Elizabeth, I support you completely in writing sources however you like. You are clearly an articulate person, and I'm sure your study of the descendants of William and Sarah (Patterson) Thompson is in excellent order. I would never presume to change what you are doing.
I only reply on this topic when I feel someone new to the list or new to genealogy is getting the wrong impression of the list. We are open to discussion of methods of entry here, and we don't all believe that sourcing to the standard of _Evidence Explained_ is a wildly profligate waste of time. <g> Janis On 1/30/09 2:47 PM, "Connie Sheets" <clshee...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Elizabeth Richardson wrote: > >> Janis, let me be clear that I do not at all denigrate those >> of you who choose to use the Mills style of sourcing. How >> you choose to construct your sources is up to you. But, >> please, don't impose it on me. My objection has always >> been thatW the attitude of many who do subscribe to that >> method is somehow those who do not are not "real" >> genealogists, or that their work is somehow of lesser >> quality. It is my contention, and will remain so, that to go >> to the lengths of EE is only even desirable should you wish >> to publish with an organization who (I think) has an >> overblown impression of their own importance. Sources should >> be clear and readable and consistent - that should be >> sufficient. > > And, source citations should be detailed enough for YOU (not just me) to > evaluate the quality/accuracy of your conclusions, and help ME (should I ever > need to review your conclusions) find the exact same source that you used. > > If your citations meet those tests, then I doubt anyone is going to think your > work is "somehow of lesser quality." But if your citations do not give > sufficient detail for you (or someone else) to find the same source again... > > I doubt I will succeed in convincing you, since you have made it clear you > have no intention of changing your mind, but if you read at least the > explanatory pages of the Evidence books, and learn the key components that the > author recommends, I don't think you will find yourself thinking that EE > recommends we add useless or unnecessarily lengthy information in our > citations. > > (You may find the discussion on punctuation more than you can handle; when my > eyes glaze over about such things, I remind myself EE is intended to be a > style guide. The grammar and punctuation police aren't likely to fine me too > heavily if I don't dot every I and cross every T exactly the same way ESM > would). > > I, for one, am grateful to Legacy for attempting to incorporate the EE formats > so that I have less work to do to ensure my citations are "clear and readable > and consistent." > > Connie Sheets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
