Well maybe both are "where"? If someone says I read it in the NY Times
that's a "where" kind of statement and one could have read it while sitting
on a park bench.
I rarely in scholarly bibliographies see a repository for newspaper articles
or anything else that is published, though I can imagine that if the
newspaper was old and rare someone may manage to include that info.
In this particular instance the name of the repository of the original
"source" can only be the physical location of the Bible since the original
newspaper source itelf is likely to be found in more than one library and
NONE of those is where the researcher found the article. (Unless s/he did
some double checking.) Ordinarily repositories are NOT given for published
items (except perhaps if they're rare).
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "ronald ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 3:52 AM
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get
"lumps" for this)
Pat,
I'm trying not to split hairs on this but surely where the info was found is
the repository and not the source. The source being the name of the original
publication.
Ron Ferguson
_____________________________________________________________________
For Genealogy, Software and Social visit:
http://www.fergys.co.uk
*Over 650 Surnames from 11 Countries*
View the Grimshaw Family Tree at:
http://www.fergys.co.uk/Grimshaw/
For The Fergusons of N.W. England See:
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/fergys/
_____________________________________________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: LegacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get
"lumps" for this)
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:31:48 -0400
Well, I agree when it comes to the final bibliography -- I'm just talking
about the source list name, which is simply for our convenience. I realize
I'm assuming this doesn't make it into the final bibliography, but come to
think about it -- I don't really know that.
Anyway, I'm assuming also that Leg 7 will be a whole different ballgame.
Though I do think you have to say WHERE you found the info-- for
UNidentified newspaper clippings, at least. (I don't think that would be
necessary for fully identified newspaper clippings -- at least if you're
positive they're correctly identified -- which would mean the newspaper
name
and date and page number were part of the clipping.)
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "TH"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] An argument for splitting? (knowing I may get
"lumps" for this)
I find it odd that people would source obituaries and news articles found
between the pages of a bible differently than similar items located in a
notebook or filing cabinet. Why not take the newspaper items out of the
Bible and file them with the rest of your obituaries and news articles?
AFter all, the newspapers are the source, not where the articles are
"filed."
_________________________________________________________________
Celeb spotting – Play CelebMashup and win cool prizes
https://www.celebmashup.com
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
Legacy User Group guidelines:
http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
Archived messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/
Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp
To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
