Bibliography, no books used

By Anonymous on Mon, 07/31/2017 - 19:56

Forums

I have written a family history book which uses copies of, or copied segments of, Birth Death and Marriage Certificates.  These have all been captured as Figures and listed in a List of Illustrations at the front of the book.  I have tried to follow the Chicago Style for citations throughout, especially with in text referencing.  I have an an Appendix where I have evidence articles (from digitised newspaers) itemised, but in text I have put eg Refer Appendix 1 - 1.1 this article explains about why he was in the area on this date. Using the Windows snipping tool I have captured the heading with the location and inserted the item 'in text'.  It is not an item with a Figure number.

My question is Bibliographies list books and their authors in alphabetical order.  I have not used any books but want to list evidence used.  I dont want to use subscripts through as there are too many.In the bibliography can I use following example

Cover

. Copy extra birth certificate of ...

. Paragraph The history of Chicago was a period of time .... (URL for where wording was taken)

Page 4

Article taken from Online Digitised Newspapers   cite location

ALSO DO I list Appendix items in the bibliograph.

How do I handle the above situation

Thanks for the advice

 

Submitted byEEon Mon, 07/31/2017 - 21:22

Rob, given that Chicago Manual doesn't give guidance on citing birth, death, and marriage certificates; I'm not sure how you handled this. Typically, history researchers follow Chicago Manual for published resources. When using formally archived manuscripts from, say, academic libraries, we can extemporize on the basic examples that Chicago provides—but, as a rule, the research fields that use original records and follow Chicago all use Chicago's Humanities Style, rather than the in-text Scientific Style. The great variety and complexity of historical manuscript material created across time and place is traditionally handled in footnotes or endnotes, rather than in-text citations. 

EE 2.38-2.54 is the section in which we cover how to organize Source Lists (the name that EE prefers for "bibliographies" since, as you noted, so much of our research is in original records rather than books and journals. That section of the introductory chapter on citation demonstrates how to organize not only authored works but also manuscript materials. In subsequent chapters that focus on specific types of records, you'll find other organizational suggestions for source lists—as with 6.3 for census records.

Thanks, I will look into this.  Re the BDM certificates I have captured them copying relevant parts into story giving each capture a Figure No.  I have listed them in the List of Illustrations at front of book as Figures like you would an image. eg Figure 1 Death Certificiate of ... Figure 2 Copy extract from Act wich governs Adoption Law, Figure 3 Photo representation of what life was like in area. etc

I have given source detail under each item in List of Illustrations.  So I guess they do not go as a bibliography.  as there are no books sourced from, just digitised newspapers and Ancestry for example can I use the bilbiography to list those citations. Explained better, hopefully I will not be using in text reference numbers but would rather use page numbers to identify location within my book.

EG

Page 1

Sourced from (URL) etc.

Page 2

1.  Sourced from Public Records Office (with location). Figure 2 was provided by (citing email it came in)...

2.  Souced from Ancestry.com     (Ive read from book how to cite this)

and so on.

Is this acceptable for a Bibliography listing or would I not need a bibliography.

Thanks for prompt responses.

Rob

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 08/01/2017 - 09:48

Rob,

Several issues are at play here. As a starting point, evidence standards require documentation to be attached to specific assertions or to specific documents—not to whole pages. Any time we make an assertion that is not "common knowledge" we identify the source(s) that supports that assertion. However, we use footnotes or endnotes to cite those sources, not the bibliography.

Any time we present a document image on a page, it should be accompanied by a citation on that page or, at the least, a reference-note number that corresponds to the footnote or endnote in which we fully identify the source.

Bibliographies (aka source lists) are not keyed to individual items or individual pages. They are simply a summary list of all the sources used—books, articles, maps, or documents collections. A bibliography or source list does not cite specific pages in a book or specific documents in a collection.

Have you had an opportunity to read EE's Chapter 1 ("Fundamentals of Evidence Analysis") and Chapter 2 ("Fundamentals of Citation")?   

 

Submitted byRob.Ashon Wed, 08/02/2017 - 07:31

At this stage I have read some of it; As I have no books for bibliography I like the idea of source lists and will work out something with that. your information has helped a lot and I will read further on this topic thanks.
If I wanted to use the citing pages option which would be recommended if it does exit?
Rob

PS I re-read your previous comment - I see what you mean.  I really liked the idea of the list which said Page 1  1. Article source cited  2.  Certificate from cited

Page 2 (might not have any citations so not required)

Page 3 1. Newspaper source cited 2. Interview cited

And so on.  After all it is only for family use, but still want it right in case it gets published later on.

There is so many citations to do that if I use in-text referencing on some pages there would be more numbering than text!  I think I have made myself clearer this time.  But on reading your recommendations further it seems that this method is not possible.  I have also worked out now to use a Glossary to explain abbreviations.

If there is any possible way to use the above without in-text reference numbers I would like to know but I understand now why it is so, and better to use in-text numbering.

Rob

Submitted byEEon Thu, 08/03/2017 - 09:45

Rob, in light of your last message and its last paragraph, I may have misunderstood your reference to "in text" references. That term, as used in citations, does not refer to the tiny little superscript reference numbers that we place amid text. It refers to a parenthetical citation such as one of these:

John Brown enlisted in the Tennison Guards on 13 May 1781 (Fairfax History, 13).

John Brown enlisted in the Tennison Guards on 13 May 1781 (Franklin, 13)

The first instance cites the book title and page; the second cites the author and page.

As we've discussed, these in-text citations are not an approach used by serious researchers of history who do their research in original records rather than derivatives sources.

Standards for historical research do require us to cite a reliable source for every assertion that is not public knowledge and we do this by

  • inserting a superscript reference number immediately after the assertion in our text
  • creating a correspondingly numbered footnote or endnote that identifies the source and adds any other critical information about that source.

A tiny superscript number does not inpinge in any way upon "readability" for family members who (we think) might be turned off by source citation. It's no more intrusive than a punctuation mark. If your well-done research creates more footnotes than text on a page and you are concerned that your family members might find this off-putting, then simply use endnotes rather than footnotes. That way, (a) casual readers will have pages filled with your wonderful narrative and will not be exposed to those intimidating citations unless they take the trouble to turn to the end of the book, while (b) serious researchers will be able to evaluate the reliability of the assertions you are making.

Submitted byRob.Ashon Thu, 08/03/2017 - 19:45

Thankyou Editor, I think it would have been easier if I knew what I know now at the start! it has been become a book that wasn't initially intended so now I am keen to get the finish detail correct. Re the in-text wording I have done a lot of reading and mis-interpret some of it with no previous training in this field. My concern was too many numbers in the text but I learnt to do the tiny super scripts; that solved that issue. Now with this advice I think I will do the end note option. The pages are already full A4. There was, on most pages, simply no room to add footnotes. I am grateful to you for your explanations.

Some pages will have foot notes and most will now have end notes. Re the superscript numbering is end note number different to foot notes when both types will be used?
EG [1] on page 2, [2] on page 3 for a footnote, but what if an item won't fit and needs to go as an end note?
OR I'm thinking that I see now that footnotes start with number [1] for each new page not consecutive through the book?
How do I then do the end note numbering for the same page? - eg [1] footnote [E1] endnote.
Can you do an end note for the whole book or at the end of each section?

Very much appreciate your explanations and the help given by this forum.

Update- I did some more reading and discovered end notes in Word. I had seen it there before but with no use for it didn't know what it did. From your advice I did some experimenting with it, and it answered my previous questions. Having done it manually before I did not understand but now do. Re the permissions for my Appendix I asked the source and they gave me my permissions as well how to get the exact citations for each article - now too easy. I really wish I knew all this at the start, but like I said had no idea the research would end up a book. At this rate I could almost write another with the knowledge I now have, but not for a while!

I am discovering that APA seems easier than Chicago. Is it OK to mix the styles?

Ah, yes, Rob!  We all wish we knew to start with, what we know now.  

As for mixing styles, that is a sure way to confuse our readers.  

Every field of study has its own manner of citing sources—one that has developed across a century or more of efforts to document information as completely, as clearly, and as concisely as possible. 

APA (which is designed for psychologists whose citations are simply to other published studies) is never recommended for historical research, a field where sources are far more complicated. APA and other Scientific Style formats are simply incapable of handling the descriptions of sources that are needed in order for historical  researchers to understand what they are using and the relative reliability of each source. 

In the long run, "easy" is not the best criteria for us to apply.

 

Rob asks (in Message 8):

Re the superscript numbering is end note number different to foot notes when both types will be used?

Rob, using both endnotes and footnotes is not the recommended practice, but once in a blue moon there is a need to do so. Usually we see these in tables that are referenced separately from the text of an article book.

When we use both endnotes and footnotes, we have to be careful that we do not confuse our readers with two sets of numbers. We also do not use brackets around our numbers. Nor would we italicize them when we are writing a family history, because italicized superscripts are a genealogical mechamism for designating generations.

The convention, when using both endnotes and footnotes is to use ordinary superscript numbers for the endnotes (which will be much more extensive) and to use symbols for footnote references.

There is a specific set of symbols that are used and they are used in a specific order. Chicago Manual (16th ed.) lists these, in order, at 3.77.

Where symbols are used, the sequence is as follows:

1.      * (asterisk)

2.      † (dagger)

3.      ‡ (double dagger)

4.      § (section mark)

5.      || (parallels)

6.      # (number sign, or pound)

In this edition of Chicago Manual, at 14.44–14.46 you’ll also find a fuller discussion of using “Two Sets of Notes.”

Submitted byRob.Ashon Sat, 08/05/2017 - 02:24

Thanks, as a novice, I'm beginning to understand now. These kinds of explanations from you have made a big difference.
I have read lots of material which started to get me confused. I believe I am ready to tackle the task ahead of me now with the Chicago Manual and your book beside me! I have had if proof read to date and have been told the story is of a high standard so it will be nice to finish it off correctly.