Cource Citation Lesson

This tutorial was written by Stuart Armstrong based on how he uses Sources in TMGW and is applicable to all versions if TMGW.

As he indicates in his tutorial, his methods do not always follow the normally accepted methods that are usually recommended for TMG users.

When TMG was first released, the only Source Types were based on the fourteen models (examples) defined by Richard S. Lackey in Cite Your Sources -- A Manual for Documenting Family Histories and Genealogical Records (published 1980 by the University Press of Mississippi). Unfortunately, these did not include any direct provision for some of the newer types of media (CDs, Internet, etc.) that we have today).

To expand on Lackey and to fill this gap, Elizabeth Shown Mills wrote Evidence! Citation and Analysis for the Family Historian (published in 1997 by Genealogical Publishing Company of Baltimore). Ms. Mills increased the number of models (examples) to well over one hundred. These were based on ten elements variously used in seven different types of documents.

While Mills was an improvement over Lackey in that it gave us an updated standard to go by, many readers and users were even more confused when the document they had did not directly match one of the models (examples) that she gave.

Thus Stuart's method is much simpler and easier for some users. While it doesn't quite meet the "standards" of today, it comes close and is very effective. Some purists may find fault with his method (and I also did at first), but as he notes in his tutorial even Ms. Mills may not completely disagree. Further, Ms. Mills has also stated that most changes would be acceptable if they are consistent.

Hopefully this will help some TMG users who are struggling with Sources and Citations.

      The following is presented as a suggestion only. You may not agree with it. It is my own method and is very opinionated <grin>. I think it has merit. My purpose is to present my reasoning and the way I think about sources when I enter them into TMG, as a model that I find simplifies the whole process. This post is long. I hope I do not offend by such a long post.
     The generic source template is the book template. This template is conceptually designed after the standard method of citing sources used in all disciplines for decades (there may be variations in style but the concepts are the same), and follows the concepts we learned in high school before the days of computers when we collected our evidence on index cards. It is conceptually the same as the method used by library card catalogues, the old physical ones with the wooden drawers and brass pull-tabs -- and the computerized ones aren't that different either. To memorize this template and learn to adapt it to various source types and situations is to understand source citing.
     The basic elements of any source citation are the Author, Title, Details (such as page number), Publication Information, and Repository. In that order.
     To that basic information is frequently added comments, explanations, or evaluations as needed. The Author is followed by a comma, the Title is italicized if it is a true title. The publication information is placed in parentheses and is in three parts, punctuated as follows: (Place: Publisher, Date). Repository and other information follows. That is the basic concept. Memorize it and you'll never have trouble with sources again. Special cases can usually be adapted to that general format. There are a few exceptions such as newspapers, but for those you consult Mills or some other "authority". Even the exceptions can often be fit comfortably into the standard format with a little thought:
        Author, Title (Place of Publication: Publisher, date), details; Repository,
        call number. Comments.

Memorize it.

     There are a few other things which may modify the basic template. You simply need to remember where they are traditionally put. For example, if a work is a second edition, that goes in the publication information in front of the place, separated by a comma. You don't need a different template. You can simply put it in the place field, like this: (Second edition, New York: Sanford and Sons, 1976). The Publish Place field would then contain
       Second edition, New York
     If there is a volume number, it goes after the Title (where else?). For this I use the Subtitle field, so that the volume information doesn't get italicized. Use the Subtitle field for things that aren't really part of the Title, but must go after it to make sense. Usually, if the subtitle of a work is necessary, I just go ahead and enter it as part of the Title, and reserve the Subtitle field for things like volume numbers. It doesn't matter much what the label on the field says -- it's just a way of getting the punctuation right.
        [ITAL:][TITLE][:ITAL]<, [SUBTITLE]> = Calloway Bible Records, Volume 2.

     If the book has no author, but instead has a compiler, editor, or some other person or entity that is responsible for the work, the tradition has been to include that designation after the author's name.
      Samuelson, John, comp.
     However, this isn't always adhered to and in my opinion it isn't important. I base my assertion on the fact that the catalog of the LDS Church Family History Library in Salt Lake City seldom distinguishes between an author, compiler, or editor. It links all such under the heading of Author or "statement of responsibility" -- in other words, Who was responsible for this information? It isn't necessary to add the word comp. or ed. in my opinion. It won't effect anyone's ability to locate and identify the document.

The trick is to conceptually fit all the source information into the fields offered by the standard book template. To do that you ask yourself several questions:

Who is responsible for the information? That goes in the Author field.
What is the source called, or what label would you use to describe this source? That goes in the Title field.
Is a page number or other specification necessary to find the information in the source or describe its particular location? That goes in the Citation Detail.
Where was it published or where did it originate? That goes in the place of publication, usually only the city, not the full address.
Who made it public, or alternatively, By what means was it made public? That goes in the Publisher field. If it wasn't published, then who made it known (to you) or by what means?
When was it made public? That goes in the Publish Date -- usually only the year.
Where is the record kept -- by whom and where and under what reference number? That goes in the respective repository fields.
Are any explanations or clarifications necessary or helpful? They follow, perhaps in a split citation detail.

Last revised:

Last revised: