I'm getting a difference of opinion on this question so thought I'd get more opinions. (May not be a good idea but we'll see!)

Which of the three attachments is the 'correct' way to enter a newspaper article on Ancestry Member Trees, or is there yet another way?

Thanks for your opinions.
Jo

The limited Ancestry Trees citation setup does not really provide ready-made boxes for all the info you want to include.

You are not citing a photocopy from the newspaper, you are citing a transcript or extract from it.

Therefore you need to say who the author of the transcript or extract is.

You need to give the location of the "repository". If it is a web site, say so (your web link does not say whether it is a link to a transcript of the newspaper page on someone's web site, to the repository generally, or what).

You should also give date you accessed that web site in addition to a precise description of it (title, owner).

Consult latest book on citing evidence, by Elizabeth Shown Mills.

Thanks for the reply. Let me clarify...I'm citing an online newspaper in pdf format, it's my transcription, and I know how to cite it properly but, as you say, it doesn't 'translate' well into Ancestry's template, so that's what I'm asking for opinions about...how to fill in the template they provide.

Jo

Since you realize the template is inadequate, you can not worry about what goes in the various fields. Many people's experience is that when downloading a gedcom you lose most of the data you've entered as a "tree source" anyway.

Whatever information you know needs to be added could be put in the "Notes" field.

Personally I do not usually bother with the Ancestry-style source format, just enter a correct citation in the description field for an uploded document. For sources for 'event' I also enter the citation in the description field.

For some events where citations and/or evidentiary discussion won't fit in the one description field, I put it in as 'story' or upload it as a PDF file as 'story' (grrrr, still hate that category name).

Remember, these trees, like most on the web, do not allow citing specific evidence for *relationships* (e.g., evidence that X is child of A and/or B). There is no intrinsic way really to cite evidence correctly, and the way items are described as 'linked' from Ancestry.com databases is not correct.

Thank you very much for your opinions & ideas.

Interesting question Jo, and one which I daresay everyone wrestles with here...thanks for asking.

In the "details" block, I generally try to avoid redundancy with a description of the "type" of article (eg. "News Item", "Public Notice", "Obituary" etc. etc.) and the page number. Like you, I also include the actual date of the publication in the "date" block.

Attached is one of mine.

Thanks for the very helpful example and explanation. I didn't realize the notes field would show since the other notes don't show.

...and another issue of some consternation are entries, such as obituaries, that may be published over a period of several days.

In that case, I'll simply link to a single publication date that is...

1. Most complete. You may occasionally find additional "obits" from organizations or societies published in conjunction with the primary obituary that do not appear in each publication.

2. Most accurate. Occasionally I've found subsequent obits that have been "edited" (most likely at the family's behest).

3. Most legible

...and then add a "see also" entry in "notes" containing additional publication dates and a link to each.

Your wrote: "...and then add a "see also" entry in "notes" containing additional publication dates and a link to each."

That's a great idea. Many times the short little 'death notice' gives one single piece of information that's not listed in the actual obit, which may even be in the same paper but on a different page.

"Many times the short little 'death notice' gives one single piece of information that's not listed in the actual obit, which may even be in the same paper but on a different page."

Quite correct Jo. I've seen that on occasion as well and I believe I have several like that in my trees. I suppose incorporating the actual text of a secondary notice into "notes" would be desirable as well. I'll be keeping an eye out for those in my trees.