Source Citations in FTW

The table at the end of this page is rather wide. It prints on European type A4 paper in landscape mode in IE4.

Introduction - An attempt to list the problems

A problem with FTW (and GEDCOM) source references is that a scheme that fits one type of reference, does not necessarily fit another so well. GEDCOM separates the citation from the source document description from the repository location. FTW merges the latter two (generating non-standard GEDCOM in the process) and printed reports treat the combined text with the citation as one source reference.

Sources can be categorised into three broad types—Public archive, Published and Unpublished.

With published works, there is a good document description but no repository though the field could be used to record where you found the book, particulary if it is rare.

With archive material the document description can be poor but the repository is known. Also each, of perhaps many, documents may need a separate Master Source because the call number for each is unique. Whether this is necessary will have to be judged by the user. The definition of a “source document” is vague, varying from a single will, a manuscript book or a whole archive such as a census. Some of what were true archive sources are now either published or available in multiple repositories. This can result in multiple Master Sources for one “document”.

A lot of genealogical data is unpublished and, initially at least, undocumented. It can include interviews, letters, emails etc. With the addition of online data, transcripts, indexes and third party reports the scheme can get out of hand if not properly planned.

A true citation scheme will quote the actual source that the information was received from i.e. if Mrs. X looked up a record and sent the details to you, then the source should be “Mrs. X quoting Record Source”. However, I find it more practical to cite it as “Record Source, via. Mrs. X”. Often a mixture would be appropriate, but the main requirement is that the reader should be able to locate the same reference, though with unpublished sources even this could be difficult as, in many cases, the archive is private to the author (you).

One of many possible schemes

The objective of this scheme is to come up with a workable plan whilst balancing the number of Master Source Titles aganst the number of citations per title. There is also a need to avoid duplication of information but to keep the Master Source Titles unique. Some titles may need to be subdivided (e.g. Census into states/counties) if sufficient citations warrant the expansion.

The example scheme here is the one I have designed for myself and is rather biased towards UK research. It should, however be adaptable for other locations and researchers.

Where multiple events are detailed in one citation, then I put the full text on the primary event and in the remaining events use the same title and “see <event>” in the citation text. In some cases “see <individual> <event>” is needed where a citation quotes a source promarily about another person. Some long citation texts work better as subsidiary notes, in which case a similar cross reference can be used. The end result must of necessity be tailored to a particular research requirement and style. This is up to you.

For material obtained from a third party, cite it under the original source but quote “via <Name> <media> <date>” in the citation text. The same applies to unpublished (or web-published) transcripts and indexes and to undocumented material obtained from a third party (hearsay)