TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-08 > 1028244888


From: "Caroline Gurney" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source standards -- was Mills Source for Memorial?
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 00:37:51 +0100
References: <167.1198849e.2a7aa89a@cs.com> <001901c2398e$cf2bf920$14d0d043@oemcomputer> <010501c239a9$c231e020$557f0050@caroline> <008301c239c7$73e11080$48cfd043@oemcomputer>


Lew wrote:

> Caroline,
> And who is your leader? Is it to each his own or what?
>
> Lew

Yep! We're a pretty anarchic bunch, I'm afraid. I once did a survey of some
back numbers of the Genealogists Magazine, the quarterly journal of the
Society of Genealogists, and found almost as many different ways of citing
sources as there were contributors. I believe the Society used to produce a
leaflet on source citation but it has been out of print for a long while. In
17 years of genealogical research in the UK I have never seen any discussion
on the subject in family history magazines. There are no home-grown books
comparable to Mills or Lackey. Genealogists here are, of course, very hot on
the importance of citing sources but not fussed at all in what form you do
it. It is a non-issue in the UK.

I read History at university & was taught to cite sources in the standard
way used by academic historians. In general, I would say that is the method
most often used in genealogical books & journals here. But I have also seen
people using methods more usual in scientific journals (for which there are
British Standards).

I have read Mills & found the book most interesting, not least because it
brought home to me the big differences between research in the US & UK. Much
of what prompted her to write the book is very culturally specific.

Caroline Gurney
Portsmouth, UK


This thread: