificate is a primary source.  However, if the certificate is a transcription of the original certificate, then it is a secondary source. My maternal grandparents’ death certificates, obtained from the state of New York, are original sources with a blend or primary and secondary information.

My great-aunt Viola wrote a brief family history of the Tucker and Maurer families.  The handwritten document names five generations of my mother’s family with some birth, death, and marriage dates.  Two family stories tell of possible lost fortunes.  I have a carbon copy of the original document.   Here’s my citation with source and contents evaluation:

“Maurer- Tucker Family History.” (Handwritten notes. Huntington, New York, ca. 1985), carbon copy privately held by Susan M. Posten Ellerbee, [address for private use,], Yukon, Oklahoma, 2010.  Transcribed by Ms. Ellerbee in 2012. Author considered  reliable.  No sources given.  Family stories told to Mrs. Tucker by her grandparents.  Most names & dates have been verified with other sources.  Secondary source with blend of primary and secondary information.

The third category of sources is authored works which are a “hybrid of both original and derivative sources” [8]  Labelled as tertiary in other disciplines, these sources obtain information from primary and derivative sources.   Examples include manuscripts with personal conclusions; family histories may fall into this category.   Other types are county histories with genealogical and biographical information, textbooks, directories, video documentaries and reference books such as encyclopedia, handbooks, and manuals.  The Posten family history that I am revising is this type of source.

Q & A

Are photocopies  original or derivative sources?  Mills (2015, p. 30) states  “. . . image copies as originals so long as (a) the images are legible; and (b) their information does not conflict with other information.”  If these criteria are not met, treat the image copy as derivative and  “seek access to the material from which the images were made.”   This concept provided my rationale for seeking the actual books at a local library instead of using online copies of the same books.

What about a scanned or digital image of a  marriage record found online?  Most consider this as a primary source, it meets the criteria above.  Some consider this as a derivative source.   If possible, obtain a copy of original by personally visiting or requesting the document from the repository.  Remember that the county clerk’s office or the church where the marriage was performed are the repositories, not the online database.  The church or county hold the original document as filed in their office.  A note of caution here.  Ask for an actual copy of the original or you may get a copy of a form with information typed in.  This type of document is a transcript of the original and, therefore, not a primary source.  (Disclaimer:  I read this on a blog and now can’t find the reference!).

Information

As the next step, evaluate the information in the document. Similar to the classification of sources, information is classified as primary, secondary, or unknown.  Any document may contain a blend of these categories.  Information in the document, a.k.a,  content , is classified according to its origin[9] :

Primary information is information provided by someone who experienced or witnessed an event .[10]  If created at or near the actual event, the document or information is marked as primary. [11] Examples include eyewitness accounts of an event, names of persons on census records, and first person accounts of an event  in their original form, such as handwritten entries in a personal diary.

What about death certificates?  Death certificates contain both primary and secondary information.  The person’s name and  death information – date, time, place and cause of death- are primary information.  The person’s date of birth, place of birth and parents’ names are secondary information.

Secondary information  is information provided by someone who has some knowledge of the event but did not actually witness the event.  An intrepretation or evaluation of someone else’s work is secondary.  Specific examples include marriage information copied into a courthouse or county marriage book, hearsay, tradition, and local lore.  The family stories documented by my great-aunt Viola are secondary information.  A newspaper report of a family reunion contains secondary information although the reporter may use information obtained directly from the participants.

Information is labelled as ‘unknown’  when you don’t know who provided the information.  Two examples are a newspaper obituary with no documentation of source and a photograph with no information about the persons in the photograph.  This information needs to be validated by other sources.  When you locate the newspaper where the obituary was published and the publication date, the information can then be classified as ‘secondary’.

Demarious Family Bible

Family Bible Records:  Original or derivative? 

To evaluate family Bible records,  follow guidelines from historical research methods for evaluating documents.  [12], [13]  Ask these questions:

  1. When was the Bible published? If the Bible was published prior to the events documented, then the record (and its scanned or photo copies) might be a primary source.   When photocopying or scanning Bible records, also copy the title and publication date pages.  “My cousin sent me a copy of the Bible pages but doesn’t  have the page with the publication date!”  Now what?  Look further.
  2. Who wrote the entries? You may not know exactly who entered the information.  I am fortunate to have a scanned copy of the presentation page for one family Bible so I know who the Bible belonged to and can date the entries from that point.  A transcription of that information equals a derivative source.
  3. Look for differences in handwriting. If the entries were made close to the time of each event, you should see differences in the style of handwriting as well as differences in the ink.

Ask similar questions about each document that you review.

  • Who created the document? Does the person have the authority to do so?  Ask if the creator is an expert on the topic.  A mother who writes her baby’s name and birth date in the family Bible is certainly an expert on the baby’s birth!
  • What does the document contain? Is the information relevant to your research?
  • When was the document created? If not an original document, when was it copied?  If a transcript of the original,  when was the transcription done?  How accurate is the transcription?  Think of census records.  How many times have you seen a name that was transcribed incorrectly?  Was the error because of poor or illegible handwriting?
  • Where was the document created?
  • Why was the document created?
  • Assess the quality and accuracy of the information in the document. Can you verify the information using other sources?

To summarize, careful review and analysis of every source and fact leads to a more accurate story about your family.  Seek primary sources whenever possible.  Do you include an evaluation of every source and every piece of information?  Ideally, yes.  Drop-down menus appear on most genealogy software programs for this task.  Document  the classification of sources and information on research logs.  Use software, such as Evidentia  (https://www.evidentiasoftware.com ), to assist in your analysis.

For a fun and more concise view of the topic:

RootsWeb’s Guide to Tracing Family Trees, Guide No. 12 (http://rwguide.rootsweb.ancestry.com/lesson12.htm   : accessed 18 December 2017.

reflection-swirl-green-color-hi

REFLECTION

As a nurse and teacher, I participated in 10-12 research studies during my career.  As either primary or co-investigator, I wrote and implemented protocols, then analyzed  the data and finally, wrote the final reports.  I applied lessons learned from these experiences to genealogy.   As I wrote this blog, I realized that I have not consistently evaluated sources and information.  In some cases, I saw what I wanted to see.  Months later, as I again reviewed the document and my notes, I thought, “How did I ever come to THAT conclusion?”  I am slowly becoming a better genealogist.  There is so much to learn!

What helped?  Reading about each topic from a variety of sources.  Fairly consistent information in the sources. There is some debate about whether photocopies of original certificates are primary or secondary sources.  Putting the information in a chart form for easy comparisons, although I didn’t include the chart here.

What didn’t help?   Finding other websites written in a more concise or reader-friendly format.  I had to consider that maybe I just needed to post a list of the websites and let readers go there.  But, I always learn something when I write my blogs, so here it is!

Next steps:   Take time to critically review at least one document or piece of information per research session.  I often just skim over this process.  Put a copy of the Evidence Analysis Process Map on my bulletin board.  Add items to my Research Toolbox (done).

References

[1] Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, 3rd ed. (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2015), 24.

[2] The US GenWeb Project, Primary & Secondary sources (http://www.usgenweb.com/research/sources.html  : accessed 19 Dec 2017).

[3] “Comparative Literature:  Primary, secondary & tertiary sources.”  Yale University Library (https://guides.library.yale.edu   :    accessed 14 October 2017.

[4] Mills, Evidence Explained, 24

[5] George E. Morgan, How to do everything: Genealogy. 3rd edition.  (New York: McGraw-Hll, 2012), 32.

[6] Joni Seager,  “Mapping” Primary and Secondary Sources. (http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/25244   :  accessed 19 December 2017

[7] Morgan, Genealogy, 10.

[8]Mills, Evidence Explained, 24.

[9]Mills, Evidence Explained, 25

[10] Ibid.

[11] Morgan, Genealogy, 32.

[12] Randall Seaver, “Original or Derivative Source?  Bible Records,”  Weblog:  Geneamusings, 13 June 2012 (http://www.geneamusings.com/2012/06/original-or-derivative-source-bible.html  :  accessed 14 October 2017.

[13]   Gena Philibert Ortega, “Genealogy 101:  #4:  The Family Bible.”  Weblog:  Genealogy Bank, 8 November 2016 ( https://blog.genealogybank.com/genealogy-101-4-the-family-bible.html  :  accessed 18 December 2017.

Writing & revising the family history:  Part 2.  Citations & sources.

In my last blog post, I described format changes to be made in the next edition of  my dad’s family history, “Posten Family of Northeast Pennsylvania”.  In this blog post, the second of a 3-part series, I examine the citation of sources with examples from my own work.  A later blog post will present types of sources and their evaluation.

What about citations, also known as references?  In general, I followed the Chicago Manual of Style[1] with some variation and greatly simplified many entries.

Example #1:  Census records, listed generically in the original manscript:

U. S. Bureau of Census. Washington, D.C. Census records accessed on various dates from various sources:

1790: Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

1920: Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania

Although easy to understand, these references are not complete.  Using Elizabeth Shown Mills book, Evidence Explained [2], as a guide (an item added to my Research Toolbox this year), the footnotes for these items now read:

  1. Bureau of the Census. Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1790: Pennsylvania. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1907), p. 45, column 1, Peter Poste.
  2. 1920 U.S. Census, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, pop.sch., Ransom Twp., enumeration district (ED) 93, p. 6B, Family #118, John R. Posten; digital images, com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed, viewed, downloaded 13 December 2016); citing National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C., Roll T625_1578.

The first reference is for the printed book, found at the Oklahoma State Historical Society library in Oklahoma City.  In the first edition of the Posten family history, I often added a statement such as “personal copy” or “accessed at Oklahoma Historical Society Library on 28 December 2011.”  These locations are helpful for “working notes. . . as an aid in case we need to reconsult it.  However, a citation to the facility most convenient to us personally would be of little value to users of our work who live elsewhere.” [3]  So, those comments will be deleted in the next edition.  However, the information remains in the first edition as well as in my handwritten and digital notes.

What if I found the 1790 census reference online?  If I accessed the print version of the book online, then the footnote would be similar to this:

“Heads of Families at the First Census of the United States, taken in the year 1790. Pennsylvania,”  population schedule, p. 45, col. 1, Peter Poste;  digital images, United States Census Bureau Library (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1790/heads_of_families/pennsylvania/1790i-02.pdf   : accessed 17 October 2017); citing National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C.  Record Group 29.

For a digital copy of the original page, viewed online, the footnote would be:

1790 U.S. Census, Bucks county, Pennsylvania, population schedule, township not stated, p. 112 (penned), col. 1, Peter Pofte [Poste]; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com  : accessed, viewed, downloaded 17 October 2017); citing National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, D.C., microfilm publication 637, roll 8.

Review the above 1790 census examples again and look for differences.  How many differences can you find?  Here’s my list:

  1. Page numbers.  Page number 45 from the print and online books, page 112 from online database.  Online book is digital image of the printed page, so page number for the first two footnotes is the same.  Digital image from Ancestry is a copy of the original document with a different page number as recorded on the original document.
  2. Spelling of name. Poste from print and online books, Peter Pofte [Poste] from online database.  The first two are typed transcriptions of the original document. The third is a copy of the original document.  My interpretation of the spelling was placed in brackets since it is different than what is written on the original document.   For more information about ‘long s’ (often looks like ‘f’ in early documents) and ‘short s’,  go to this blog:   Andrew West, “The Rule for Long S”, Babelstone, 12 June 2006 (http://babelstone.blogspot.com/2006/06/rules-for-long-s-html  : accessed 17 October 2017, para. 7.
  1. Source of the source. First footnote is from a printed book, complete with publisher and publication date.  No additional information needed because this book is available at many libraries.  If it is a rare book or part of a special collection and not readily available, then add the repository.  The 2nd and 3rd footnotes identify the repository (citing . . . . ) or location where the original item is held or originated.   Specific information (Record Group 29; microfilm publication 637, roll 8) reflects  information given in the database.  Remember that online databases are lists of documents and other information, not repositories.

According to Mills (2015), a repository is “an archive, government office, library, or other facility where research materials are held.”[4]  Consider that definition when deciding whether to add the repository information or not.

If you have the original document, such as a family Bible, then you are the repository. Here’s an example using my great-aunt’s handwritten family history:

Viola Blanche Maurer Tucker, “Maurer- Tucker Family History.” (Handwritten notes. Huntington, New York, ca. 1975-1980); carbon copy privately held by Susan M. Posten Ellerbee, [address for private use,], Yukon, Oklahoma, 2010.

Example #2:  A book, originally found online.  Fortunately, the Oklahoma Historical Society Library in Oklahoma City has a complete set of the Pennsylvania Archives, so I was able to put my hands on the books.  From the working manuscript:

“Chester County Tax Rates, Oxford, 1774,” In Pennsylvania Archives, Series 3, Volume XII, page. 71.  Accessed 12 December 2011 from www.fold3.com

Although you can find the information from the above footnote, it is not complete. If I continued to use the online database version, without copying information from the title page of the book, the footnote might look like:

“Chester County Tax Rates, Oxford, 1774”, Provincial Papers:  Proprietary and other tax lists of the County of Chester for the years 1774, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1785; Pennsylvania Archives, Series 3, Volume 12, page 71; digital images, Fold3 (http://www.fold3.com  : viewed 12 December 2011).

More complete footnote, based on actually viewing the print copy:

“List of taxables of the County of Chester, 1774: Chester County Tax Rates, Oxford, 1774”,  Provincial Papers:  Proprietary and other tax lists of the County of Chester for the years 1774, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1785, William Henry Egle, editor, Pennsylvania Archives, 3rd series, vol. 12,   (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Wm. Stanley Ray, 1897), 71.

You can find the referenced page from either of the two footnotes for the online source. With online sources, remember to look for a copy of the title page and publication page.  In this example,  only the last footnote gives the complete information.

A final suggestion about citing online sources – check the website before you publish.  I found several websites that changed or disappeared since I first accessed them in 2010 or 2011.

reflection-swirl-green-color-hi

Reflection/ Journal

Took more time than I expected – about 4 hours at the library.  This was at least the 3rd time that I had looked at the books but first time to actually get the full information about the reference.  Yes, it seems as if there is some duplication and/or unnecessary information.  Consider this scenario- your great grandchild finds your work 75 or 80 years from now.  Will he or she know exactly where and how you found your information?  Chances are that they will have to look up the meaning of  ‘www.website.com’! And, what, exactly is a ‘digital copy’? These terms were foreign to writers of family histories 40 years ago!  Photocopy machines were invented about 75 years ago but not readily available until about 1959.  For more information about the evolution of copy machines, read this article:

Happy Birthday, Copy Machine! Happy Birthday, Copy Machine!

What helped. Having print copy of Evidence Explained book.  Written information in initial draft of manuscript about date & place item was located.  Library call number recorded on some documents.  Using blog as a practice venue as I am still learning how to cite sources correctly.

What didn’t help. Putting off the inevitable that citations needed to be re-done.

Future:  Photocopy title pages of books and/or copy all possible information before leaving library or repository.  If applicable, record library call number.  Write the location, such as Oklahoma Historical Society library, Oklahoma City, and the date copied on my copy of the title page.  Staple or paper clip pages together before leaving the building.  And, the work continues!

[1] The Chicago Manual of Style.  16th edition.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 2010.

[2] Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace, 3rd ed. (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2015)

[3] Mills, Evidence Explained,  51.

[4] Mills, Evidence Explained, 829.