* Sources and Citations

[ricklach]

I have brought this topic up previously but did not find an adequate solution to the issue - at least one that suited me. In retrospect, I may have been asking too much or been too regimented. So for this topic I want to give an example and ask those people who have been using FH for a long time to tell me how they would frame the source and citations for the following example:
There is a searchable database, Genealogy Québec that serves up images for Baptismal, Marriage, and Burial acts. There are millions of records in that database in several segmented and searchable records besides the acts. The Drouin Institute is the repository for the searchable records, those records having been photographed by Gabriel Drouin over several decades and other records are constantly being added to the collection. Because I have about 20K images of those records I would like to get this correct while learning about FH. Based on my readings in the help file, and FHUG, here is how I think I should proceed.

The source for all the records is: Genealogy Québec; the url is: https://www.genealogiequebec.com; Type: "database and images"; the repository: Address of the Drouin Institute; the Author: Drouin Institute; Text from Source: N/A

Every act, or other product found on their website would be the subject of a citation. I would then add a citation for an act, say baptismal act, as follows:
Entry date: the date of the baptism;
Assessment: Primary Evidence
Where within Source: Subject Name (as recorded), Baptismal Act (+ Number if available), Parish name, City, Provence, Country, Page Number
Text from Source: Blank
Note: Comment: Provides evidence of the birth and baptism of Subject and parties associated with the event. The child's parents were identified as Father, a farmer, and Mother.; Web accessed: Date; URL: URL address

The source would remain the same for all other acts, only the citation would vary.

Comments and suggestions on this approach would be welcome. Does this method produce an acceptable source/citation that is genealogically correct when publishing reports and books?

[Valkrider]

I will act as a bit of a devils advocate here so take this as it is intended.

Why do you want to create a 'genealogically correct' report etc? Who is going to see it?

You have an image of an actual physical record does it add anything to know exactly where it came from?

Sometimes, in my opinion, too much is made of where the records came from rather than concentrating on the record itself and what it tells you about your ancestors. If you have a copy of a physical record why does it matter as long and an image of that record is included in published document. Just because that image was found on a specific website at a day in time does not necessarily mean it will be there in the future.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Why do you want to create a 'genealogically correct' report etc? Who is going to see it?

Anyone who views my research is going to see it. Some of those people wouldn't care less about sources at all; some of them will use my citations to asses the likely accuracy, or even cross-check, my research. And everybody will be somewhere on that spectrum 'cares less' to 'checks everything'. For the benefit of people like me who check everything, I want my citations to be as useful as possible and follow a widely used (de-facto) standard.

To take your specific example, if I cite a source that I accessed on a particular day, and somebody else can't follow the trail I've laid down to the same source 10 years later, the fact that I didn't access it yesterday is a piece of information that tells them to investigate whether the source has moved (same website, different url) or been withdrawn from access since I viewed it. If I don't specify a date, they won't have that clue -- and they won't have a copy of my image of the source because I don't publish those (for copy right and/or terms of service reasons). And that's not even getting into whether I viewed set of images X before the website provider added 'some missing ones' or 'enhanced the images' or otherwise changed the collection of images.

With regards to the Drouin Institut, the answer depends on whether you're a lumper (one source per collection, say) or a splitter (one source per record).

I'm a splitter and have sources with titles such such as:

"Drouin Collection Records", images online, Quebec Records (Drouin Institute) (https://www.genealogiequebec.com: accessed 31 October 2016), marriage at St George's Anglican Church 6 August 1925 between Lewis Alfred William Wheatley and Hettie Wright (image d1p_1146d1087) citing St' George's (Montreal) Parish Registers.

I'd include a transcription in Text from Source, and possibly some notes about the source in the source record.

As an aside, when V7 comes along, a lot of this stuff should get much easier, as it's said to include much better support for specifying sources.

I don't use any of the citation fields, but note that if you do:

• Entry Date should be the date you entered the citation, not the date the recorded event happened

• Assessment is an outmoded concept and you should consider instead the more recent concepts of Evidence Analysis

[davidf]

I'm a lumper, but I follow much of Helen's reasoning.

Citing

I try not to get to bound up as to exactly which citation model I follow, but I do believe that the combination of citation and source, should enable someone else to "go and have their own look". If they do they may find that the image has been enhanced and is more readable with a different interpretation (or even has been withdrawn as "incorrect"). In such circumstances particularly with databases you need to give a date of access to help understand any confusion that might arise from changes in the database.

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) changed its database a number of years ago and all peoples' saved URLs no longer worked! It some areas there were howls of protest.

Your citation therefore has to give sufficient information for another researcher (or yourself - should your past-time bring you to a greater level of enlightenment!) to go back and "have another look". In the CWGC example above it meant that if your citation included the casualty number, you were OK after the system change.

As a lumper, I therefore see the Source as "Drouin Collection", and the repository as "Drouin Institute", https://www.genealogiequebec.com etc. Within Source text notes I might then hold (just the once - as a lumper, this source is unique) information about how I had been accessing the database and how I found it structured - and how over my different visits that had changed.

The citation then does the heavy lifting. The "where within source", needs to give sufficient detail to enable you to find the information again (when/where it is found in the database and more importantly giving a clue as to "how" it was found - a database URL is not adequate). Any image (which as a lumper is not of the source but of the bit of the source being cited) I would add as a "citation image" - use the media icon in the right-hand yellow source pane and select the first option. If the citation is only going to apply to one person, any transcription can then go in the "Text from Source" field.

If the citation applies (directly) to multiple people (say a household census or marriage where you have details of the bride and the groom and say the professions of the parents), you could (to avoid duplication) put the transcription in a shared note attached to the citation (go to the all tab, find the fact (if a family fact, click through to the family as a couple and their all tab) and select the fact's relevant "source" (which is actually the citation!), right click on that "source" (citation!) and add a shared note. Make the first line (or Custom ID) of any shared note something meaningful and reasonably unique as a title and (if in the note, put it in double square brackets so that it will not appear in reports e.g. [[Bloggs, Jo and Smith, Mary; Marriage dd/mm/yyyy at Where-ever]]). That means any shared note can if necessarily be separately found - and shared!

Where-ever you have put any transcript, you can then copy and past the citation - see the copy/paste icons in the toolbar in the yellow "Sources" side of the property box - (or possibly copy the whole fact using the left hand fact copy/paste icons) into whichever individual records and facts you desire. So for a census, I would be copying the fact and attached citation (amending the age field for each individual for a census), but for a marriage I would be copying just the citation into say the parents' occupation facts.

I would reserve any citation notes for anything specific to the citation/individual-fact.

Assessment

In respect of the "Assessment", we could have a whole separate debate on this! I usually don't bother unless I want to flag something as "questionable" or "unreliable" during my work. I don't know the source you refer to but it sounds like a "collection of record images/transcriptions" and I might argue that such a "collection" (particularly on a database) can never be "primary evidence" as it has since creation gone through a process of curation and interpretation to put it in the "correct" place in the collection. The primary evidence is surely the actual parish register or possibly a direct complete set of images of that register - from cover to cover leaving no doubt that you are looking at the register itself and not say a bishop's transcript.

Aside: Collection or Portal to Collections

This does raise a possibly separate question as to whether you feel that "Drouin Collection" is actually not a collection but a portal to a number of separate collections.

I don't know the Drouin Collection, so let us consider a Census, which can be accessed through "Ancestry" or "Find My Past". I would not argue that "Find my Past" is a "collection" like the Drouin Collection (and therefore my "Source"), but that it contains clearly distinguishable "collected records" such as the "England and Wales (and Scotland) 1881 Census" (as does Ancestry etc.). So I would treat FMP's "England and Wales (and Scotland) 1881 Census" as a (lumped) source titled "England and Wales (and Scotland) 1881 Census (FMP)" (With FMP as the repository - of "what I looked at").

If I ever examined the actual census returns, I would create a source titled "England and Wales 1881 Census (TNA)" with TNA (The National Archives) as the repository and put in the source note a reminder that I actually examined the (real paper) census schedules - possibly also with a reminder as to how I persuaded TNA to let me have access to possibly fragile records when perfectly adequate images were freely available in the reference area via Ancestry.

In recent years I have used the TNA reference as the "Where within source" detail for all my England and Wales Census sources - because ultimately knowing that will enable me to get back (sometimes with a bit of effort) to the actual "record" on Ancestry / Find My Past / Family Search / TNA etc. This can be useful if comparing images on say Ancestry and Find My Past. So I (as a lumper) might have:
Source: 1841 England and Wales (and Scotland) Census (FMP)
Repository: FMP
Citation: HO107; PN: 585; BN: 5; FN: 5; PG:4;
(For Splitters the above citation would be included as part of the Source Title)
I might also have for the same fact:
Source: 1841 England and Wales (and Scotland) Census (ANC)
Repository: Ancestry
Citation: HO107; PN: 585; BN: 5; FN: 5; PG:4;
And if the images are different in quality, I might end up with different "Text from Source" entries - with discussion of the differences in the citation notes!

[tatewise]

The significant choice is between Method 1 'source splitters' mode and Method 2 'source lumpers' mode and the following articles describe the differences and the pros and cons.
glossary:method_1_source_splitters_mode|> Method 1 'source splitters' mode
glossary:method_2_source_lumpers_mode|> Method 2 'source lumpers' mode

Helen records the Entry Date as "the date you entered the citation, not the date the recorded event happened."
Whereas GEDCOM defines it as "The date that this event data was entered into the original source document."
i.e. Not when you added the citation, not when event happened (that is in the Fact), but the date of the source document.
My understanding is that latter interpretation is the most popular because it gives an indication of how contemporary the source information is with respect to the date of the original event, and thus can avoid an Assessment.

Taking the OP baptismal act example it: Provides evidence of the birth and baptism of Subject and parties associated with the event. The child's parents were identified as Father, a farmer, and Mother.
So there are several Facts that can be derived from that single small Source document.
Subject's Birth Event
Subject's Baptism Event
Subject's Father's Name
Subject's Father's Occupation Attribute
Subject's Mother's Name
Other parties associated with event as Fact Witnesses, etc.

Each of those would need a duplicate Citation referring to the same Source record.

Using Method 1 the Citation fields are empty, except perhaps for Entry Date or Assessment, and the Source record holds all the citation details, transcript, attached images, notes, etc, for that single small document.

Using Method 2 the Citation field values (Where within Source, Text From Source, Notes, etc.) and attached images must be replicated for each Fact, and the Source record just identifies the whole collection of documents.
The replication is reduced by using a shared Note record and easily entered using the Citation Copy & Paste buttons.

Ancestral Sources supports both methods of working.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Helen records the Entry Date as "the date you entered the citation, not the date the recorded event happened."

I don't record entry date at all, because I record the date accessed in the source title.

thus can avoid an Assessment.

Just knowing when a source was created doesn't avoid an assessment. And in any case, how can you know (for example) when a microfilm or digital image or database was created?

[tatewise]

Sorry Helen, I misquoted your advice as what you actually entered.
However, the GEDCOM specification and Ancestral Sources default and I believe popular usage differs from your advice.

Assessment is difficult topic. I was not suggesting Assessment can always be avoided, but that with formal documents the date of the document versus the date of the recorded event indicates how contemporary it is and I believe that is a major factor in any assessment. We may agree to disagree.

I am not talking about the date a document was copied onto microfilm or digitised, but when it was originally created.
i.e. For a Birth Certificate when it was registered, or for a Death Certificate when it was registered.
Considering a Death Certificate the difference between the registration date and the actual or implied date of birth information recorded therein are usually decades apart, so not contemporary, so probably of lower reliability, so probably low assessment.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Mike, my advice would be not to use Entry Date at all.

Entering it as per spec is often impossible. What was the entry date for a city directory -- the date it was published which can be months after the data was gathered -- an Ohio City Directory published in January 1903 was actually based on the data gathered in the first quarter of the previous year, and so recorded as living anyone who died in the last 9 months. Providing an entry date of January 1903 in that case is actively misleading.

And of course if you view a microfilm or digital image or a transcription as a different source from the original document, as many of us do (and all professional genealogists do), the entry date is NOT when the original document was created, but when the copy was created.

However, we have agreed to disagree in the past and I suspect we'll need to do it again, and also on the topic of Assessment where I provided a link to current best practice.

[davidf]

... with formal documents the date of the document versus the date of the recorded event indicates how contemporary it is and I believe that is a major factor in any assessment. ... I am not talking about the date a document was copied onto microfilm or digitised, but when it was originally created.

This whole area is a mess!

Consider

Vicar X writes up (date 2) the baptismal records - after the event (date 1) either from memory or from scraps of paper.
Periodically (date 3) Bishop's Transcripts are prepared sometime omitting detail - or adding (sometimes salacious) detail.
These Transcripts get microfilmed at date 4 with poor image quality
Family History Society Y transcribes these Bishop's Transcripts Microfilms (date 5) "doing their best" and lodges their typescript with the county archives.
I visit the archives and ask to see baptismal records and am a little surprised to be given a typescript to review. In my innocence I note down the contents (date 6).

What is the "primary source" - the parish register or those scraps of paper? Is everything else a secondary source? In such circumstances does the difference (in designation) matter?

I tend not to use the "Assessment" field - because it is very hard to make with any reliability against the categories on offer!

As a lumper I put a comment in the citation notes if there is some doubt about the applicability of the source or the reliability of the specific detail cited for that fact. Any assessment about the source as a whole (say the "FHS transcript of a Bishop's Transcript microfilm") which would apply to all individuals and facts that rely on the source I would record in the source note.

Splitters would have to combine those assessments in the source notes - if necessary duplicating their reservations about the "meta-source" (e.g. FHS transcript of a Bishop's Transcript microfilm) across all uses of it. The alternative is to create "meta-source" shared notes which can be attached to each split source.

Likewise I tend not to use the Entry date unless the document I am looking at (e.g. Bishop's Transcript or Newspaper Report) has a clear "creation date" on it (e.g. Date of Transcription / Publication Date)

[ricklach]

I have been doing genealogical research for about 40 years now and I have gone through many transitions in my approach to recording the information I have collected. I am not a big fan of the "Mills" method of recording sources, but I do try to adhere to them as closely as possible without following them slavishly. TMG and several other genealogical programs provide templates to ensure that sources, once recorded, are "anatomically" correct. In my opinion, the only purpose for doing genealogical research is to publish your work, which includes giving it to family and friends (although I have never found any of the latter who were even mildly interested), and other researchers. If you are going to spend as much time as I have researching and then find that when you croak, that your research and ashes wind up in the same dust bin, then you have to seriously consider why you are doing it in the first place.

As part of my research mission, I set out a plan on how to preserve my research so that future generations of researchers can pick-up where I left off. Without going into lengthy details, I try to publish my work on an annual basis and deposit the results with Library and Archives Canada with a catalogued ISBN number. My project, which I call "The Encyclopedia..." is a compilation of all of the descendants of one progenitor couple. The latest version comprises 7.7K pages (7 of 14 generations), and the current version (8 of 14 generations) is in the order of 12K pages of historical context, narratives, documents, citations, and indices. All that is to say, if you are going to do something, do it right, and do it with a purpose.

Based on what I have seen and read in this post the approach to citations varies (as indicated in the literature) but does not meet the standards set out by professional research organizations. Part of the problem lies with the GEDCOM standard that, according to my research, has stagnated and without a regulating body - but I don't want to go down that pesky wabbit hole. TMG, still my favorite genealogical program, is on its knees for a number of reasons. Roots Magic is about to launch their latest offering and FH is doing the same. There are some indications that FH is upgrading their citation engine and RM already has a good citation engine (I already know about AS). The dilemma for me is what to do in the interim. My own research methodology and goals are still best served by TMG and so I will continue to use it during the transition period. I like FH and baring any surprises from RM, it will become my transition program. However, it makes little sense to make the transition at this point because of my hangup with the production and output of citations by FH.

I thank everyone for their views on the topic which have helped me resolve my conundrum at this stage of my research. However, I am still concerned about the stagnation of GEDCOM standard and lack of a lead organization. What affect will that have on genealogical programs of the future. Watch out for HRE and GRAMPS as future models!

[tatewise]

Regarding GEDCOM stagnation are you aware of https://fhiso.org/ that may offer a way forward.

For some, maybe genealogy is a hobby, like photography or pottery, and just for personal interest.
That still needs reasonable source citations to make sense of any research, but does not need to be overly formal.

[USMC7312]

Richlack - Awesome response and post. Thanks

[John560426]

I've been researching my family history for a few years using Find My Past. Being a serious yet an amazing hobby, my aim is to have narratives including dates, stories,photos etc. I am on the trial period with Family Historianconsidering whether or not to take out a paid subscription. The above posts have been useful. Whilst I'm a stickler for detail and wanting to understand adding sources and citations on FH, I'm now deciding whether I can relax more having seen the pros and cons of sourcing procedures .My goal is to have that nice book printed on appropriate paper in order to hand on to my children, grandchildren. Yes something tangible as I wonder whether they would bother to go online. The family Bible in my home goes back to 1835 and that's something for all to seeto and indeed a treasure. I think in my case, getting too tangled up with sources may not be the best use of my time. I really can't see family digging into them. For me my wife too thinks I may be encouraging tiresome moments. In respect of this trial period, whilst I appreciate comments, there seems to be a lack of step by step advice. For example, I have added a new person. I have found the birth record on FMP . What are the clear actual steps to adding the source and citation. I have chosen to use the England and Wales Births 1837-2006 as the source and use it as a main source, applying the relevant citation details to the person. May I respectfully say that despite hours of reading, I struggle to find simplistic step by step directives. If someone can tell me what to do in bite size steps in respect of the birth example, that would really make my day. I realise I'm at risk of spending far too much time learning the methods at the risk of limited actual research .Thank you so much .

[tatewise]

Welcome to the FHUG John.

There are step by step guides in the Knowledge Base but the source details you want to capture determine exactly which are the simplest steps.

The birth record you have found is the GRO Birth Index for England and Wales Births 1837-2006.
So follow glossary:method_2_source_lumpers_mode|> Method 2 'source lumpers' mode.
You only need to create the Source record once for England and Wales Births 1837-2006.
Add the Birth Event on the Facts tab and then click the Add Citation button and choose that Source record.
Enter the GRO Index details in the Where within Source field.

If you order the Birth Certificate then the process is a little different, because usually you want to capture the Media image of the certificate and perhaps a transcript, also you are adding many more facts in addition to the Birth Event, such as the Mother's and Father's Names, Residence and Occupation, etc.
So follow glossary:method_1_source_splitters_mode|> Method 1 'source splitters' mode.
In this case you add a Source record for every Certificate and enter all the details into that record.
The Citation fields can remain empty, but there will one Citation for each new fact.
See how_to:adding_bmd_data#adding_birth_marriage_and_death_information|> Adding Birth, Marriage, and Death Information that has links to specific examples for Birth, Marriage and Census.
Many users find it is easier to use ancestralsources:index|> Ancestral Sources to capture new source documents.

[John560426]

Thank you Mike for your post and for your step by step advice. Will work through it. Appreciated.

[davidf]

...
My goal is to have that nice book printed on appropriate paper in order to hand on to my children, grandchildren. Yes something tangible as I wonder whether they would bother to go online. The family Bible in my home goes back to 1835 and that's something for all to see to and indeed a treasure. I think in my case, getting too tangled up with sources may not be the best use of my time. I really can't see family digging into them.
...

John,

Welcome to FH, but please beware "the book unbacked by sources and citations"!

One of my relatives published a wonderful book about her part of the family (the top of which is common to me and other relatives). In it she referred to the family as having Huguenot origins but when I wrote to her asking for more details she was unable to supply any. So I do not know whether it is myth handed down (printed books assume a credibility that they do not necessarily deserve) or whether it is backed by some form of evidence. That was one of a number of questions.

Unfortunately she is no longer with us, so a whole heap of follow up questions remain unanswered and if I want to take it any further I have to effectively repeat her research.

David

[John560426]

Thanks for sharing David. I appreciate your thoughts. I think the real problem I have found is that some family history sites do not explain things clearly enough in their manuals. Really needs more clear cut examples of how to get from A to B - the example I gave is typical. But grateful to Mike for making things clearer as far as my birth example was concerned. Appreciated. My wife has an MA in Education and agrees that some things could be clearer. So thats the main reason why I question whether to keep to my normal stickler for detail mode, or to let go and reduce my expectations. After all my goal is something for family only. I agree totally with what you have said and standards matter. Part of the problem is spending hours trying to put the theory into practise, with what I find are often not user friendly manuals. That causes me frustration, and therefore reluctantly, my standard has to be lowered so that I'm relaxed and enjoying what I'm doing. But then hopefully my family will just love seeing the stories, names, dates, photos etc and brighten up their day. Rather than Mike just referring me to a manual page, he interpreted through step by step advice. And again thanks for your valuable post. Perhaps these family history sites need to review their manuals. The bottom line is that we all learn in different ways and for me I find that the manuals do not help me as I would expect them to. Best wishes.

[tatewise]

Yes, it is important to enjoy what you are doing, but there is great satisfaction in breaking down a 'brick wall' and citing the source documents with an explanation of why they were so difficult to piece together; often due to poor transcriptions, but sometimes much more interesting reasons.

If you believe the audience for your book (i.e. the FH Publish Book feature) will not be interested in those citation details then they can easily be minimised or omitted. But the reverse is not usually possible without a lot of backtracking.

[John560426]

I value others posts as important to look at from all angles. Really the situation is down to me personally and my learning needs. For months I've struggled to apply information in manuals to my family project. I'm intelligent yet struggle. One can only go on for so long in a tiresome situation. I hope FH will understand and seek to address a situation which I guess thousands of others experience. In my view both the manuals of FH and Legacy are not as user friendly as they could be. It's a great pity when a user is trying to work to genealogical standards when the written word could be better. I will need to decide how my project will go. Hence 30 days trials are good. This forum much valued in sharing personal experiences. Again thanks for sharing constructive thoughts with me.

[LornaCraig]

The problem with the whole question of Source recording is that there are so many ways of doing it, with so much variation in the level of detail. You may even find that articles about the 'best practice' give different advice! With a target audience of just yourself and your family you don't need to worry about meeting the exacting standards of a professional piece of research which is intended for publication.

The important point is to remember the purpose of recording sources. It so that another researcher (or yourself, if you look back at it in a few years time) can understand where you found a piece of information. Ideally they should then be able to find the same source themselves if they want to check it. So ask yourself: if I come back to this in two years time will I be able to see why I thought this 'fact' was correct? For example, did I calculate their year of birth from the age recorded in a census? Or did I find their birth registration in the GRO index? Or both? Why did I think this person was a carpenter? Is that what it said in a census, or was it on his marriage certificate?

As long as your method of recording sources can answer questions like that, you are doing enough for your own purposes. The other thing to remember is that once you have decided what method to use, you should apply it consistently.

[John560426]

Thank you Lorna and good food for thought. I couldn't agree more. I guess it's so easy to lose sight of that central principle and become like Biblical fundamentalists who can expect compliance to every detail. Except that with genealogy such extreme positions would I think be few. As you say varying methods which are all worthy in the end. I'm going to follow through Mike's step by step advice later and try and grasp it. You will see from earlier posts that I am one who likes to get things right. Unfortunately my frustration has often intervened and been unhelpful. On a lighter note, I was born a perfectionist and was given good advice - aim for being Mr Average which will mean A Mister Average plus plus will develop . High on the scale yet the sometimes intolerable emotions resulting from perfectionism, are minimised. I view your thoughts as similar but careful not to miss the central theme. So here goes! Nice chatting.

[trevorrix]

I too rely on images of records linked to the people concerned as my 'sources and citatations'. I see no point being a slave to spending hours transcribing those images or recording where I found them. The world has changed since pre-internet.

I have the images, so all I need to do is to view them to see the detail. Same goes for anyone else who continues my work in the future.

I have therefore never used Family Historian sources (other than those necessary when using Ancestral Sources), or citations.

As background, I have been reseaching since the 1960s, DNA testing since 2007, and have been using Family Historian since the launch in 2002.

[Mark1834]

Similar to an example above, my wife’s family are from a Quaker background, and one of her elderly relatives produced a very attractive hand-crafted book back in the 1980s documenting all descendants of a particularly eminent Quaker ancestor from the early 19th century. Unfortunately, when I came to use it as a first draft of her branch of the family, I found it riddled with errors once I started checking against original sources.

I too have produced summary documents for sharing among family that have not been sourced (otherwise they can end up looking like an academic paper), but I think it is important to have a fully sourced version if there is any chance of somebody else continuing the research in the future.

[jmurphy]

Re: the purpose of recording sources.

It can be useful to leave some breadcrumbs for ourselves about where we found items and when. E.g. recently Genealogy Bank lost the rights to several of the newspapers that I was using for my own family's research. Since I hadn' t been diligent about downloading all the newspaper pages, I had to scramble to save copies of the pages and the text-only items before they vanished from the site. Along with copying the citation information Genealogy Bank provided, I kept copies of my own notes about the people in the articles (usually a note about the Most Recent Common Ancestor) and a note that the content would no longer be available on Genealogy Bank after 17 December 2019. This reminds me why the item is no longer in My Folder at Genealogy Bank. Access dates can also be of great value when you've saved some snippet of data from a website, and need to go back to the website using the Wayback Machine because the site is no longer live.

However -- when we get lost in arguments about layered citations, I think it's important to consider the information in our citations and not just the shape of the container we put them in.

I have a screenshot from Evidence Explained that I keep on my computer desktop. (EE pg 8 in the 3rd rev edition, EE page 10 in the 2nd edition). Elizabeth Shown Mills says:

We identify our sources -- and their strengths and weaknesses -- so we can reach the most reliable conclusions.

I think the zeal to get every semicolon in the right place makes some people overlook the real value of Evidence Explained. Michael Hait summed it up nicely in his two blog posts.

https://michaelhait.wordpress.com/2011/ ... templates/
https://michaelhait.wordpress.com/2011/ ... e-need-ee/