Citing of Emails

By Anonymous on Mon, 04/28/2014 - 21:38

Forums

Oh no, he's back.

I have done a Video Blog on how I handle Emails within the Family Tree Maker (FTM2014) program.

http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/2014/04/ftm2014-how-i-handle-emails_28.html

After I did that, I thought I would see if I could use the Template feature in that program to craft a reasonable Reference Note (FTM2014's term)

David Reed, Washington, D.C. to Russ Worthington, e-mail, [(e-address for private use) ]; 06 January 1999; " subject ", David Reed Collection; privately held by Russ Worthington, [(E-Address) & Street Address for private use,] Hackettstown, NJ.

I also did a blog post on how I came up with that Reference Note.

http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/2014/04/email-template-and-citations.html

I always value your feedback as I attempt to improve my skills.

Thank you,

Russ

Submitted byEEon Wed, 04/30/2014 - 12:06

Hello, "Oh no,"

Our apologies for the delay in answering, Russ. We're toiling overtime in conference vineyards this week.  Now that we've reviewed your video and your blog posting, we'll ask you a question back. Would you care to tell us why you've chosen to modify EE's QuickCheck Model for personal e-mail that appears on p. 113?  We're not saying you shouldn't have (well, maybe there's one point we'd question and a nit we'd pick <g>), but your reasoning could help others think through the issues.

Submitted byrworthingtonon Wed, 04/30/2014 - 12:37

Dear Editor,

Is the question on the output in my example? If so, the modification comes from FTM2014, I think.

I am trying to use the Templates as they are provided from the program. As my earlier attempts, I can and will go back and modify the output (Reference Note field in FTM2014). 

Is one of the modifications the fact that the sender of the email's email address wasn't after the City? 

The other issue, is probably the " subject " entry. In reality, I don't have access to that email (12 years ago) so I don't have the Subject line in my file. I should have probably used [ subject ]. I am trying to get those old emails into my current email system. Yup, I should have printed it. But I had the content of my email in FTM2014.

If there I am missing something, please let me know.

and I certainly understand your schedule and I really appreciate your feedback.

Russ

Submitted byEEon Wed, 04/30/2014 - 18:19

You spotted it, Russ. Your software's template does missplace the field for the e-address. That should not be after your name. It it the letter-writer's e-mail address that should be in that field and it should be grouped with the writer's name and address.

Given your posting at our FB page, in which you underscore your desire to learn more, I'll also elaborate on the nits, which are matters of punctuation that affect clarity. The issue of commas vs. semicolons is discussed in much more detail at EE 2.74; and the principles involved are standard across all style and citation manuals, not just EE. I'll summarize here:

  • Parallel items in a series are separated by commas.
  • If any item in that series has multiple parts, then the parts are separated by commas and the main items are separated by semi-colons.

A citation to e-mail fits that framework. There are parallel items in a series (which should be separated by semi-colons) and some of those have smaller parts that would be separated by commas:

Parallel items

  • Identification of document, its file, and its collection;
  • Identification of the repository in which one finds that file or collection.

As I'm sure you'll notice, this basic framework fits just about every document you use. For e-mail, both of the items have smaller parts that are separated by commas. The pattern used in the QuickCheck Model on p. 113 is this:

  • Writer, location, [e-address for private use,] recipient, type of document, date of document, title of document, title of file and/or collection;
  • Identification of the individual holding the document, [address & e-address for private use,] city, state.

The nit, here, is that your software sets off the date of the document with semi-colons before and after the date, as though it were a standalone item of equal weight to the other major items in the series. To the contrary, it is just one in a string of smaller parts that are essential to the identity of the document—as opposed to its whereabouts.

Oh, yes, Nits no. 2 and 3: Given that you do work frequently with the software developer, you might also point out something else.

  • It is standard English practice to put commas and periods inside quotation marks, not outside.
  • It's also standard English practice to use the appositive comma before and after a state or district, not just before—i.e., David Reed, Washington, D.C., to Russ Worthington ....

And now you'll probably never again ask a question followed by "I want to learn ... ." {smile}

 

 

"It is standard [US] English practice to put commas and periods inside quotation marks, not outside."

I just wanted to clarify that as Britain, and many of its colonies, use rules that are more logical (see Oxford Style Manual). I have heard it said when it changed its rules for reasons of logic rather than typesetting, that the US didn't follow suit, and hence the difference.

When a cited title, for instance, ends in puctuation such as '?' or '!' then treating commas as separators of the quoted text (rather than something that was an original part of it) is clearer. I think we both share similar rules applicable to '?' and '!' such that they only appear in speech quotations if they were part of that quotation and not of the surrounding sentence.

:-)

The difference is well-known, but it's a shame that the CMoS doesn't accept both variants. I think the manual does mention sec 6.9 of the Oxford Style Guide, but that's it; I suppose because it is a US style guide.

For anyone intrested in the history, there's an interesting summary (and slant) at: http://macheist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=12703.

Tony

 

Submitted byrworthingtonon Wed, 04/30/2014 - 18:35

Dear Editor,

Thank you so much. I really do appreciate the nits.

I will see if I can get some of these issues put on the table. I have a number of "normal" edits that I must to for other templates which I shouldn't have to.

Your comments are in my notes for handling Emails.

Thank you. I really appreciate this Forum where we can talk about these issues, with hopes that others visit here and learn as i have and do. And, I thank YOU for your reponses.

Russ

Submitted byEEon Thu, 05/01/2014 - 08:01

You're welcome, Russ. We appreciate all you're doing to help improve the citation element of your software. As for others visiting the forum and learning: they're visiting, for sure; but they definitelyare intimidated by the thought of jumping in to these discussions!

 

Submitted byrworthingtonon Thu, 05/01/2014 - 08:13

Dear Editor,

My submission was just sent. Hopefully the discussion can now begin.

To others Please jump into the discussion. A Properly formatted Source and Citation is an important part of the Genealogical Proof Standard. Totally frightening for me, but had to do it.

I am sure that the program that I use isn't the only genealogy database management program that has citation presentation issues. WE need to give feedback to the developers.

Thank you for your time and feedback.

Russ