How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

Peter Merchant
At the moment a common resource that I use is the Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks  database, but I feel that this is just supplying pointers to the actual resource. How should I enter it?

http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bury/Holcombe/emmanuel/index.html  and here is an example:

Baptism: 14 Apr 1834 Emmanuel, Holcombe, Lancashire, England
Jane White - Daughter of James Entwistle, Repd. Father & Nancy White
     Born: 14 Apr
     Abode: Nuttall
     Occupation: Piecer
     Baptised by: W. Holt Incumbent Curate
     Register: Baptisms 1820 - 1835, Page 282, Entry 2250
     Source: Original Parish Register at Manchester Archives


I have been putting it in as note on the person.


Thanks,

Peter M.


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

GRAMPS - User mailing list


Hi All

Also interested in the answer to this

Although I already have Manchester Archives as a Repository

Regards
Phil
MLFHS 12583
Dumfries
On 19/10/2018 21:15, Peter Merchant wrote:

> At the moment a common resource that I use is the Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks  database, but I feel that this is just supplying pointers to the actual resource. How should I enter it?
>
> http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bury/Holcombe/emmanuel/index.html  and here is an example:
>
> Baptism: 14 Apr 1834 Emmanuel, Holcombe, Lancashire, England
> Jane White - Daughter of James Entwistle, Repd. Father & Nancy White
>       Born: 14 Apr
>       Abode: Nuttall
>       Occupation: Piecer
>       Baptised by: W. Holt Incumbent Curate
>       Register: Baptisms 1820 - 1835, Page 282, Entry 2250
>       Source: Original Parish Register at Manchester Archives
>
>
> I have been putting it in as note on the person.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter M.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org
>


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

GRAMPS - User mailing list
In reply to this post by Peter Merchant

Parish registers for Holcombe, 1726-1948

Manuscript/Manuscript on Film
English
Salt Lake City, Utah : Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1960-2003
on 4 microfilm reels ; 35 mm.

Notes

Microfilm of original records at the Manchester Public Library, and at the Manchester Archives Central Library in Manchester, England.

The chapelry of Holcombe is in the parish of Bury. The church is known as Emmauel's Church.

Manchester Archives Central Library call nos.: L 21/8/2/4; L 21/8/3/1-5; L 21/8/4/3-4.


Baptisms, marriages, burials 1726-1858
British Film
Film 918040
DGS 8088052
Births and christenings 1797-1805
British Film
Film 223724
DGS 7567884



Baptisms, 1858-1931. Marriages, 1837-1948.
British Film
Film 2356155
DGS 8100145



Burials, 1846-1902.
British Film
Film 2356156 Items 1 - 2
DGS 4405409

The scans for Film 2356156 items 1 - 2 are available in folder DGS 4405409 on Familysearch website access the DGS folder via the Catalog search entering just the number of either the film or the DGS into the Film/Fiche search box.

The other DGS folders are not available outside a Family History Centre

George Baynes



On 19/10/2018 21:15, Peter Merchant wrote:
At the moment a common resource that I use is the Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks  database, but I feel that this is just supplying pointers to the actual resource. How should I enter it?

http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bury/Holcombe/emmanuel/index.html  and here is an example:

Baptism: 14 Apr 1834 Emmanuel, Holcombe, Lancashire, England
Jane White - Daughter of James Entwistle, Repd. Father & Nancy White
     Born: 14 Apr
     Abode: Nuttall
     Occupation: Piecer
     Baptised by: W. Holt Incumbent Curate
     Register: Baptisms 1820 - 1835, Page 282, Entry 2250
     Source: Original Parish Register at Manchester Archives


I have been putting it in as note on the person.


Thanks,

Peter M.


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

Michael Stockhausen
In reply to this post by Peter Merchant
Peter,
I would create a repository "Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks " (database,
URL: http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/indexp.html) and a source "Parish records
Emmanuel, Holcombe - Transcription" (in the call no. field:
http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bury/Holcombe/emmanuel/index.html).  I would add
the word "transciption" or something similar to underline that your source
was not the original parish record.
The citation could be something like "Baptism of Jane White on 14 Apr 1834"
The details below can be put into a note to the baptism event.

Michael

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: Peter Merchant
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 10:15 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [Gramps-users] How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

At the moment a common resource that I use is the Lancashire On-line Parish
Clerks  database, but I feel that this is just supplying pointers to the
actual resource. How should I enter it?

http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bury/Holcombe/emmanuel/index.html  and here is an
example:

Baptism: 14 Apr 1834 Emmanuel, Holcombe, Lancashire, England
Jane White - Daughter of James Entwistle, Repd. Father & Nancy White
     Born: 14 Apr
     Abode: Nuttall
     Occupation: Piecer
     Baptised by: W. Holt Incumbent Curate
     Register: Baptisms 1820 - 1835, Page 282, Entry 2250
     Source: Original Parish Register at Manchester Archives


I have been putting it in as note on the person.


Thanks,

Peter M.


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org 



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

Peter Merchant
Michael,
I feel that this is just creating work. OK, I can create one repository, but I am going to have MANY sources for all the different churches that I have accessed, and a citation per person when I already have the information as a note to that person.

Because as George says the original transcriptions are in Manchester library or the Genealogical Society of Utah, shouldn't they be the repository and work down from there?

Peter



On 19/10/2018 22:23, Michael Stockhausen wrote:

> Peter,
> I would create a repository "Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks " (database, URL: http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/indexp.html) and a source "Parish records Emmanuel, Holcombe - Transcription" (in the call no. field: http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bury/Holcombe/emmanuel/index.html).  I would add the word "transciption" or something similar to underline that your source was not the original parish record.
> The citation could be something like "Baptism of Jane White on 14 Apr 1834"
> The details below can be put into a note to the baptism event.
>
> Michael
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Peter Merchant
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 10:15 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Gramps-users] How to properly reference a pointer to a source.
>
> At the moment a common resource that I use is the Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks  database, but I feel that this is just supplying pointers to the actual resource. How should I enter it?
>
> http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bury/Holcombe/emmanuel/index.html  and here is an example:
>
> Baptism: 14 Apr 1834 Emmanuel, Holcombe, Lancashire, England
> Jane White - Daughter of James Entwistle, Repd. Father & Nancy White
>     Born: 14 Apr
>     Abode: Nuttall
>     Occupation: Piecer
>     Baptised by: W. Holt Incumbent Curate
>     Register: Baptisms 1820 - 1835, Page 282, Entry 2250
>     Source: Original Parish Register at Manchester Archives
>
>
> I have been putting it in as note on the person.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter M.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org
> .
>


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

GRAMPS - User mailing list



Hi Peter

Agree with you on amount of work but maybe the most precise

Note the original registers in this case are at Manchester Archive so
that is the only repository as far as I see

The latter Day Saints, have a filmed copy

The LanOPC website hold  a transcription

So my take on this is to keep it simple but I feel I might be breaching
all sorts of codes and guidance

Repository Manchester Archives

Source Lancashire OPC

Citation Baptism register for Parish of
                        Emmanuel, Holcombe, Lancashire 1726-1948



Regards
Phil
MLFHS 12583
Dumfries
On 20/10/2018 08:28, Peter Merchant wrote:

> Michael,
> I feel that this is just creating work. OK, I can create one repository, but I am going to have MANY sources for all the different churches that I have accessed, and a citation per person when I already have the information as a note to that person.
>
> Because as George says the original transcriptions are in Manchester library or the Genealogical Society of Utah, shouldn't they be the repository and work down from there?
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On 19/10/2018 22:23, Michael Stockhausen wrote:
>> Peter,
>> I would create a repository "Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks " (database, URL: http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/indexp.html) and a source "Parish records Emmanuel, Holcombe - Transcription" (in the call no. field: http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bury/Holcombe/emmanuel/index.html).  I would add the word "transciption" or something similar to underline that your source was not the original parish record.
>> The citation could be something like "Baptism of Jane White on 14 Apr 1834"
>> The details below can be put into a note to the baptism event.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Peter Merchant
>> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2018 10:15 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: [Gramps-users] How to properly reference a pointer to a source.
>>
>> At the moment a common resource that I use is the Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks  database, but I feel that this is just supplying pointers to the actual resource. How should I enter it?
>>
>> http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bury/Holcombe/emmanuel/index.html  and here is an example:
>>
>> Baptism: 14 Apr 1834 Emmanuel, Holcombe, Lancashire, England
>> Jane White - Daughter of James Entwistle, Repd. Father & Nancy White
>>      Born: 14 Apr
>>      Abode: Nuttall
>>      Occupation: Piecer
>>      Baptised by: W. Holt Incumbent Curate
>>      Register: Baptisms 1820 - 1835, Page 282, Entry 2250
>>      Source: Original Parish Register at Manchester Archives
>>
>>
>> I have been putting it in as note on the person.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Peter M.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gramps-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
>> https://gramps-project.org
>> .
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org
>


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

enno
In reply to this post by Peter Merchant
Peter,
> I feel that this is just creating work. OK, I can create one repository, but I am going to have MANY sources for all the different churches that I have accessed, and a citation per person when I already have the information as a note to that person.
Same here. I'm sort of lazy, and attaching repositories is a lot of
work. I would probably add the word transcription to the source title,
and put Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks in the author field, and the
URL in the publication information.

> Because as George says the original transcriptions are in Manchester library or the Genealogical Society of Utah, shouldn't they be the repository and work down from there?
No, I don't think so. AFAIK, there are no original transcriptions, just
books in the Manchester library, and films in the FHL, but if you
haven't seen either, I see no point in mentioning a repository that you
never accessed for this source.

If you follow the citation format used on FamilySearch, you can add the
film and page number to the citation, mentioning those as the
transcription source, your reference. You can add that to the citation
note too, but in that case, it probably won't make it to your footnotes.

Regards,

Enno



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

GRAMPS - User mailing list



Hi All

I feel an explanation of the situation with regard to Manchester Central
Library might be helpful here I consider it as much as a repository as
the TNA Kew or the British Museum Library.
A few years ago this building underwent a massive refurbishment, when
completed the old Manchester Record Office (Marshall St) was closed and
every item was moved to the new Archives plus.
So the library now holds for example all the Parish Registers from
around the area any that are filmed are not available to the public, it
holds all Manchester BMD registers over 100 years old which are still
only available to the registrars and the index books to the registers
which are becoming so frail that the RO assisted by the MLFHS became
involved in the LANCSBMD project. It holds other transcriptions dating
back many years some of which are so frail that they have been filmed to
protect them.

What I am trying to say here is that I am sure this situation occurs in
other places, where the "original record" is becoming that delicate it
will never be on view other than to specialists.

So I am happy to put the location for the original document as the
repository whether that be an Archive or a church because the next
generation will never see them. The number of repositories for the UK is
therefore not particularly large when you take it on a personal level
with examples being
The National Archive (TNA) Kew
Manchester Archive+
London Metropolitan Archives

Of course the GRO does not fall into this category because it holds no
original records only copies

Regards
Phil
MLFHS 12583
Dumfries
On 21/10/2018 17:03, Enno Borgsteede wrote:

> Peter,
>> I feel that this is just creating work. OK, I can create one
>> repository, but I am going to have MANY sources for all the different
>> churches that I have accessed, and a citation per person when I
>> already have the information as a note to that person.
> Same here. I'm sort of lazy, and attaching repositories is a lot of
> work. I would probably add the word transcription to the source title,
> and put Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks in the author field, and the
> URL in the publication information.
>
>> Because as George says the original transcriptions are in Manchester
>> library or the Genealogical Society of Utah, shouldn't they be the
>> repository and work down from there?
> No, I don't think so. AFAIK, there are no original transcriptions, just
> books in the Manchester library, and films in the FHL, but if you
> haven't seen either, I see no point in mentioning a repository that you
> never accessed for this source.
>
> If you follow the citation format used on FamilySearch, you can add the
> film and page number to the citation, mentioning those as the
> transcription source, your reference. You can add that to the citation
> note too, but in that case, it probably won't make it to your footnotes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Enno
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org
>


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

enno

Hi Phil,

What I am trying to say here is that I am sure this situation occurs in other places, where the "original record" is becoming that delicate it will never be on view other than to specialists.

So I am happy to put the location for the original document as the repository whether that be an Archive or a church because the next generation will never see them. The number of repositories for the UK is therefore not particularly large when you take it on a personal level with examples being
The National Archive (TNA) Kew
Manchester Archive+
London Metropolitan Archives
I know what you mean, and I know that things can even get more complicated than this. And that's because, before computers, most events were recorded twice in the civil registry, where one copy was kept in the local office, and the other was sent to a more central archive.

This means for every BMD book in the Groningen provincial archive, there is another in the National Archive in The Hague, and I know at least two records in my tree where the text contents of these entries are different. In the first one that I found, a civil marriage, the groom's birth date was 10 years off in the original, while it was accurate in the copy, i.e. the record that was sent to the national archive. In the other, one record explicitly says that a child is illegitimate, where the other doesn't mention that, even though in both only the mother is mentioned, so that the situation is quite clear.

I found this, when I compared some scans on the Groningen archive site with microfilm images of the same records available on FamilySearch. The scans, full color, were made from the books that were transported from the local municipalities to the provincial archive, and the B&W microfilm images were made of films made in the National Archive in The Hague.

For these sources, it is essential that I don't just record place, date, and record number, but also include the repository, being either the Groningen archive, or FamilySearch/The National Archive.

For Peter's case however, I don't think that the archive should be recorded as the repository of the source itself, because apparently his source is a transcription, and not the image that was found my Michael. He must mention the repository where the transcript was made however, but IMO, that should be mentioned in the citation, or citation note.

When I mention transcription, I'm referring to a written copy or an extract of another document, which may be an original, or not. And written may be hand written, made on a typewriter, or on a computer, and in all of these cases errors can be made. That's why I think that it's essential to record the true nature of the source, and its repository, and always mention the repository of the source that you actually saw. The repository of the source it was extracted should then be mentioned in its own context.

When I use the birth of my parental grandfather as an example, I get

"Netherlands Births and Baptisms, 1564-1910," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X1WW-CLF : 10 February 2018), Henricus Borgsteede, 31 Mar 1879; citing Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands; FHL microfilm 253,479.
where the citing part at the end is the reference to the original. And this one is incomplete, because there is no mention of the page or frame number, and in this case, I can't see where the microfilm was made either, so I don't know the exact nature of the original. I would need to check the LDS catalog for that.

Regards,

Enno



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

Michael Stockhausen
Hi Enno,
 
there was a similar situation in Poland: the civil BMD records were (handwritten) copies of the (original) church records.
In many cases, both versions have survived and, as you mention, may differ.
For me, these are two different sources, e.g. “Mileszki Catholic – civil” and “Mileszki Catholic – church”.
Today, both are kept at the State Archives, so it is not sufficient to just differentiate between repositories.
Besides, in most reports the repositories are not stated.
 
Regards,
Michael
 
 
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] How to properly reference a pointer to a source.
 

Hi Phil,

What I am trying to say here is that I am sure this situation occurs in other places, where the "original record" is becoming that delicate it will never be on view other than to specialists.

So I am happy to put the location for the original document as the repository whether that be an Archive or a church because the next generation will never see them. The number of repositories for the UK is therefore not particularly large when you take it on a personal level with examples being
The National Archive (TNA) Kew
Manchester Archive+
London Metropolitan Archives
I know what you mean, and I know that things can even get more complicated than this. And that's because, before computers, most events were recorded twice in the civil registry, where one copy was kept in the local office, and the other was sent to a more central archive.

This means for every BMD book in the Groningen provincial archive, there is another in the National Archive in The Hague, and I know at least two records in my tree where the text contents of these entries are different. In the first one that I found, a civil marriage, the groom's birth date was 10 years off in the original, while it was accurate in the copy, i.e. the record that was sent to the national archive. In the other, one record explicitly says that a child is illegitimate, where the other doesn't mention that, even though in both only the mother is mentioned, so that the situation is quite clear.

I found this, when I compared some scans on the Groningen archive site with microfilm images of the same records available on FamilySearch. The scans, full color, were made from the books that were transported from the local municipalities to the provincial archive, and the B&W microfilm images were made of films made in the National Archive in The Hague.

For these sources, it is essential that I don't just record place, date, and record number, but also include the repository, being either the Groningen archive, or FamilySearch/The National Archive.

For Peter's case however, I don't think that the archive should be recorded as the repository of the source itself, because apparently his source is a transcription, and not the image that was found my Michael. He must mention the repository where the transcript was made however, but IMO, that should be mentioned in the citation, or citation note.

When I mention transcription, I'm referring to a written copy or an extract of another document, which may be an original, or not. And written may be hand written, made on a typewriter, or on a computer, and in all of these cases errors can be made. That's why I think that it's essential to record the true nature of the source, and its repository, and always mention the repository of the source that you actually saw. The repository of the source it was extracted should then be mentioned in its own context.

When I use the birth of my parental grandfather as an example, I get

"Netherlands Births and Baptisms, 1564-1910," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X1WW-CLF : 10 February 2018), Henricus Borgsteede, 31 Mar 1879; citing Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands; FHL microfilm 253,479.
where the citing part at the end is the reference to the original. And this one is incomplete, because there is no mention of the page or frame number, and in this case, I can't see where the microfilm was made either, so I don't know the exact nature of the original. I would need to check the LDS catalog for that.

Regards,

Enno



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

GRAMPS - User mailing list


Hi Michael
Looking at your case for me the original record would be the church the
other being a copy and therefore would suffer all the usual issues with
handwritten copies of hand written documents

But I think this why I chose Gramps it is sufficently structured to be
really usable as a framework for information and sufficiently flexible
to allow everyone to do there own thing with how they present it

Regards
Phil
MLFHS 12583
Dumfries

On 21/10/2018 21:29, Michael Stockhausen wrote:

> Hi Enno,
>
> there was a similar situation in Poland: the civil BMD records were (handwritten) copies of the (original) church records.
> In many cases, both versions have survived and, as you mention, may differ.
> For me, these are two different sources, e.g. “Mileszki Catholic – civil” and “Mileszki Catholic – church”.
> Today, both are kept at the State Archives, so it is not sufficient to just differentiate between repositories.
> Besides, in most reports the repositories are not stated.
>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>
> From: Enno Borgsteede
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:46 PM
> To: phil wharram ; [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] How to properly reference a pointer to a source.
>
> Hi Phil,
>
>
>    What I am trying to say here is that I am sure this situation occurs in other places, where the "original record" is becoming that delicate it will never be on view other than to specialists.
>
>    So I am happy to put the location for the original document as the repository whether that be an Archive or a church because the next generation will never see them. The number of repositories for the UK is therefore not particularly large when you take it on a personal level with examples being
>    The National Archive (TNA) Kew
>    Manchester Archive+
>    London Metropolitan Archives
>
> I know what you mean, and I know that things can even get more complicated than this. And that's because, before computers, most events were recorded twice in the civil registry, where one copy was kept in the local office, and the other was sent to a more central archive.
>
> This means for every BMD book in the Groningen provincial archive, there is another in the National Archive in The Hague, and I know at least two records in my tree where the text contents of these entries are different. In the first one that I found, a civil marriage, the groom's birth date was 10 years off in the original, while it was accurate in the copy, i.e. the record that was sent to the national archive. In the other, one record explicitly says that a child is illegitimate, where the other doesn't mention that, even though in both only the mother is mentioned, so that the situation is quite clear.
>
> I found this, when I compared some scans on the Groningen archive site with microfilm images of the same records available on FamilySearch. The scans, full color, were made from the books that were transported from the local municipalities to the provincial archive, and the B&W microfilm images were made of films made in the National Archive in The Hague.
>
> For these sources, it is essential that I don't just record place, date, and record number, but also include the repository, being either the Groningen archive, or FamilySearch/The National Archive.
>
> For Peter's case however, I don't think that the archive should be recorded as the repository of the source itself, because apparently his source is a transcription, and not the image that was found my Michael. He must mention the repository where the transcript was made however, but IMO, that should be mentioned in the citation, or citation note.
>
> When I mention transcription, I'm referring to a written copy or an extract of another document, which may be an original, or not. And written may be hand written, made on a typewriter, or on a computer, and in all of these cases errors can be made. That's why I think that it's essential to record the true nature of the source, and its repository, and always mention the repository of the source that you actually saw. The repository of the source it was extracted should then be mentioned in its own context.
>
> When I use the birth of my parental grandfather as an example, I get
>
>
>    "Netherlands Births and Baptisms, 1564-1910," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X1WW-CLF : 10 February 2018), Henricus Borgsteede, 31 Mar 1879; citing Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands; FHL microfilm 253,479.
> where the citing part at the end is the reference to the original. And this one is incomplete, because there is no mention of the page or frame number, and in this case, I can't see where the microfilm was made either, so I don't know the exact nature of the original. I would need to check the LDS catalog for that.
>
> Regards,
>
> Enno
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Gramps-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
> https://gramps-project.org
>


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

paul womack
In reply to this post by Peter Merchant
Peter Merchant wrote:

> At the moment a common resource that I use is the Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks  database, but I feel that this is just supplying pointers to the actual resource. How should I enter it?
>
> http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Bury/Holcombe/emmanuel/index.html  and here is an example:
>
> Baptism: 14 Apr 1834 Emmanuel, Holcombe, Lancashire, England
> Jane White - Daughter of James Entwistle, Repd. Father & Nancy White
>       Born: 14 Apr
>       Abode: Nuttall
>       Occupation: Piecer
>       Baptised by: W. Holt Incumbent Curate
>       Register: Baptisms 1820 - 1835, Page 282, Entry 2250
>       Source: Original Parish Register at Manchester Archives
>
>
> I have been putting it in as note on the person.

I use this website.

I simply created a source, called "Lancashire On-line Parish Clerks database"
and put a large note AGAINST THE SOURCE describing what it is, and how it works.

For a citation, I simply put the whole of the text from the website (as per your post)
into a citation note.

This is "good enough" for me (or others) to re-find and check (or expand)
my original data, which is (IMHO) the purpose of a citation.

  BugBear


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

Bryan S
In reply to this post by Michael Stockhausen
Enno,

I went to a genealogy seminar at the University here where the presenter was a Polish genealogy researcher.
He has published a few books relating to the records in Poland pre and post-WW II. Very interesting history in that region, in my opinion.


I am technically 100% of Prussian decent yet, there is no more country named Prussia and the area whence my ancestors came is now considered
within the borders of Poland. "What a tangled web we weave!".

If you'd like, I can post his website where you can peruse his work.

Bryan





On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 22:29 +0200, Michael Stockhausen wrote:
Hi Enno,
 
there was a similar situation in Poland: the civil BMD records were (handwritten) copies of the (original) church records.
In many cases, both versions have survived and, as you mention, may differ.
For me, these are two different sources, e.g. “Mileszki Catholic – civil” and “Mileszki Catholic – church”.
Today, both are kept at the State Archives, so it is not sufficient to just differentiate between repositories.
Besides, in most reports the repositories are not stated.
 
Regards,
Michael
 
 
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] How to properly reference a pointer to a source.
 

Hi Phil,

What I am trying to say here is that I am sure this situation occurs in other places, where the "original record" is becoming that delicate it will never be on view other than to specialists.

So I am happy to put the location for the original document as the repository whether that be an Archive or a church because the next generation will never see them. The number of repositories for the UK is therefore not particularly large when you take it on a personal level with examples being
The National Archive (TNA) Kew
Manchester Archive+
London Metropolitan Archives
I know what you mean, and I know that things can even get more complicated than this. And that's because, before computers, most events were recorded twice in the civil registry, where one copy was kept in the local office, and the other was sent to a more central archive.

This means for every BMD book in the Groningen provincial archive, there is another in the National Archive in The Hague, and I know at least two records in my tree where the text contents of these entries are different. In the first one that I found, a civil marriage, the groom's birth date was 10 years off in the original, while it was accurate in the copy, i.e. the record that was sent to the national archive. In the other, one record explicitly says that a child is illegitimate, where the other doesn't mention that, even though in both only the mother is mentioned, so that the situation is quite clear.

I found this, when I compared some scans on the Groningen archive site with microfilm images of the same records available on FamilySearch. The scans, full color, were made from the books that were transported from the local municipalities to the provincial archive, and the B&W microfilm images were made of films made in the National Archive in The Hague.

For these sources, it is essential that I don't just record place, date, and record number, but also include the repository, being either the Groningen archive, or FamilySearch/The National Archive.

For Peter's case however, I don't think that the archive should be recorded as the repository of the source itself, because apparently his source is a transcription, and not the image that was found my Michael. He must mention the repository where the transcript was made however, but IMO, that should be mentioned in the citation, or citation note.

When I mention transcription, I'm referring to a written copy or an extract of another document, which may be an original, or not. And written may be hand written, made on a typewriter, or on a computer, and in all of these cases errors can be made. That's why I think that it's essential to record the true nature of the source, and its repository, and always mention the repository of the source that you actually saw. The repository of the source it was extracted should then be mentioned in its own context.

When I use the birth of my parental grandfather as an example, I get

"Netherlands Births and Baptisms, 1564-1910," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X1WW-CLF : 10 February 2018), Henricus Borgsteede, 31 Mar 1879; citing Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands; FHL microfilm 253,479.
where the citing part at the end is the reference to the original. And this one is incomplete, because there is no mention of the page or frame number, and in this case, I can't see where the microfilm was made either, so I don't know the exact nature of the original. I would need to check the LDS catalog for that.

Regards,

Enno



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

enno
Hello Bryan,

> I went to a genealogy seminar at the University here where the
> presenter was a Polish genealogy researcher.
> He has published a few books relating to the records in Poland pre and
> post-WW II. Very interesting history in that region, in my opinion.
>
> I am technically 100% of Prussian decent yet, there is no more country
> named Prussia and the area whence my ancestors came is now considered
> within the borders of Poland. "What a tangled web we weave!".
>
> If you'd like, I can post his website where you can peruse his work.
I'm not that much into Polish research myself, but the website may be
very useful for others, and maybe you can add it to our wiki too.

Regards,

Enno





_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

Bryan S
In reply to this post by Bryan S
Hi Michael,

Southeast of Stettin around a small village named Flatow (Flatau).

However, my Grandfather's death certificate, here in the US, says he was born in Linden. I'm not sure how to reconcile the two birth places.
Ideas?

Thx,
Bryan



On Tue, 2018-10-23 at 21:19 +0200, Michael Stockhausen wrote:
Hi Bryan,
 
I guess you mean me (and not Enno).
Yes, I’d be interested.
Where in Prussia did your ancestors came from?
 
Michael
 
From: Bryan S
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] How to properly reference a pointer to a source.
 
Enno,
 
I went to a genealogy seminar at the University here where the presenter was a Polish genealogy researcher.
He has published a few books relating to the records in Poland pre and post-WW II. Very interesting history in that region, in my opinion.
 
 
I am technically 100% of Prussian decent yet, there is no more country named Prussia and the area whence my ancestors came is now considered
within the borders of Poland. "What a tangled web we weave!".
 
If you'd like, I can post his website where you can peruse his work.
 
Bryan
 
 
 
 
 
On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 22:29 +0200, Michael Stockhausen wrote:
Hi Enno,
 
there was a similar situation in Poland: the civil BMD records were (handwritten) copies of the (original) church records.
In many cases, both versions have survived and, as you mention, may differ.
For me, these are two different sources, e.g. “Mileszki Catholic – civil” and “Mileszki Catholic – church”.
Today, both are kept at the State Archives, so it is not sufficient to just differentiate between repositories.
Besides, in most reports the repositories are not stated.
 
Regards,
Michael
 
 
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Gramps-users] How to properly reference a pointer to a source.
 

Hi Phil,

What I am trying to say here is that I am sure this situation occurs in other places, where the "original record" is becoming that delicate it will never be on view other than to specialists.

So I am happy to put the location for the original document as the repository whether that be an Archive or a church because the next generation will never see them. The number of repositories for the UK is therefore not particularly large when you take it on a personal level with examples being
The National Archive (TNA) Kew
Manchester Archive+
London Metropolitan Archives
I know what you mean, and I know that things can even get more complicated than this. And that's because, before computers, most events were recorded twice in the civil registry, where one copy was kept in the local office, and the other was sent to a more central archive.

This means for every BMD book in the Groningen provincial archive, there is another in the National Archive in The Hague, and I know at least two records in my tree where the text contents of these entries are different. In the first one that I found, a civil marriage, the groom's birth date was 10 years off in the original, while it was accurate in the copy, i.e. the record that was sent to the national archive. In the other, one record explicitly says that a child is illegitimate, where the other doesn't mention that, even though in both only the mother is mentioned, so that the situation is quite clear.

I found this, when I compared some scans on the Groningen archive site with microfilm images of the same records available on FamilySearch. The scans, full color, were made from the books that were transported from the local municipalities to the provincial archive, and the B&W microfilm images were made of films made in the National Archive in The Hague.

For these sources, it is essential that I don't just record place, date, and record number, but also include the repository, being either the Groningen archive, or FamilySearch/The National Archive.

For Peter's case however, I don't think that the archive should be recorded as the repository of the source itself, because apparently his source is a transcription, and not the image that was found my Michael. He must mention the repository where the transcript was made however, but IMO, that should be mentioned in the citation, or citation note.

When I mention transcription, I'm referring to a written copy or an extract of another document, which may be an original, or not. And written may be hand written, made on a typewriter, or on a computer, and in all of these cases errors can be made. That's why I think that it's essential to record the true nature of the source, and its repository, and always mention the repository of the source that you actually saw. The repository of the source it was extracted should then be mentioned in its own context.

When I use the birth of my parental grandfather as an example, I get

"Netherlands Births and Baptisms, 1564-1910," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X1WW-CLF : 10 February 2018), Henricus Borgsteede, 31 Mar 1879; citing Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands; FHL microfilm 253,479.
where the citing part at the end is the reference to the original. And this one is incomplete, because there is no mention of the page or frame number, and in this case, I can't see where the microfilm was made either, so I don't know the exact nature of the original. I would need to check the LDS catalog for that.

Regards,

Enno



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

enno
Op 24-10-2018 om 20:39 schreef Bryan S:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Southeast of Stettin around a small village named Flatow (Flatau).
>
> However, my Grandfather's death certificate, here in the US, says he
> was born in Linden. I'm not sure how to reconcile the two birth places.
> Ideas?
Sure. Did he once live in Linden, and if so, which Linden? There are at
least two in current Poland, as you can check on:
http://gov.genealogy.net/search/index

For me, it's simple. When people here ask where I come from, I may say
Amsterdam, because that's where I lived before I moved here. I was not
born in Amsterdam however, so when someone assumes that from implies
born in, he makes a big mistake.

When people are registered in another country, their origin
(birth/residence) is often what the official hears, and if the official
doesn't recognize what the immigrant says, the immigrant may mention
some bigger place nearby, simply to avoid further confusion, or just out
of predictable laziness. Why bother? Would you understand where I live?
Chances are that you won't, so I may simply say Utrecht, which is the
right province, but not the right town.

For my immigrant Borgsteede ancestor, I have a handful of different
surnames, and a handful of different origins too. In some documents,
it's the crossing where his parents' farm was located, in another it's
the hamlet, or the town, or the nearest city, or the county. Most
overlap, but the city does not, so I need to rely on the birth record,
which appears to be from the town.

So the point is, that you should never assume anything to be the exact
truth, and conflicts often come from misinterpretation.

Cheers,

Enno



_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

Michael Lightfoot-2
On 2018-10-26 06:28, Enno Borgsteede wrote:

> Op 24-10-2018 om 20:39 schreef Bryan S:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Southeast of Stettin around a small village named Flatow (Flatau).
>>
>> However, my Grandfather's death certificate, here in the US, says he
>> was born in Linden. I'm not sure how to reconcile the two birth
>> places.
>> Ideas?
> Sure. Did he once live in Linden, and if so, which Linden? There are
> at least two in current Poland, as you can check on:
> http://gov.genealogy.net/search/index
>
> For me, it's simple. When people here ask where I come from, I may say
> Amsterdam, because that's where I lived before I moved here. I was not
> born in Amsterdam however, so when someone assumes that from implies
> born in, he makes a big mistake.
>
> When people are registered in another country, their origin
> (birth/residence) is often what the official hears, and if the
> official doesn't recognize what the immigrant says, the immigrant may
> mention some bigger place nearby, simply to avoid further confusion,
> or just out of predictable laziness. Why bother? Would you understand
> where I live? Chances are that you won't, so I may simply say Utrecht,
> which is the right province, but not the right town.
>
> For my immigrant Borgsteede ancestor, I have a handful of different
> surnames, and a handful of different origins too. In some documents,
> it's the crossing where his parents' farm was located, in another it's
> the hamlet, or the town, or the nearest city, or the county. Most
> overlap, but the city does not, so I need to rely on the birth record,
> which appears to be from the town.
>
> So the point is, that you should never assume anything to be the exact
> truth, and conflicts often come from misinterpretation.
>
English records post 1837 are triply confusing.  I might have a relative
who was born in November 1850.  The online index of her registration
says "St Columb" which is the registration district; the baptism record
says St Breock which is the local parish; but the 1851 census just 6
months later shows the family in a house in the hamlet of Burlawn which
is just outside the town of Wadebridge.

Again records in Australia can be just as confusing with NSW online BDM
indexes (post 1854) showing only the registration district, which may be
different from the town where someone was born.

I record each of these as separate places in the place hierarchy, and
indeed in separate place hierarchies as they don't really relate to each
other.

Cheers

--
====
Michael Lightfoot
Canberra, Australia
[hidden email]
====


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to properly reference a pointer to a source.

GRAMPS - User mailing list



Hi Michael

I can see from a distance how online index's might cause some confusion
but the system itself is not.

The "accurate" location for a birth/marriage/or death will only be found
by purchasing the appropriate certificate (which is an expensive exercise)
Everything else is an administrative location (whether civil or church)
So an online birth in 1851 will only give the quarter of the
registration not the actual birth, a child born in Novemember 1851 (DEC
Qtr) could actually be registered in the January 1852 (MAR Qtr) 6 weeks
allowed and sometimes longer.
Registration Districts will show on National Index's but Sub Districts
will show on LocalBMD such as CheshireBMD
Remember at this time churches were sparse and parishes covered large
areas so there were little chapels of ease and child churches within the
parish so to get a baptism you would have to find the actual one with
the register.
Women often travelled to the family home to be with mother to help with
the birth the place of birth may therefore have nothing to do with the
place the child was raised


Apologies if you already knew this and yes I have parishes and
registration districts (but not sub districts yet) as places

Regards
Phil
MLFHS 12583
Dumfries
On 25/10/2018 22:10, Michael Lightfoot wrote:

> On 2018-10-26 06:28, Enno Borgsteede wrote:
>> Op 24-10-2018 om 20:39 schreef Bryan S:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> Southeast of Stettin around a small village named Flatow (Flatau).
>>>
>>> However, my Grandfather's death certificate, here in the US, says he
>>> was born in Linden. I'm not sure how to reconcile the two birth places.
>>> Ideas?
>> Sure. Did he once live in Linden, and if so, which Linden? There are
>> at least two in current Poland, as you can check on:
>> http://gov.genealogy.net/search/index
>>
>> For me, it's simple. When people here ask where I come from, I may say
>> Amsterdam, because that's where I lived before I moved here. I was not
>> born in Amsterdam however, so when someone assumes that from implies
>> born in, he makes a big mistake.
>>
>> When people are registered in another country, their origin
>> (birth/residence) is often what the official hears, and if the
>> official doesn't recognize what the immigrant says, the immigrant may
>> mention some bigger place nearby, simply to avoid further confusion,
>> or just out of predictable laziness. Why bother? Would you understand
>> where I live? Chances are that you won't, so I may simply say Utrecht,
>> which is the right province, but not the right town.
>>
>> For my immigrant Borgsteede ancestor, I have a handful of different
>> surnames, and a handful of different origins too. In some documents,
>> it's the crossing where his parents' farm was located, in another it's
>> the hamlet, or the town, or the nearest city, or the county. Most
>> overlap, but the city does not, so I need to rely on the birth record,
>> which appears to be from the town.
>>
>> So the point is, that you should never assume anything to be the exact
>> truth, and conflicts often come from misinterpretation.
>>
> English records post 1837 are triply confusing.  I might have a relative
> who was born in November 1850.  The online index of her registration
> says "St Columb" which is the registration district; the baptism record
> says St Breock which is the local parish; but the 1851 census just 6
> months later shows the family in a house in the hamlet of Burlawn which
> is just outside the town of Wadebridge.
>
> Again records in Australia can be just as confusing with NSW online BDM
> indexes (post 1854) showing only the registration district, which may be
> different from the town where someone was born.
>
> I record each of these as separate places in the place hierarchy, and
> indeed in separate place hierarchies as they don't really relate to each
> other.
>
> Cheers
>


_______________________________________________
Gramps-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-users
https://gramps-project.org