I apologize if I seem to be repeatedly asking the same question.
I'm stuck - perhaps unintentionally trying too hard to standardize in the matter of "master lists".
If, in the case of online (derivative) sources, it is appropriately conceivable to concurrently have:
- Source list entry A | Reference note A
- Source list entry A | Reference note B
- Source list entry A | Reference note C
how does it become advantageous to shift the emphasis in a reference note by reversing the order of record/database? Is not "Source list entry A" the "master list entry"? Not complying with the 'smaller-to-larger' rule somehow makes me uneasy.
Contingent to this perplexion:
Am I wrong to sense that the many QuickCheck models in EE imply that there must be an appropriate source list entry for every first reference note? Or, are the three examples in each model simply tied to that page's source type?
I perceive the same implication at many points in Chapters 1 & 2. One could say that entry/note are "hand-in-glove" components of a full citation; even if a source will be used only once in the project. Reading 2.47 thru 2.54 provides lots of guidance relative to source list arrangement but also persuades me that I should craft the list entry first and then the first reference note.
The QuickCheck Models are my study focus right now.
Wayneson, I'm not sure that…
Wayneson, I'm not sure that my conception of what you are trying to say is your conception. Source A would appear in a Source List in an abbreviated form. Then Reference Notes 1, 7, 13, 27, and 182 could all refer to Source A but each would be a more-explicit citation than the one that appears in the Source List.
EE, in almost every case, does provide three formats for citing a source: (1) Source List Entry; (2) First Reference Note; and (3) Subsequent Reference Note. In many of our projects—at both research and writing stages—we may use all three of these, or just two, or even one. EE provides the examples but they do not all have to be used in any project. As with individual citation fields, citation models will include them all although all may not be needed in individual cases.
The QuickCheck Models that appear at the start of each record-type chapter in EE exist primarily to explain what the various fields represent. In those models, each field or element is paired with a descriptive tag to clarify what goes in that field.
Does this help?
I think our conceptions…
I think our conceptions might not perfectly match. Let me try bouncing off this sentence in your reply:
Source A would appear in a Source List in an abbreviated form. Then Reference Notes 1, 7, 13, 27, and 182 could all refer to Source A
I think we are both using my generic "Source A" to represent a source list entry, i.e. a description of the higher presentation levels of a given source record or item. To honor both its value to our readers and convention we craft this list entry using EE principles. Excepting the worksheet stage of our research, it would be unlikely to craft a source list entry if we never intended to craft a corresponding first reference note. My conception is thusly that the two are "horse & carriage". My conundrum is: which is horse and which is carriage? In saying "abbreviated" do you mean a form that limits the description to those higher presentation levels? Or, do you mean a form that's an abbreviation of the first reference note? In saying "refer" do you mean contain the verbiage of the source entry? Or, do you mean in some way to denote a connection to the same source record or item?
In line with these thoughts, I'm having a hard time getting my head around your reply sentence:
In many of our projects—at both research and writing stages—we may use all three of these, or just two, or even one.
It's not so much a struggle with the many variations in citation construction as it is a struggle to settle on how source list entries and first reference notes are dependent on one another for purposes of crafting.
Does this confuse?
Wayneson, your italicized…
Wayneson, your italicized sentence is well stated. Your paragraph three, sentence three seems to be a core issue:
"Excepting the worksheet stage of our research, it would be unlikely to craft a source list entry if we never intended to craft a corresponding first reference note.”
I’m not sure what you are describing as a “worksheet” is during the research stage. Let’s examine three basic practices. That will lay the groundwork for understanding the issue in the last part of this sentence:
Within the framework of Practice 3, it is not just likely but imperative that we create Source List Entries even if we never create a First Reference Note. It is imperative that we record every source we consult for a problem; otherwise, as our research progresses, we will continually waste time “checking out” that source again with the same negative results. Our Source List for any well-done project typically contains many entries that we never need to expand into a First Reference Note.
In your horse-and-carriage analogy, the horse would be the Source List Entry; the carriage would be an extension of that.
An “abbreviated” citation may be either the Source List Entry or the shortened Subsequent (shortened) Reference Note.
In line with these thoughts, I'm having a hard time getting my head around your reply sentence: In many of our projects—at both research and writing stages—we may use all three of these, or just two, or even one.
My fuller statement in the original response was this:
EE, in almost every case, does provide three formats for citing a source: (1) Source List Entry; (2) First/Full Reference Note; and (3) Subsequent/Shortened Reference Note. In many of our projects—at both research and writing stages—we may use all three of these, or just two, or even one.
It is a struggle to settle on how source list entries and first reference notes are dependent on one another for purposes of crafting.
Does the above help your struggle?
The italicized sentence is…
The italicized sentence is well stated because you stated it, lol!
Yes! You have greatly helped me in my "struggle" and my conceptions are being modified as we converse. I will now need to process it all. Thank you for taking the time to help.
Your cautions with respect to genealogy software are especially important to me. It is in that bailiwick that the "master list" looms strongly. I certainly come at this with very little experience as a historical researcher. As I stated in a previous thread, I'm striving to honor quality citation formats as much as the software (also website structures) and my creativity allow. My software of choice pointed me to EE. It's turned out (of course) I have much to more to learn than I anticipated.
Edit: "___to more to___" …
Edit: "___to more to___"
Also, my use of the term, "worksheet", was hastily chosen to identify what probably should have been "research report"
> I have much to more to…
> I have much to more to learn than I anticipated.
Wayneson, that's the story of our lives as researchers. If we become so full ourselves that we think we've learned it all, then we'll fail to keep up with all the new tools and new resources we need to use to keep our work accurate.
OK... here I come b-laboring…
OK... here I come b-laboring, b-laboring...
Considering matters surrounding the overall matter of constructing full reference notes and source list entries, I'm yet feeling uncertain.
Hoping to assuage this nasty uncertainty, I will construct a semi-frivolous litany of basics with the aim to pinpoint my concern:
If I know that this reference note will be the only one I'll need for this report, there is no reason to craft a source list entry.
But, the truth is I will be needing many reference notes, and furthermore, I will in some cases be using a certain source as the basis for multiple notes containing different "items of interest".
You have advised:
Source A would appear in a Source List in an abbreviated form. Then Reference Notes 1, 7, 13, 27, and 182 could all refer to Source A but each would be a more-explicit citation than the one that appears in the Source List.
My 82-year-old mind prompts me to ask: when you refer to "abbreviated form" are you stating...
This distinction is important to me relative to the citation you helped me correct in a previous forum thread ( https://www.evidenceexplained.com/node/2121 ) :
"U.S., School Yearbooks, 1900-2016," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/371611395:1265 : accessed 20 December 2022), image 30; Wellsboro High School (Pennsylvania), The Nessmuk, vol. 3 (N.p.: n.p., 1932), “Seniors” photos of Wayne Knowlton and sister, Rita Knowlton.
This full reference note is describing a derivative source, found online, and arranged using the principle that we are allowed to choose whether to emphasize the database or the image. Choosing to emphasize the database stemmed from my desire to use the source for multiple reference note citations. EE advises that it also saves me from needing a source list entry for every time I cite the source. BTW, it also strikes me as contradicting the "smaller-to-larger" rule.
Bottom line questions:
I know I'm taking up space here with stuff that is covered in the book, but, there must be something I'm missing. Am I guilty of some omission or fallacy here, EE??
PS... I've found some…
I've found some further help @...
For starters... There are…
There are times when the source list entry appropriately contains verbiage not used in the full reference note.
1. “Salem Monthly Meeting, N.J., Births & Deaths, 1686 –1798,” p. 5, entry for Henry Jennings, 1677 arrival and family registration in Salem, West Jersey, of births beginning 1642, County Surry, England; imaged in “U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681–1935,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/2189/images/31906_284105-00329 : accessed 6 June 2022), image 7 of 68; citing (generically) Quaker monthly meeting records archived at Guilford College (North Carolina), Earlham College (Indiana), and Haverford and Swarthmore Colleges, Pennsylvania.
Source List Entries:
“Salem Monthly Meeting, N.J., Births & Deaths, 1686 –1798.” Original register. Imaged as “U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681–1935.” Database with images. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2189/. 2022.
“U.S., Quaker Meeting Records, 1681–1935.” Database with images. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2189/. 2022.
It's beginning to seep in…
It's beginning to seep in...
Time spent with genealogy software has been leading me astray. My "horse and carriage" analogy is not that great for EE discipline. Source List Entry and First Reference Note are not precisely "companions". Each is a citation event requiring thinking through independently.
Wayneson, you nailed it…
Wayneson, you nailed it. Each thing we do, as history researchers, 'requires thinking through independently.' That's how we ensure accuracy in our conclusions—and if our results aren't accurate, then what's the point of all our work?