1,147
edits
Rework first several paragraphs.
(Change headings to avoid wiki bug that hides article title) |
(Rework first several paragraphs.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
One citation style used by genealogical and historical researchers is Evidence Style, developed by Elizabeth Shown Mills.<ref>See Elizabeth Shown Mills, ''Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace'', 3d ed. (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing, 2015).</ref> It is an extension of the notes/bibliography system from ''The Chicago Manual of Style''.<ref>''The Chicago Manual of Style'', 16th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).</ref> ''The Chicago Manual of Style'' gives many examples of citations for different published sources. It provides little guidance for the many different types of manuscript sources used by genealogists and the many different ways archives organize those sources. It provides almost no information regarding derivative sources.<ref>The "quoted in" section on p. 764 of the 16th ed. is the sole example.</ref> Evidence Style follows Chicago's general framework but adapts and extends it, with many examples of various manuscript sources, archival arrangements, and derivatives. Evidence Style helps genealogists capture all the information that is necessary to relocate a source, evaluate its quality, and, optimally, find the original from which it was derived. | |||
== The Basics == | == The Basics == | ||
Contrary to the terminology used by Personal Ancestral File (PAF) and some other genealogy programs, both Evidence and Chicago Styles, define a ''source'' as a document, register, publication, film, artifact, website, or person that supplies information. A ''citation'' is the entire textual reference to the source.<ref>Mills, ''Evidence Explained,'' 820 ("citation") and 828 ("primary source"). Also note this quote from p. 42: "The term ''citation'' is not synonymous with the term ''source,'' and the two should not be used interchangeably."</ref> | |||
In Evidence and Chicago Styles, there are four types of citations: | |||
In | |||
#'''Source list'''. (Chicago calls this a ''bibliography''.) Each citation—called a ''source list entry''—is punctuated as if it were a paragraph and each citation element were a sentence. Published works are sorted by the last name of the author. To effectively organize the source list, Evidence Style allows considerable latitude in the arrangement of unpublished works. Examples in this article illustrate ordering unpublished works geographically. However, elements of the source list entry can be reordered to reflect other organization schemes when appropriate. One source list entry will often underpin multiple reference notes. Therefore, the source list entry excludes the more detailed citation elements present in the notes. For example, page numbers for books and manuscript volumes would be present in notes but not the source list entry.<ref>Mills, ''Evidence Explained,'' 43, 60-1, 67-71.</ref> | #'''Source list'''. (Chicago calls this a ''bibliography''.) Each citation—called a ''source list entry''—is punctuated as if it were a paragraph and each citation element were a sentence. Published works are sorted by the last name of the author. To effectively organize the source list, Evidence Style allows considerable latitude in the arrangement of unpublished works. Examples in this article illustrate ordering unpublished works geographically. However, elements of the source list entry can be reordered to reflect other organization schemes when appropriate. One source list entry will often underpin multiple reference notes. Therefore, the source list entry excludes the more detailed citation elements present in the notes. For example, page numbers for books and manuscript volumes would be present in notes but not the source list entry.<ref>Mills, ''Evidence Explained,'' 43, 60-1, 67-71.</ref> | ||
#'''First reference note. '''Both Evidence and Chicago allows either footnotes or endnotes and use the term ''reference notes, ''or simply ''notes ''to speak of both. Each note is punctuated as if it were a sentence containing a list of citation elements. As with any list, commas are the basic punctuation used to separate the elements. If commas within elements make the list ambiguous, then semicolons are used to separate the elements. Parentheses typically surround publication data (place, publisher and date). In Evidence Style, this convention is applied to both print works and online works.<ref>Mills, ''Evidence Explained,'' 43, 46, 60, 77, 86-7.</ref> | #'''First reference note. '''Both Evidence and Chicago allows either footnotes or endnotes and use the term ''reference notes, ''or simply ''notes ''to speak of both. Each note is punctuated as if it were a sentence containing a list of citation elements. As with any list, commas are the basic punctuation used to separate the elements. If commas within elements make the list ambiguous, then semicolons are used to separate the elements. Parentheses typically surround publication data (place, publisher and date). In Evidence Style, this convention is applied to both print works and online works.<ref>Mills, ''Evidence Explained,'' 43, 46, 60, 77, 86-7.</ref> | ||
#'''Subsequent note. '''In the final draft of a narrative,after the first reference to a source, it is not necessary to duplicate a complete citation in subsequent notes. In fact, abbreviating subsequent citations in a published work makes notes more understandable and signals source reuse. The abbreviated style of subsequent notes should be applied only at the time of publication, because the order of notes can change as a manuscript is revised. You should always enter complete citations in genealogical records. If you never develop a manuscript for publication, then you can safely ignore the "subsequent note" format.<ref>Mills, ''Evidence Explained,'' 46, 62, 64-6.</ref> | #'''Subsequent note. '''In the final draft of a narrative, after the first reference to a source, it is not necessary to duplicate a complete citation in subsequent notes. In fact, abbreviating subsequent citations in a published work makes notes more understandable and signals source reuse. The abbreviated style of subsequent notes should be applied only at the time of publication, because the order of notes can change as a manuscript is revised. You should always enter complete citations in genealogical records. If you never develop a manuscript for publication, then you can safely ignore the "subsequent note" format.<ref>Mills, ''Evidence Explained,'' 46, 62, 64-6.</ref> | ||
#'''Source label. '''This is the citation that should appear in the margin, on the front of all photocopies and prints of original records; it should also accompany all transcriptions and abstracts. Evidence Style does not dictate whether the researcher format a label as a Source List Entry or a Reference Note. Suffice it to say, the citation should be complete in case the page is shared independently of other documents.<ref>Mills, ''Evidence Explained,'' 43, 66-7.</ref><br> | #'''Source label. '''This is the citation that should appear in the margin, on the front of all photocopies and prints of original records; it should also accompany all transcriptions and abstracts. Evidence Style does not dictate whether the researcher format a label as a Source List Entry or a Reference Note. Suffice it to say, the citation should be complete in case the page is shared independently of other documents.<ref>Mills, ''Evidence Explained,'' 43, 66-7.</ref><br> | ||