Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Citing sources for well-known events
237 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Smith
Jan 31, 2017, 1:32:45 PM1/31/17
to
I recently audited one of my smaller databases to ensure everyone in it
had at least one source for their dates and places of birth and death,
if those details were present. Mostly everything was properly sourced,
but it caught a few places where I'd evidently got distracted part way
through updating a family and left it incomplete, and there were a few
very close relatives (such as my parents) whose dates I hadn't bothered
sourced. But there was one other category of people who were frequently
not adequately sourced: very high-profile individuals whose details are
well known. Henry III was the first example of these that I came across.
So far as I'm aware, no-one seriously disputes that he was born on 1 Oct
1207 in Winchester and died on 16 Nov 1272 in Westminster. I've no idea
where I got the information. It could have been from any one of scores
of sources; it could even have been Wikipedia which, for someone that
high profile, is actually very reliable. Of course it's trivial to add
a source, but which one?
This is definitely an occasion when a secondary source is better than a
primary source. I expect I could find a primary source, and if this
were some obscure knight that's what I'd try to do, but with a
high-profile figure like Henry III the information much be recorded in
many primary sources which historians will have pored over in much
detail. If I try to find a primary source, there's a danger that I'll
pick one that has been discredited, even if it is accurate. Far better
to draw on the experience of those historians who have studied him and
accept their interpretation. Realistically there's no chance that I'm
going to disprove the date or place of Henry III's birth or death, but
for some obscure knight? I may well make a new discovery there, and
that's where I should be spending my time.
Then the question is: which secondary source should I cite? Books like
The Complete Peerage (2nd edn.) or Richardson's Royal Ancestry are
popular choices. But I'd suggest they're perhaps bad choices for
someone like Henry III. Every the best books may contain errors, and
for a person as notable as Henry III would it ever be noticed? The sort
of people who have access to these books probably don't need to look up
Henry III's dates. Even if it had been noticed, how would I find out?
So far as I'm aware, neither work has a single definitive errata.
Arguably something like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is
better. It is much more widely used, so more eyes to spot mistakes, and
gets updated online to correct factual errors or typos that might have
crept in. I probably wouldn't trust the ODNB for an minor earl, let
alone an obscure knight, but for a post-Conquest English king? Yes,
probably.
That brings me to the last suggestion which will doubtless be
controversial. Is Wikipedia actually the best source for ultra high
profile historical figures? It's one of the most uses resources on the
planet, and the turnover of edits on its highest profile pages means
that errors don't persist long. The change-log lets you check that you
haven't caught it midway through an edit war (and if you have, lets you
see whether the edit war affects the details you're using). On top of
that, it's often a very easy source to consult.
Obviously one wouldn't use it for less high profile sources or for very
early figures where untangling myth from fact is a major problem, but
for the principal events in the lives of the Western Europe royalty over
the last (say) 900 years, it seems to me that objectively Wikipedia,
despite being a tertiary source, is perhaps the best source available.
Unfortunately some people get awfully precious about collaborative work
or work published on the Internet, and I suspect citing Wikipedia would
be a red flag to such people.
What do others do?
Richard
had at least one source for their dates and places of birth and death,
if those details were present. Mostly everything was properly sourced,
but it caught a few places where I'd evidently got distracted part way
through updating a family and left it incomplete, and there were a few
very close relatives (such as my parents) whose dates I hadn't bothered
sourced. But there was one other category of people who were frequently
not adequately sourced: very high-profile individuals whose details are
well known. Henry III was the first example of these that I came across.
So far as I'm aware, no-one seriously disputes that he was born on 1 Oct
1207 in Winchester and died on 16 Nov 1272 in Westminster. I've no idea
where I got the information. It could have been from any one of scores
of sources; it could even have been Wikipedia which, for someone that
high profile, is actually very reliable. Of course it's trivial to add
a source, but which one?
This is definitely an occasion when a secondary source is better than a
primary source. I expect I could find a primary source, and if this
were some obscure knight that's what I'd try to do, but with a
high-profile figure like Henry III the information much be recorded in
many primary sources which historians will have pored over in much
detail. If I try to find a primary source, there's a danger that I'll
pick one that has been discredited, even if it is accurate. Far better
to draw on the experience of those historians who have studied him and
accept their interpretation. Realistically there's no chance that I'm
going to disprove the date or place of Henry III's birth or death, but
for some obscure knight? I may well make a new discovery there, and
that's where I should be spending my time.
Then the question is: which secondary source should I cite? Books like
The Complete Peerage (2nd edn.) or Richardson's Royal Ancestry are
popular choices. But I'd suggest they're perhaps bad choices for
someone like Henry III. Every the best books may contain errors, and
for a person as notable as Henry III would it ever be noticed? The sort
of people who have access to these books probably don't need to look up
Henry III's dates. Even if it had been noticed, how would I find out?
So far as I'm aware, neither work has a single definitive errata.
Arguably something like the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is
better. It is much more widely used, so more eyes to spot mistakes, and
gets updated online to correct factual errors or typos that might have
crept in. I probably wouldn't trust the ODNB for an minor earl, let
alone an obscure knight, but for a post-Conquest English king? Yes,
probably.
That brings me to the last suggestion which will doubtless be
controversial. Is Wikipedia actually the best source for ultra high
profile historical figures? It's one of the most uses resources on the
planet, and the turnover of edits on its highest profile pages means
that errors don't persist long. The change-log lets you check that you
haven't caught it midway through an edit war (and if you have, lets you
see whether the edit war affects the details you're using). On top of
that, it's often a very easy source to consult.
Obviously one wouldn't use it for less high profile sources or for very
early figures where untangling myth from fact is a major problem, but
for the principal events in the lives of the Western Europe royalty over
the last (say) 900 years, it seems to me that objectively Wikipedia,
despite being a tertiary source, is perhaps the best source available.
Unfortunately some people get awfully precious about collaborative work
or work published on the Internet, and I suspect citing Wikipedia would
be a red flag to such people.
What do others do?
Richard
wjhonson
Jan 31, 2017, 2:27:02 PM1/31/17
to
For the date and place of Henry III's birth, it cites the ODNB
That may not be accessible to all, but the DNB certainly is.
You can go to my page here
http://www.countyhistorian.com/knol/4hmquk6fx4gu-219-dictionary-of-national-biography..html
to get the direct link to the volume where Henry III should be, find that entry here
https://books.google.com/books?id=YeTQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false
and then note that they there cite Wendover iii 219 and Ann.Winton. p 80
You can then look those up and actually cite the exact phrasing.
So you *can* drill down to any level of detail you wish.
Ian Goddard
Jan 31, 2017, 6:03:36 PM1/31/17
to
On 31/01/17 19:27, wjhonson wrote:
> but the DNB certainly is.
Not from Google books in the UK, thanks to Google's erratic and
> but the DNB certainly is.
arbitrary blocking of some books in some jurisdictions.
--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk
Richard Smith
Jan 31, 2017, 6:10:55 PM1/31/17
to
On 31/01/17 23:03, Ian Goddard wrote:
> On 31/01/17 19:27, wjhonson wrote:
>> but the DNB certainly is.
>
> Not from Google books in the UK, thanks to Google's erratic and
> arbitrary blocking of some books in some jurisdictions.
They're available on archive.org, though. Some helpful soul has indexed
> On 31/01/17 19:27, wjhonson wrote:
>> but the DNB certainly is.
>
> Not from Google books in the UK, thanks to Google's erratic and
> arbitrary blocking of some books in some jurisdictions.
the volumes on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography
The ODNB is available with most UK library cards.
Richard
wjhonson
Jan 31, 2017, 6:35:50 PM1/31/17
to
You should be able to get to any Google Books image by sending your requests through a proxy server. Just Google for "proxy server" and submit a URL to it, and it should work.
Proxy servers mask your location, so Google Books won't be able to block you just because you're in England.
Proxy servers mask your location, so Google Books won't be able to block you just because you're in England.
Richard Smith
Jan 31, 2017, 7:34:07 PM1/31/17
to
On 31/01/17 23:35, wjhonson wrote:
> You should be able to get to any Google Books image by sending your
> requests through a proxy server. Just Google for "proxy server" and
> submit a URL to it, and it should work.
Clearly you've not tried doing it. The proxy servers that work by
> You should be able to get to any Google Books image by sending your
> requests through a proxy server. Just Google for "proxy server" and
> submit a URL to it, and it should work.
fetching a URL and rewriting the HTML and other fetched resources on
return -- which means all the ones where you just go to a website and
enter a URL -- almost invariably fail with Google Books and various
other complex sites. This is because it's fundamentally impossible to
do a perfect job of rewriting the returned documents so references to
other resources are also fetched via the proxy server. To what extend
Google go out of their way to make this hard and to what extent it's an
inadvertent result of their implementation.
If you want to use Google Books from the UK you need either a proper
HTTP proxy and configure your browser to use it, or to use a VPN. The
former are now quite uncommon, and both take a degree of technical
know-how to configure; they're also solutions that one typically has to
pay for. I use both of these techniques at times, but in this case, why
bother? The DNB is freely available via archive.org in any country that
has uncensored internet access, and its interface is just as usable as
Google's, more so in my opinion.
Richard
Richard Smith
Jan 31, 2017, 8:01:24 PM1/31/17
to
On 31/01/17 19:27, wjhonson wrote:
> Wikipedia is a resource you use to *find* the best possible source. You can then read that source and cite it directly.
I don't wholly agree. If I cite a standard reference work like the
ODNB, Hist Parl or the CP, then I'm saying that I've carefully selected
that source as being a suitable reference work for the fact or opinion
I'm citing. I know the view you express is quite popular including in
academia, but it's misleading because I have not selected the source
myself in any meaningful sense. I'm just following the choice the
Wikipedia editors have made, so why not be open about that? Yes, I've
checked the source really does say what it is purported to say, and
given the quality of the source basic sanity check, but the choice was
still not mine. If I'm not going to cite Wikipedia, would I be better
going straight to another standard reference like the ODNB or CP?
Let me be clear that I'm still taking about ultra high profile figures,
the likes of Henry III. If I'm looking up someone more rather more
obscure, especially if they're someone outside the fields I normally
research, then there's a lot of merit to using Wikipedia as you say to
find sources. Their pages on Wikipedia are probably not viewed or
edited enough to ensure their accuracy, but can be a great way of
finding sources I might not be familiar with. But that's not the case
I'm talking about.
I'm suggesting that for the very highest profile historical figures,
Wikipedia is now a better and more reliable source than ODNB, CP,
Richardson's Royal Ancestry, Mediaeval Lands or any of the other common
reference works.
Richard
Ian Goddard
Feb 1, 2017, 6:45:41 AM2/1/17
to
On 31/01/17 23:35, wjhonson wrote:
> You should be able to get to any Google Books image by sending your requests through a proxy server. Just Google for "proxy server" and submit a URL to it, and it should work.
>
> Proxy servers mask your location, so Google Books won't be able to block you just because you're in England.
>
What Richard said!
>
> Proxy servers mask your location, so Google Books won't be able to block you just because you're in England.
>
Also it's been my experience that proxy servers come and go and these
days I'd be a bit wary of landing on one that might turn out to be a
malware vector. At one time I toyed with the idea of setting up an
account on Amazon to run tinyproxy on a Linux server - I think there was
discussion on s.g.computing about this. However I never did it,
archive.org being the usual solution to the problem.
On the whole Google Books isn't as good a recommendation as archive.org
for an international readership; there's no guarantee that it will be
available in all jurisdictions. Ironically the same Google digitisation
that won't display here might be freely available on archive.org.
Google Books' availability seems to owe more to a random number
generator than to copyright law.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Feb 1, 2017, 7:50:37 AM2/1/17
to
On 2017-01-31 18:32:43 +0000, Richard Smith said:
> Then the question is: which secondary source should I cite? Books like
> The Complete Peerage (2nd edn.) or Richardson's Royal Ancestry are
> popular choices. But I'd suggest they're perhaps bad choices for
> someone like Henry III. Every the best books may contain errors, and
> for a person as notable as Henry III would it ever be noticed? The
> sort of people who have access to these books probably don't need to
> look up Henry III's dates. Even if it had been noticed, how would I
> find out? So far as I'm aware, neither work has a single definitive
> errata. Arguably something like the Oxford Dictionary of National
> Biography is better. It is much more widely used, so more eyes to spot
> mistakes, and gets updated online to correct factual errors or typos
> that might have crept in. I probably wouldn't trust the ODNB for an
> minor earl, let alone an obscure knight, but for a post-Conquest
> English king? Yes, probably.
My experience with submitting corrections to the ODNB is mixed. In 2015
> Then the question is: which secondary source should I cite? Books like
> The Complete Peerage (2nd edn.) or Richardson's Royal Ancestry are
> popular choices. But I'd suggest they're perhaps bad choices for
> someone like Henry III. Every the best books may contain errors, and
> for a person as notable as Henry III would it ever be noticed? The
> sort of people who have access to these books probably don't need to
> look up Henry III's dates. Even if it had been noticed, how would I
> find out? So far as I'm aware, neither work has a single definitive
> errata. Arguably something like the Oxford Dictionary of National
> Biography is better. It is much more widely used, so more eyes to spot
> mistakes, and gets updated online to correct factual errors or typos
> that might have crept in. I probably wouldn't trust the ODNB for an
> minor earl, let alone an obscure knight, but for a post-Conquest
> English king? Yes, probably.
I emailed them to point out that their entries for Joan of Acre and her
husband Gilbert de Clare reported different dates for their marriage.
This was not acknowledged but has since been fixed. More recently I
pointed out that the opening sentence for their entry on Matilda,
countess of Chester (d. 1189) appears, to a plain reading, to assert
that Matilda's maternal grandmother Sibyl was in fact her mother --
that Sibyl was wife to Robert, earl of Gloucester, rather than (as she
was in fact) his mother-in-law. This resulted, last November, in a very
pleasant thank-you note from an associate editor of the ODNB, but the
entry remains unchanged so far; evidently "the changes will become
visible during 2017, after the new editorial system and online platform
are launched." So props to the ODNB, but obviously one can't
necessarily assume that errors will be fixed quickly.
I worked as a reference-book editor for a few years many decades ago,
back in the pre-internet era. The project to which I was assigned
entailed consulting vast numbers of other eminent and distinguished
reference books bearing the imprimaturs of universities like Oxford,
Cambridge, Harvard, etc. The experience left me with a lifelong
awareness that human error is endless and that even the most prized
secondary sources are inevitably full of howlers. When it comes to
genealogical data (birth dates, baptisms, marriages, etc.) I'm actually
_more_ inclined to rely on sources like CP, RA, etc., because they were
compiled by people for whom the genealogical details were the core
matter of interest. Historians are far sloppier about this stuff.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden
p...@panix.com
http://nielsenhayden.com/genealogy-tng
wjhonson
Feb 1, 2017, 4:49:14 PM2/1/17
to
You will find Richard that Wikipedia, even for the highest profile historical figures is *not* a better and more reliable source than DNB (not ODNB which is not accessible to all). There are a vast number of high profile historical figures who have silly things written about them in Wikipedia. The devil is in the details.
Citing Wikipedia as your source is lazy. That's not to say that many people don't or do do it. They do. And don't. Wikipedia also can change at any time, without any warning. If you *do* choose to "cite Wikipedia" only, you should cite it to a particular *dated* article, not just to the front page of that article. Citing to a dated version ensures that the "fact" you are trying to cite, is actually what the article states.
Andrew Lancaster
Feb 2, 2017, 3:52:21 AM2/2/17
to
On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:49:14 PM UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
> Citing Wikipedia as your source is lazy. That's not to say that many people don't or do do it. They do. And don't. Wikipedia also can change at any time, without any warning. If you *do* choose to "cite Wikipedia" only, you should cite it to a particular *dated* article, not just to the front page of that article. Citing to a dated version ensures that the "fact" you are trying to cite, is actually what the article states.
Yes, and indeed this is policy on Wikipedia itself. So for example if ever we cite MEDLANDS, or the Medieval Genealogy website's CP additions, or the FMG's Keats-Rohan additions, we should remember they are moving targets. Dates should be mentioned.
> Citing Wikipedia as your source is lazy. That's not to say that many people don't or do do it. They do. And don't. Wikipedia also can change at any time, without any warning. If you *do* choose to "cite Wikipedia" only, you should cite it to a particular *dated* article, not just to the front page of that article. Citing to a dated version ensures that the "fact" you are trying to cite, is actually what the article states.
Wikipedia's sourcing rules are a good starting point for discussion for any other online collaboration, but one difference to any online collaboration for genealogy is that they discourage any use of primary sources, or any use of original interpretations of evidence by editors. Obviously if a site is intended to encourage original research into genealogy this particular rule is inappropriate.
wjhonson
Feb 2, 2017, 11:34:48 AM2/2/17
to
On the point of dates, I'm not suggested adding a date to your citation like "Wikipedia, as found on 14 Jul 2013" but rather on actually citing *to* the *dated* version of that page.
You do this by going to a Wikipedia page, then to the "View History tab", picking one of the saved versions, pulling it up on your screen, and then using *that* URL which has the date actually embedded in the URL itself. These dated versions never change, they are static versions of the page at various times in the past, all the way back to the first version.
taf
Feb 2, 2017, 11:54:08 AM2/2/17
to
I can't think of a single instance where one would want to cite Wikipedia. Find the actual source. If the Wikipedia page isn't well enough referenced to identify the original source, then it isn't trustworthy enough to be cited. If it is well enough documented, then you never want to cite a more removed source, any more than you want to cite the IGI rather than citing the record that the IGI is indexing.
taf
taf
Andrew Lancaster
Feb 3, 2017, 3:19:46 AM2/3/17
to
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 5:34:48 PM UTC+1, wjhonson wrote:
> On the point of dates, I'm not suggested adding a date to your citation like "Wikipedia, as found on 14 Jul 2013" but rather on actually citing *to* the *dated* version of that page.
>
> You do this by going to a Wikipedia page, then to the "View History tab", picking one of the saved versions, pulling it up on your screen, and then using *that* URL which has the date actually embedded in the URL itself. These dated versions never change, they are static versions of the page at various times in the past, all the way back to the first version.
You can do both. (Which might be what you mean.)
> On the point of dates, I'm not suggested adding a date to your citation like "Wikipedia, as found on 14 Jul 2013" but rather on actually citing *to* the *dated* version of that page.
>
> You do this by going to a Wikipedia page, then to the "View History tab", picking one of the saved versions, pulling it up on your screen, and then using *that* URL which has the date actually embedded in the URL itself. These dated versions never change, they are static versions of the page at various times in the past, all the way back to the first version.
Andrew Lancaster
Feb 3, 2017, 3:21:48 AM2/3/17
to
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 5:54:08 PM UTC+1, taf wrote:
> I can't think of a single instance where one would want to cite Wikipedia. Find the actual source. If the Wikipedia page isn't well enough referenced to identify the original source, then it isn't trustworthy enough to be cited. If it is well enough documented, then you never want to cite a more removed source, any more than you want to cite the IGI rather than citing the record that the IGI is indexing.
I would say that this is a good rule for using any online source, no matter how good. (It is also a principle in Wikipedia itself. As they noticed early, online sources otherwise tend to reference each other in a circular fashion which becomes worthless and impossible to trace.)
> I can't think of a single instance where one would want to cite Wikipedia. Find the actual source. If the Wikipedia page isn't well enough referenced to identify the original source, then it isn't trustworthy enough to be cited. If it is well enough documented, then you never want to cite a more removed source, any more than you want to cite the IGI rather than citing the record that the IGI is indexing.
The Hoorn
Feb 3, 2017, 1:50:50 PM2/3/17
to
I'm a big believer in citing primary sources. There's plenty of primary materials where you can easily cite Henry III's birth. The following can consulted:
Annales de Margan (A.D. 1066-1232) in Annales Monastici, ed. Henry Richards Luard (London: Rolls Series 36, pt. 1, 1864), 28-29.
John of Oxenedes, Chronica, ed. Sir Henry Ellis (London: Rolls Series 13, 1859), 121.
Annales monasterii de Waverleia (A.D. 1-1291) in Annales Monastici, ed. Henry Richards Luard (London: Rolls Series 36, pt. 2, 1865), 259.
Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard (London: Rolls Series 57, pt. 2, 1874), 520.
Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum, ed. Henry G. Hewlett (London: Rolls Series 84, pt. 2, 1887), 44.
The Historical Collections of Walter of Coventry, ed. William Stubbs (London: Rolls Series 58, pt. 2, 1873), 199.
Hope these are of some help to other researchers.
Annales de Margan (A.D. 1066-1232) in Annales Monastici, ed. Henry Richards Luard (London: Rolls Series 36, pt. 1, 1864), 28-29.
John of Oxenedes, Chronica, ed. Sir Henry Ellis (London: Rolls Series 13, 1859), 121.
Annales monasterii de Waverleia (A.D. 1-1291) in Annales Monastici, ed. Henry Richards Luard (London: Rolls Series 36, pt. 2, 1865), 259.
Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards Luard (London: Rolls Series 57, pt. 2, 1874), 520.
Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum, ed. Henry G. Hewlett (London: Rolls Series 84, pt. 2, 1887), 44.
The Historical Collections of Walter of Coventry, ed. William Stubbs (London: Rolls Series 58, pt. 2, 1873), 199.
Hope these are of some help to other researchers.
Hovite
Feb 5, 2017, 7:11:48 AM2/5/17
to
On Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 6:32:45 PM UTC, Richard Smith wrote:
> Then the question is: which secondary source should I cite?
http://global.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/index/
> Then the question is: which secondary source should I cite?
https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/
https://sok.riksarkivet.se/Sbl/Start.aspx?lang=en
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies
http://adb.anu.edu.au/
http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/
> Is Wikipedia actually the best source for ultra high
> profile historical figures?
Stewart Baldwin
Feb 7, 2017, 8:01:50 PM2/7/17
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On 1/31/2017 12:32 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> I recently audited one of my smaller databases to ensure everyone in
> it had at least one source for their dates and places of birth and
> death, if those details were present. Mostly everything was properly
> sourced, but it caught a few places where I'd evidently got distracted
> part way through updating a family and left it incomplete, and there
> were a few very close relatives (such as my parents) whose dates I
> hadn't bothered sourced. But there was one other category of people
> who were frequently not adequately sourced: very high-profile
> individuals whose details are well known. Henry III was the first
> example of these that I came across.
In my opinion, citing good secondary sources is perfectly fine, and in
> I recently audited one of my smaller databases to ensure everyone in
> it had at least one source for their dates and places of birth and
> death, if those details were present. Mostly everything was properly
> sourced, but it caught a few places where I'd evidently got distracted
> part way through updating a family and left it incomplete, and there
> were a few very close relatives (such as my parents) whose dates I
> hadn't bothered sourced. But there was one other category of people
> who were frequently not adequately sourced: very high-profile
> individuals whose details are well known. Henry III was the first
> example of these that I came across.
some cases even desirable. The key factor that should be considered is
checkability, i.e., based on the citation you give, how easy would it be
for someone who wants to check the evidence more carefully to locate the
relevant evidence, and in more difficult cases, the discussion of the
logic leading to the conclusions. Of course, the worst citations are
the ones which lead nowhere or are based on false logic, but the
following should also be avoided:
1. Citations requiring several steps to reach the real evidence.
2. Citations of multiple sources where it is not apparent which
statements are backed by which sources.
3. Unnecessary duplicate citations, e.g., if the main discussion of a
topic is in secondary source A, and secondary source B bases its
discussion on source A without adding anything of significance, then
there is no reason to also cite source B.
4. Citing sources not actually consulted by the citer, unless this is
clearly indicated.
5. If certain results require a major discussion that has already been
well presented in the scholarly literature, it is often better just to
cite the article rather than redoing the discussion.
Stewart Baldwin
sass...@charter.net
Feb 8, 2017, 5:05:56 PM2/8/17
to Stewart Baldwin, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
ty Stewart for posting this helpful info on citing. ty all for this
chat i am so learning so much
debbietx
chat i am so learning so much
debbietx
-----------------------------------------From: "Stewart Baldwin"
To:
Cc:
Sent: 08-Feb-2017 01:02:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Citing sources for well-known events
clearly indicated.
Stewart Baldwin
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
0 new messages