TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-01 > 0978364270


From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Repositories
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 10:51:10 -0500
References: <002b01c072ea$c939dc60$fb72ed18@lhnhome><4.1.20001231205341.01393a70@pop.mis.net>
In-Reply-To: <00fb01c07399$10fd4c40$90fc5ecf@casper>


Cheri Casper wrote:
>However, if you put the NARA microfilm number into your citation, then it is
>moot where you found the information and I would use MCPL (it's a great
>place to do research, agree?) because with the film number anyone can go to
>ANY repository that has the census film with that number and view it. Why
>refer back to the NARA when you have only visited there in your dreams?
>Isn't it far more accurate to state WHERE you did find the information, not
>other possibilities?
>
>To me, this borders on a sort of fabrication which genealogists want to get
>away from. If I saw that the repository for something was the NARA I would
>assume that you visited the place; MCPL if that is where you found it.
>Let's not mislead people.

There are firms that reproduce the NARA films and sell/rent them at very
low prices (relative to NARA). Since these are copies of copies, the
resolution is very often not as good and thus what appear in the copy may
be completely different in the NARA copy. In that case, I would cite the
actual Repository or the firm who furnished the film noting it is a _copy_
of the NARA film.

On the other hand, if you obtain the film directly from the NARA or one of
it branches or know that the copy you have came directly from the NARA,
then it is the same as saying that you got the information from the NARA
because you _would_ get the same thing there and that is who distributes
the films. Thus no one is misled.

Happy New Year -

----------
Lee Hoffman/KY
E-mail:
TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
--------------
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)

This thread: