If I have a very good sources that lists its sources, do I have to list all sources in that source separatly.

+10 votes
104 views
in Policy and Style by Anonymous Roach G2G6 Pilot (197k points)

2 Answers

+9 votes

Hi Trudy, I would list them separately because:

  • I would try to link the sources to free on-line versions such as from Archive.org or FamilySearch.org.
  • You never know how long that good source will remain "good" or even on-line.  They could be here today and gone tomorrow or proven inaccurate.
  • I try to list only sources that I have looked at, as much as possible, as an item that I have considered independently of the original "good" resource. 

Just my quick thoughts.  I don't think I would rely on the good resource alone, but I would definitely include it in my list of == Sources == as a source of some information and reference.

by Kitty Smith G2G6 Pilot (638k points)
Thank you Kitty.
I agree with Kitty that it's best not to footnote a source that you haven't seen.

However, particularly when your source is one that may not be accessible forever and your source cites its sources, it's a good idea to include a note in your citation to list the sources that your source cites. Also, I agree with Kitty that other sources you've seen citations for can be listed under "Sources."
+5 votes
Adding to Kitty's thoughts:

If I'm using a recognized and readily available printed, "sourced" secondary source, such as Anderson's Great Migration Series or the Mayflower Families in Progress Books or even Jacobus' Ancient Families of New Haven, I don't feel the necessity of looking up and then listing the individual sources listed by these books. (You can't always find them or figure out what they are.) I sometimes just list the book itself, and sometimes I take the time to look up the original sources and use that instead, but a lot depends on how much time I want to devote to sourcing a profile.
by Anne B G2G Astronaut (1.3m points)

There are way too many poorly researched secondary sources out there.

All too often they're cited as evidence just by listing the name and author of the material. This type of citation style is barely worth the time it takes to enter it.... it's the equivalent of saying "XYZ said 'some stuff' and I'm using it to justify my assertions"

When citing a source that itself cites a source, you can use a layered citation to document the source(s) of your source. This is really important! It gives the reader the information they need to weigh the merits of the secondary source.

For example:

"[Bolling5] John Maddox, Goochland - Joseph Bolling, Rebecca Maddox," Internet mailing list response, Mon Feb 3 04:13:34 PST 2014 (http://bolling5.com/pipermail/bollingresearch_bolling5.com/2014-February/003843.html / also atInternet Archive Wayback Machine : accessed 7 June 2015), citing Goochland, Deed Book 4, p. 287.

Now -- the "Bolling5" website is by no means the "go to" place to get published genealogy... so if one cited that website, the evidence might be considered as poor. HOwever, the fact is that it's a transscription of a Deed Book entry.

One could have just cited the Deed Book, but that would be wrong to do unless it's been consulted directly.

On the flipside, a published print book may "seem" very reliable because someone took the time and cost to publish it. But that would be incorrect.

Goodman, Hattie S. The Knox Family: A Genealogical and Biographical Sketch of the Descendants of John Knox of Rowan County, North Carolina, and Other Knoxes. Richmond, Va: Whittet & Shepperson, 1905. Print, p. 62.

That might look great, but it turns out that the book in question is really a glorified GEDCOM compiled by the author before there were GEDCOMs, from the recollections and claims of anyone named Knox that the author could find and from whom she could squeeze information. 

The only responsible way to cite Hattie Goodman on p. 62 would really be to say:

Goodman, Hattie S. The Knox Family: A Genealogical and Biographical Sketch of the Descendants of John Knox of Rowan County, North Carolina, and Other Knoxes. Richmond, Va: Whittet & Shepperson, 1905. Print, p. 62; citing unknown sources who believed themselves to be descendants of (whomever this citation was about).

But really, I'd say that such citations have such little merit as to be much more harmful than helpful in genealogy. If we have no information on the foundations of an assertion, to repeat that assertion without a forthright explanation that it is basically a "rumor" is worth almost nothing unless the goal is to spread rumors. The only responsible way to use such information is to couch it sufficiently in qualifying phrases and explain that it's a rumor of sorts which might one day come to be backed by "real" evidence.

Related questions

+26 votes
2 answers
239 views asked Jul 22, 2015 in Policy and Style by Dale Byers G2G Astronaut (1.7m points)
+1 vote
1 answer
+12 votes
3 answers
213 views asked Jun 6, 2016 in The Tree House by Corinne Kuhlmann G2G6 Mach 1 (11.3k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...