177
edits
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats: Difference between revisions
FamilySearch Wiki talk:Source Citation Formats (view source)
Revision as of 11:44, 9 September 2009
, 9 September 2009Weighing in on the discussion
(comment) |
(Weighing in on the discussion) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
I am all for the use of templates as well. Then, if we change formats, just the template needs to change. I still would really like to see what each of the formats look like though. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | I am all for the use of templates as well. Then, if we change formats, just the template needs to change. I still would really like to see what each of the formats look like though. [[User:Thomas Lerman|Thomas Lerman]] 01:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== Citation Styles: The Real Issue | As Steven points out, the choice among Chicago, Turabian, and Mills is virtually no choice at all. All three are theoretically the same. | ||
<blockquote>What's new in the seventh edition [of Turabian’s ''Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations''?] ... The material on source citation and style has been thoroughly updated to reflect the recommendations of ''The Chicago Manual of Style'', fifteenth edition. It now includes advice on citing a wider range of sources—including online sources—and on other aspects of writing influenced by electronic technology.<ref>"What’s New in the Seventh Edition," ''Kate L. Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations,'' web site of the University of Chicago Press (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/books/turabian/ : accessed 9 September 2009).</ref> </blockquote> | |||
And from Mills: | |||
<blockquote>Turabian Style, a standard for college and university students since 1937, is essentially an abbreviated version of Chicago Style. </blockquote><blockquote>Among these options, ''The Chicago Manual''’s Humanities Style has been the most effective for history researchers. ''Evidence Explained ''is rooted in that style. However, most ''Evidence ''models treat original or electronic sources not covered by [the then current editions of] the manuals above, as well as some modifications that better meet the analytical needs of history researchers.<ref name="Mills42">Elizabeth Shown Mills, ''Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace'' (Baltimore : Genealogical Publishing Company, 2007), 42; PDF edition.</ref> </blockquote> | |||
I have the latest editions of Turabian and CMS, and I think it safe to say that Turabian is no longer a branch off of CMS, but is now equivalent, though only a student's subset is presented. To the best of my knowledge, the primary modification that Mills makes to CMS/Turabian is the addition of analytical information at the end of a note describing anything that compromises the information or evidence arising from the source. However, since ''Evidence'' was in production at the same time as CMS 15th ed., it is possible that treatment of electronic sources differs between the two. As Thomas points out, we should produce a sample note (''note'' is shorthand for ''footnote ''or ''endnote'') in CMS 15 and Mills for the BYU online books and see if the two differ. [[User:RobertRaymondUT|Robert]] 17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Citation Styles: The Real Issue === | |||
I think the issue needs to be addressed at an even higher level. The Research Wiki is intended to belong to the Community--everyone, not just the scholarly professional genealogist. How can we expect the hobbyist wanting to add something they learned to a page to have to learn the proper style in Turabian? They probably don't own a copy of Turabian, and it might take them an hour to figure out how to add the proper citation when writing the article addition itself only took them 20 minutes. The result will be that many people will not cite sources at all and that others will not want to contribute for fear of being held up to ridicule for improper citations. I especially can't see thousands of our contributors having to buy a copy of Shown Mills and then spend a few hundred hours learning it. | I think the issue needs to be addressed at an even higher level. The Research Wiki is intended to belong to the Community--everyone, not just the scholarly professional genealogist. How can we expect the hobbyist wanting to add something they learned to a page to have to learn the proper style in Turabian? They probably don't own a copy of Turabian, and it might take them an hour to figure out how to add the proper citation when writing the article addition itself only took them 20 minutes. The result will be that many people will not cite sources at all and that others will not want to contribute for fear of being held up to ridicule for improper citations. I especially can't see thousands of our contributors having to buy a copy of Shown Mills and then spend a few hundred hours learning it. | ||
My opinion in both the case of the Wiki and even in the larger issue of citations in genealogical software is simply this -- what's important is the bibliographic information, not the syntax, nor the order of the elements of the citation. If it identifies where it came from, gives credit to its creator, and facilitates locating the source, I DON'T CARE about the format <insert sound of gasps>. Let's get the information in with a scholoarly scope of source information and avoid requiring scholarly discipline in source citation format. I say Turabian, Shown Mills, APA, MLA, Chicago, or Aunt Mary's style are all ok, as long as the full complement of source elements are properly identified. Let's change the thrust of this discussion to say what are all of the elements of a proper source citation for a book, an article, a web page, an email, an audio recording, a forum posting, a blog post, a tweet, etc. etc. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)<br> | My opinion in both the case of the Wiki and even in the larger issue of citations in genealogical software is simply this -- what's important is the bibliographic information, not the syntax, nor the order of the elements of the citation. If it identifies where it came from, gives credit to its creator, and facilitates locating the source, I DON'T CARE about the format <insert sound of gasps>. Let's get the information in with a scholoarly scope of source information and avoid requiring scholarly discipline in source citation format. I say Turabian, Shown Mills, APA, MLA, Chicago, or Aunt Mary's style are all ok, as long as the full complement of source elements are properly identified. Let's change the thrust of this discussion to say what are all of the elements of a proper source citation for a book, an article, a web page, an email, an audio recording, a forum posting, a blog post, a tweet, etc. etc. [[User:Alan|Alan]] 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)<br> | ||
<br> | |||
I agree with most of the points previous made throughout this page. I feel: | |||
*We should use a template to avoid reworking citations if our policy evolves. | |||
*Ideally, the template would allow the user to choose the display style produced by the template. Until a template of that sophistication is available, the template would display citations in a style that we decide. I recommend CMS with Mills extensions. | |||
*We should retain the non-template <ref> wiki reference for contributors with enough motivation to enter a citation but not enough motivation to learn the template. | |||
*We should set a citation style policy that is applied to resolve edit wars. It describes what changes to existing citations are allowed and what is not allowed. I don't like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_present_citations the Wikipedia policy] of following the style of the first citation. I suggest our policy be to use the template. Thus, changing a non-templated citation to use the template would be an acceptable change, but changing from template to non-template would not be supported if the issue came to arbitration. | |||
*On a web page, if ''footnote'' is defined as a note located at the bottom of the web page (as opposed to a printed page), then ''footnote'' and ''endnote'' are equivalent. As long as everyone in a discussion understands that, then the terms might be used interchangably in our discussions. But since that mutual understanding can't be guaranteed, I recommend we use the term ''endnotes'' to describe the list of notes that appear at the end of the encyclopedia article. [[User:RobertRaymondUT|Robert]] 17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Inline citations vs. footnotes === | === Inline citations vs. footnotes === | ||
| Line 27: | Line 43: | ||
Are there standards for inline citations? What about citations in bulleted lists? I assume they follow bibliographic form, which is different from footnotes. Shown-Mills refers to both Chicago Style and MLA in her book Evidence. I assume she used them as her basis and made adjustments as needed to cover genealogical applications, kind of like how the GSU took the DD book numbering system and adjusted it to fit the needs of the FHL. Are Chicago Style and MLA all that dissimilar? I don't know. I would vote to use Shown-Mills, if my assumptions about her sources are true. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 22:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | Are there standards for inline citations? What about citations in bulleted lists? I assume they follow bibliographic form, which is different from footnotes. Shown-Mills refers to both Chicago Style and MLA in her book Evidence. I assume she used them as her basis and made adjustments as needed to cover genealogical applications, kind of like how the GSU took the DD book numbering system and adjusted it to fit the needs of the FHL. Are Chicago Style and MLA all that dissimilar? I don't know. I would vote to use Shown-Mills, if my assumptions about her sources are true. [[User:Bakerbh|Bakerbh]] 22:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
I like the footnote format (author's name in spoken order, parenthesis around publication information). So it makes sense to me to put WorldCat and FHL call numbers in square brackets rather than parenthesis. [[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 12:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | I like the footnote format (author's name in spoken order, parenthesis around publication information). So it makes sense to me to put WorldCat and FHL call numbers in square brackets rather than parenthesis. [[User:Diltsgd|Diltsgd]] 12:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
=== How Wikipedia does it === | === How Wikipedia does it === | ||
| Line 85: | Line 101: | ||
We don't have to follow it, but we should be aware that there is a standard for U.S. professional genealogists. ''The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual'' specifies in standard #s36:<br> | We don't have to follow it, but we should be aware that there is a standard for U.S. professional genealogists. ''The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual'' specifies in standard #s36:<br> | ||
<blockquote>Sources for all genealogical and biographical fact statements are cited in ''The Chicago Manual of Style''’s "reference note" format in footnotes or endnotes.<sup>10</sup> ''The Chicago Manual''’s in-text and reference-list styles, and formats used in other disciplines, such as the MLA (Modern Language Association), AP (Associated Press), or APA (American Psychological Association) styles, are not standard for genealogical writing.<ref name="BCG">Board for Certification of Genealogists, ''The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual'' (Washington, D.C.: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 14.</ref></blockquote> | <blockquote>Sources for all genealogical and biographical fact statements are cited in ''The Chicago Manual of Style''’s "reference note" format in footnotes or endnotes.<sup>10</sup> ''The Chicago Manual''’s in-text and reference-list styles, and formats used in other disciplines, such as the MLA (Modern Language Association), AP (Associated Press), or APA (American Psychological Association) styles, are not standard for genealogical writing.<ref name="BCG">Board for Certification of Genealogists, ''The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual'' (Washington, D.C.: Ancestry Publishing, 2000), 14.</ref></blockquote> | ||
Footnotes 1 | Footnotes 1 reads:<br> | ||
#Source citation models can be found in footnotes and endnotes used in scholarly genealogical journals and in such genealogy-specific manuals as Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG, ''Evidence! Citation and Analysis for the Family Historian ''(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1997).<ref name="BCG3">Ibid., 3.</ref><br> | #Source citation models can be found in footnotes and endnotes used in scholarly genealogical journals and in such genealogy-specific manuals as Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG, ''Evidence! Citation and Analysis for the Family Historian ''(Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1997).<ref name="BCG3">Ibid., 3.</ref><br> | ||
and<br> | and footnote 10: (Sorry if it shows "1" again. This seems to be an editor bug that reverts to "1" when saved.)<br> | ||
#Models, using the ''Chicago Manual'' reference-note format as applied to the kinds of sources often used by genealogical researchers, are included in the publications mentioned in Note 1 (p. 3).<ref name="BCG" /> | #Models, using the ''Chicago Manual'' reference-note format as applied to the kinds of sources often used by genealogical researchers, are included in the publications mentioned in Note 1 (p. 3).<ref name="BCG" /> | ||