Keeping Track of Footnote Status

The Problem? How do you maintain writing momentum while composing footnotes? How does one track the status of footnotes as you write?

I doubt I am inventing anything here and, in fact, I suspect most folks come up with a system of some sort and perhaps one even fairly similar to mine.

I have a four methods I use to maintain consistency between similar footnotes, clean up footnotes and identify short form/Ibid footnotes. The main reason why I need multiple methods is because I find writing painful if I have to stop writing and make a footnote. What I do instead is intensely research and take notes (Evernote, Dropbox, Word are my friends). And then start writing and it can flow out of me.  “Flow” makes it sound simple; actually writing is only less painful if I do it this way.

If the writing naturally breaks up into chunks, I will write then do footnotes and then repeat. But, trust me, at the beginning, the paper is pretty ugly.

Here we go…

Method 1:

  1. I insert the footnotes into the very ugly draft. There are two types–ones I found while researching– These are usually in good shape because I carefully compose them while I am researching.  The other category are ones based on my documents I have collected over the years that I wish to reference in the document. These I  compose as I find I need them.
  2. Each footnote is also copied onto a Master Source List and placed in an appropriate category, e.g. censuses 1850 and before, vital records, books, etc. and in alpha order within each category.

Method 2: Color coding

  1. If I find I am missing a source,  I will make a footnote and instead of a citation I write what I am missing, e.g. “DR for Antje R.” or even “what was I thinking here?” These I put in red.
  2. If I have a partial footnote or I am missing information, I enter the partial citation, I enter a note to myself. For example, a newspaper clipping in my file but with no newspaper noted, I will put the citation in as I know it but put “What is the newspaper’s name?” in red. I might be able to find the name of the newspaper later.
  3. If I think the citation is complete and I am happy with it, I color it green.
  4. After all citations are green, I will then, and only then turn them all black.

Method 3: identifying Short form and Ibid opportunities

  1. I make all citations long form until all citations are “black.”
  2. While I write and if I think I have used it before (usually I know this because it appears on my Master Source List) I place a “SF” at the start of the citation indicating this citation is a candidate for a short form citation or “IBID” indicating there might be an opportunity to just use Ibid. But, I won’t know this until the paper is finished

Method 4:

  1. To cross check the citations after they have all turned black, I plan on (haven’t gotten this far yet on any document) turning them into endnotes (yes, you can change them back to footnotes when you are finished), and check each one very carefully.  I am not sure yet how this will work, but I think I will pick off the first one, paste it into a separate Word document making another Master Source List II, and turn the appropriate ones into short form or add Ibid. This will force me to look for inconsistencies, anomalies (should be few, but I know a few sneaked in).
  2. I will check each one against EE [1] to make sure any changes I have made are defensible.
  3. I think I will have to do this because I wasn’t religious about entering every unique citation into my first master source list, but even if I had, I would still probably make a Master Source List II because I want my citations to be super-consistent and composed appropriately.

Hope this helps someone.

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last post: worked on my KDP almost exclusively, toning up my two presentations for Jamboree which is just in 2.5 weeks, and signed up for their live streaming of their DNA Day. I bought some downloads from NGS and have listened to a couple so far (Judy R on women and the law and Lisa Alzo on eastern European brick walls).

[1] Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace,” third edition (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2015).


Client Report Comments

Clock 6I have been working on a client report for a while.  And, as I usually do, I learn something along the way that might be of help to you.

I am also working on my portfolio for submission for certification for review by the Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG.) I hope to submit the portfolio during the Fall of 2016 after my Midwest driving/research trip.

You probably noticed, if you are a regular reader, the countdown clock  now has enough months to get me to 2017. BCG allows  you to be “on the clock” for 1 year, then you have to extend (pay $75). I have extended twice. I now have until 12 May 2017 to submit. Some things changed when I submitted because  the “rules” changed.  I must now keep the portfolio to less than 150 pages (shouldn’t be a problem) and instead of a resume, I have to report my learning activities with a short statement of what I learned. This will now be graded; whereas, the resume was not.

One of the requirments is to submit a real client report. I don’t take a lot of clients, but I had the opportunity to do so right before Christmas. We mutually agreed to wait until I returned from my driving vacation #1 to begin. Here are some observations after I have almost finished the report:

  • I thought I had a couple of good reports in the bag that I could submit. I was wrong.
  • BCG has a monthly webinar about the segments of the portfolio. Any one can listen in; they are outstanding. I was lucky. Right before I started writing this client report, Tom Jones gave a BCG webinar on writing a good client report! Lucky?  You bet! Here are a few things I learned.
    • Have a header on every page that identifies you so no page can “get away from you” without your authorship being attached to it
    • A good client report starts with a good contract, which does not have to be long or formal. (look to ProGen for some more formal ones; they can be simpler.)
    • Write your research plan with citations of where you are going to start.
    • Write as you research
  • Do a minimum of two client reports and then pick which one you think is the better. (I will do a second one in May.)
  • Read the standards carefully–I think you almost have to “read between the lines,” but a  genealogist who had done multiple reports, would probably call me to task and say that to him/her, the requirement was obvious! You can find the standards by which all portfolios are graded, on the BCG website, or you can click here.
  • look at what the standards use as examples which are usually within parentheses.  For example, standard 67, bullet no. 8, says you should include sources you researched that did not result in any findings….OK, got that. But it goes on to say “along with findings of direct, indirect and negative evidence…” [1] Hmmm. I will have to review what I have done to see if I am being consistent, not only in my vocabulary but also with where I apply the analysis of the source.

I hope these hints are helpful.

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last posting: gave my first (and not my last) Legacy Software webinar on Fire Insurance Maps. The reviews were terrific and I was on “cloud 9” for two days–but, what are “clouds 1-8 about?” I worked on my client report and worked on the client report and worked on…you get the idea. I am now prepping for my NGS presentations. My next blog will probably describe how I do that.

[1] Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards (Nashville:, 2014), 39.

[2] Elgin watch, photo taken by Jill Morelli at the Elgin Historical Society, Elgin, Illinois, 2012.

What is “Context” Anyway?

Context of the source, context of the citation, and context of its reader should all inform the decisions we have to make while crafting a citation. Different contexts will lead to different decisions about what to include and how to format the elements of the citation. — Tom Jones, email to the author, 31 December 2013. [1]

Citation is an art, not a science. — Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained, p. 41.

What?  Dr. Jones speaks of “crafting” a citation and Ms. Mills describes it as an art!  In my genealogical infancy, I confidently looked up the type of source in a style manual, found a suitable template and filled in the blanks–no need to read all that text!  Now, Dr. Jones and Ms. Mills challenge us to thoughtfully create citations that are responsive to the text and regard the reader–the context.  But, this word “context” still has me puzzled.

I thought “context” was the sociological or historical or political environment within which we make decisions.  How can a source or a citation or the reader have a context?  What is “context” anyway?

Let’s start with the Oxford English Dictionary:

Root of the word: “Latin contextus (u-stem) connection, < participial stem of contexĕre to weave together, connect. (author’s emphasis)”
[2]  I love that!  Weave together–how beautiful!
Definition (noun): “The weaving together of words and sentences; construction of speech, literary composition”

So what are we actually weaving?

In 1425, a Middle English writer combined the word “context” with “historical.”[3]  Today, genealogists are also introduced to the phrase “historical context.”  For example, the decision by Ulysses Grant to stop the exchange of Union and Confederate prisoners confined many individuals in Civil War prisons. More contemporaneously, the decision by the US Congress to reduce spending on research can negatively impact the numbers of young investigators entering the field.  A soldier kept in prison for months may become sickly for the rest of his life; a promising student may decide to enter the familial business rather than have a life in research.  These are real world individual decisions that are affected by the decisions of politics and history.  The individual decision is inextricably tied to the macro event–tightly woven together.

So, how does this apply to citations?

In Evidence Explained, Elizabeth Shown Mills has three references to “context”– cemeteries  and censuses and their physical context of the neighbors and the differences of the context of the original church record as opposed to that of a certificate of marriage. We may be able to obtain the certificate but a review of the original church entries may include information that wasn’t included on the certificate and reveal information about the recorder (e.g. shakey handwriting, level of literacy) which lead us to conclusions about the quality of the source. She covers the issue of context of the citation without a direct use of the word in Section 2.1 Art vs. Science. [3]

Let’s look at a relatively simple example–the blog– to illustrate how the context of the item being cited can drive the format of the citation.

If the context of the information that is being cited concerns a specific posting, the citation, according to EE, might look like this:
“What is Context Anyway?” Jill Morelli Weblog: Genealogy Certification: A Personal Journey, 11 February 2014 ( : accessed 11 February 2014).

If the information that is being cited is focused instead on the blog as a whole, the citation might look like this:
Jill Morelli Weblog: Genealogy Certification: a Personal Journey, 2011-2014, [6]

If the information or the article is focused on the author, the citation might look like this:
Jill Morelli, “What is Context Anyway?” Genealogy Certification: A Personal Journey, 11 February 2014 ( : accessed 11 February 2014).

We can look to the templates provided but ultimately we must think about what are we citing, why are are citing it and what impression do we want to leave with the reader.  Thus, the development of the citation is one of mindfulness of the source, the narrative, the reader and the citation.

Happy Weaving!


What I have done since the last posting: worked on the SGS newsletter and getting it ready for publication.  The feature article is about the Spring Seminar featuring Jeanne Larzalerle Bloom.  I met Jeanne at the APG Professional Management Conference prior to SLIG and interviewed her.  It should be a good issue. Continued to work on the ProGen assignment–a genealogical proof argument.  My topic is the Irish village of birth of Mary Coyne.  The client provided me with many family traditions related to their location from which the family emigrated but I am writing a proof argument without the use of any of the clues provided.

[1] Tom Jones [(e-address for private use)] to Jill Morelli, e-mail, 31 December 2013, “blog posting comparing article with EE citation templates,” digitally filed, Blog file; privately held by Morelli, [(e-address) & street address for private use], Seattle, Washington, 2013. cited in blog posting “GPS Element #2: Informative Citations,”,
[2]  OED Online. December 2013. Oxford University Press. ( : accessed 9 February 2014).
[3] The OED cites the first usage in 1425, “In the contexte historicalle….” Almost 600 years later, we, as genealogists, use the word similarly.
[4] Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 2007). For blog postings, see 811-813; for cemeteries, see 229; for censuses, see 260; and for church records, see 340.
[5] As our internet vocabulary matures, I believe the word “weblog” has evolved to “blog.”  I would suggest handling the word “blog” similar to the word “digital image” or “database”.  This might the citation looking like: Jill Morelli, “What is Context Anyway?” Genealogy Certification: A Personal Journey, 10 February 2014, blog ( : accessed 11 February 2014).

GPS Element 3: Analysis and Correlation

How many sessions at conferences or webinars have you attended where they talk ABOUT the Genealogical Proof Standards (GPS) [1] and its five elements, but then did not show us how to apply each element to a real world problem much less apply it to our own readings and writings?  I have been taking the Mastering Genealogical Proof class based on the book of the same name by Thomas W. Jones [2].  I am finding it very informative (however, I will be the first to admit there are some moments that, for me, were incredibly dry.)

I will address each of the five elements of the GPS in separate blogs and apply each to what i specifically have learned in that chapter.  I hope you will share your findings as well.  Application is the component which is missing in most presentations.  Even if we “know we should know it”–do we really understand how to apply the GPS to our genealogical work?  I will also confess upfront that this has been an evolving awakening on my part.  Once again, I am struck by how much I do not know about qualitative analysis.

Some of you may have been followers of this blog when I wrote my first two blogs on qualitative analysis over two years ago:

Are there tools which can improve our analytical skills?    published on 22 December 2011


Does the concept of thematic networks have a place in the “analytical tool box?”  published 24 December 2011

Dr. Jones does not address the issue of thematic networks in his book, but I still think they have a place.  In the blogs noted above I showed how the creation of a visual “thematic network” can assist in organizing data we obtain from an oral interview which often seems disconnected and haphazard even when using structured questions.  If we ever watch NCIS, or CIS or Rosselli & Isles, visual thematic networks are often pictured…..they are the big walls that have all pertinent crime data collected to date posted on a wall so the crime solvers can see all the myriads of clues in a single visual scan.  The crime solvers start grouping and eliminating suspects and irrelevant information as they assess other information that is more pertinent to solving the crime.  All is posted on the wall–they are correlating the evidence!  Are we so different?  Perhaps if you have a particularly tough “brick wall” you might consider such a wall.

I would like to come up with a new name for this wall; how about, BRICK Wall for “Better Research In Correlation of Kin” Wall!!  🙂

If thematic networks are already in our “analytical toolbox, what other tools does Dr. Jones put into the box?

ANALYSIS: Analysis according to Dr. Jones is the in-depth look at the source.  He analyzes the source, the information it provides and applies the Process Map [3].  What is the quality of that source?  biased?  manipulated?  an index (derivative) or and original?  If an authored work, what standards did the author use in the compilation and conclusion making?  We, too, can analyze the source and the information it contains for its validity.

CORRELATION: Dr. Jones adds narrative discussion, lists, timelines, tables and maps to our toolbox, and then illustrates ways to analyze the information we have to determine if it rises to the level of evidence, either direct or indirect.  These, too, can go into our own analytical tool box.

I had not analyzed my sources with any discipline before engaging in the exercises in the book, except at the most superficial way, as in “Yeah!  They have the microfilms of that parish’s records.”

I didn’t even think about the differenty types of tools to use for correlations: narrative or lists, which I have not consiously done.  I also had not specifically thought of how maps, tables and timelines contribute to my analytical tool box but I use them frequently.   As a visual person, I gravitate towards these tools.  I will normally put information into a table, sometimes even when a narrative would do.

post-it exercise 2So I would like to propose that before we do a Research Plan, perhaps a “BRICK Wall” would be a good place to start.  This would allow us to move information around and put it in the most logical order.  It should be dynamic–as we gain information, it should be posted on the wall.  the earlier we start with such a wall, probably the better; however, we might find ourselves in an intractable position with a problem well into the analysis and this tool might “rescue” us from what seems to be an intractable problem.  The BRICK Wall would also have the advantage of assisting us in the writing of the report as well (We’ll talk about that when we get to GPS Element 5: The Written Conclusion”.)  So if we are having problems with organizing complex data for a proof; such a wall might help.  There are programs out there which create a virtual wall such as Scrivener.

I will be assessing my sources.  I will be think first about which is the best of many tools to use that assist in the correlation of my collected information and evidence. And, I will determine if a BRICK Wall is a good tool to use for my problem before I get too far in the process of conceptualizing the problem.

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last posting:  I am working on the next SGS Bulletin, submitted by assignments for both ProGen and MGP, attended an PS-APG meeting on Family Search (check out their Terms and Conditions before you post your information, photos, videos etc. there).  I have not been working on my portfolio, other than indirectly through these classes.  Did some client work that I need to wrap up.  My aunt has yet to do the house plan exercise which I hope she will do soon.  Made very cute Halloween cookies! I have sent to USCIS requests for naturalization papers on my paternal grandfather and Pat’s paternal grandfather.  I got the C number from them ($20) and armed with his file number, made my request (another $20) for the portfolio on my grandfather before the government shut down.  Haven’t heard anything about Pat’s grandfather yet.  Haven’t received the portfolio yet.  Let’s hope this silliness is over soon.

[1] Board for Certification for Genealogists, “The Genealogical Proof Standard,” ( : accessed 13 October 2013).

[2] Thomas W. Jones, Mastering Genealogical Proof, (Arlington, Virginia: National Genealogical Society, 2013) 53.

[3] Elizabeth Shown Mills, “QuickLesson 17: The Evidence Analysis Process Model,” Evidence Explained: Historical Analysis, Citation & Source Usage ( accessed 13 October 2013).

Have you ever experienced “Research Rapture?”

(don’t you just love that phrase…see below where I heard it first)

I have been in a month of “research rapture.”  Where I am so “into it” that I can hardly extricate myself from the process.  I look up and its 1:00 AM!!  Where did the time go?

I have been working on my April assignment for ProGen, the virtual study group, this month and just loved it.  So, here is my story.

I have been wondering what I can do in the NW that would utilize the records here and be additive to my genealogy business, i.e. a service I could market locally.  I have been considering doing house histories.  Now, this is an obvious choice and some of you may be wondering why it took me so long to come to this conclusion.  Honest answer….I don’t know why it took this long.  I am an architect by profession and so analysis of properties is something I have done all my career.  Couple that with the genealogist’s investigative and document identification and evaluation skills and I think I have a great match of skills for this…maybe even uniquely so.  I also have done most of my research in “small town America;” I would like an urban experience as well.

ProGen’s April assignment was to develop a locality or subject guide of our choice and so I chose House Histories in Seattle, King County.  It turned out to be a 15 page paper that I worked on like it was an obsession. A key finding:  it is hard to do house histories in Seattle because the records are scattered all over the Puget Sound area. It does not appear that many people are doing these and that is good news for me.

So armed with my locality guide I am writing a house history of my own house.

The house we live in was built in 1997, so what is there to know?  I have found out some interesting things:

  • our house was new in 1997 but sits on a foundation built in 1937.
  • It appears that it was originally a one story house on top of a three car garage!
  • The three car garage/house was owned by the adjacent property owner up the hill, Arthur Paulson in the 1980’s and 1990’s.  Arthur was the owner of Mother Hubbard’s Cupboard (I have no idea what or where that was).
  • the house seemed to be vacant a lot of the time.
  • in 1941 it was owned by Marie Williamson, a music teacher who occupied the hosue.
  • in 1900, the city built Olympic Way West (see attachment below) which cut the three parcels our house sits on (6, 7, and 8 of block 12, Northern Addition) into an acute and tiny triangle that we bought in 2006 from Wendell and Robyn Jacobs, who we never met and instead negotiated the deal when they were in London and Singapore!

newspaper clipping QA drive

Getting down to business: now I need to test how long it takes to do a short report.  Working backwards, I think the most that anyone would pay would be $250 (also seems to be an amount that others doing this in other locales are charging) and that represents about 10 hours.  That represents some on line research, a trip to the Puget Sound Regional Archives (PSRA), maybe some City Directory work and writing the report.  I have done a short 4 hour report for a neighbor (2 pages of writing plus 4 pages of photocopy of her Property Record Cards obtained at PSRA).  Meanwhile, I continue to gather information for the report on our property because I want it to be very thorough.

I yearn for the title we had in Oklahoma where the chain of title of the property was included with your warranty deed.  In King County, on average, it takes me 30 min. to find one warranty deed at PSRA.  Our property flipped three times in the years between 1884 and 1889!  (all paid in gold…duh!)  I still do not have the original owner of the property but I am getting very close.  So obtaining the complete chain of title could take a lot of time, especially if the property flips many times.

So, I am truly engaged in this.  Have you ever experience such focus?  I hope so.  It’s exhausting but totally exhilarating.

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last posting:  Worked over 100 hours of volunteer time in layout, editing, and writing for the SGS Bulletin which went out this past week.  Got my April assignment turned in to ProGen, and started on the May assignment (not nearly as engaging to me).  I am testing Scrivener, a software for writers to assist with organization of data.  It didn’t work for the Locality guide (I think I couldn’t focus on both doing the House History subject guide and learning a new software) but it seems to be working for the writing of my personal house history.  Ordered Tom Jones’s new book, Mastering Genealogical Proof and a book on residential architectural styles.  I signed up for another virtual study group related to Mastering Genelaogic Proof.  I worked on a couple of client reports.

“research rapture”:  NPR had a feature today on Michelle McNamara, a writer/blogger who takes cold cases and using the internet and in depth analysis provides clues that reopen cases (sounds like the same skill set as genealogy to me!).  She described herself as getting so engrossed in working the data that she experiences “research rapture.”  I loved it. Here is her blog:

What else did I learn about on the cruise?

I just discovered this draft of a posting.  I am posting it now because there are some links you might find interesting and this is “clean up” day at my house.

I learned a lot about land records!  I already thought I was pretty familiar with them but Mark Lowe certainly understands the farmer and the issue of land far better than I.  Mark gave three presentations all related to the issue of land and occupation.  His first presentation was about the relationship between the occupation of making whiskey (considered a reasonable occupation in the middle states (TN, KY) up until Prohibition) and land ownership.  He traced the cluster migration from the southern PA/NJ four county area to the a few counties in those middle states.  He covered Ag censuses, something I have found very valuable and the Homestead Act  which is not so valuable to me except for my SD kin, which is a remote relationship.

He also discussed that even if your ancestor did not own land he might show up in the Deed Books with a “chattel mortgage”.  I was unfamiliar with these until I visited Stephenson Co IL recently and saw them on the books.  These are mortgages to buy things other than land, perhaps a herd of cattle or a large piece of machinery.  So, his recommendation was to always look in the Deed Books (note: I looked there for my elusive Freidrick Eilers and he is not there.).

A source he recommended that I have not used as much as I should is the NUCMC site (, which indexes manuscript collections.  You might find your family papers somewhere other than where you might expect them!  He also made special note of The Core Historical Literature of Agriculture site (  I have not looked at this site but it is on my “to do” list.

One thing he stressed was the importance of tax lists/assessment books and poll taxes.  I have not used these extensively; I did not check out Stephenson Co’s tax books for my Eilers.  I will check with the county and see what they have.

I did get a chance to ask him a few questions about some particular land issues associated with my ancestors:

Q: John Bode sells property to wife, Antje, in the early 1860’s on one day and then she sells it to a nephew the next day.  Why?

A: Probably to avoid a tax of some kind.

Q: Eda Berg (1st married name) shows up on an indenture (as seller) after her marriage to Eilers.  Does this indicate that Eilers was dead by the time of the sale?

A: No.  Probably just expedient for the sake of the children who are still named Berg and who are named on the Indenture.  By using her Berg name, it clarifies the right she had to sell the land since her husband, Siben, was dead.

All three were good sessions, even if I do not have any whiskey runners in “The Fam”.  (note:  in a probate record of one of my Swedish families, the largest valued item was the still!)

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last posting:  was checking out my blog site and found this still in draft form.  Decided to publish anyway. went to yoga.

What are you reading now?

I try to be a voracious reader but sometimes other things get in the way.  Recently Marian Pierre-Louis recommended a book, The Family Tree Problem Solver, in her blog, Roots & Rambles <>.  I promptly checked it out of the Seattle Public Library.  I agree; it’s a good one.

I like this book because….

  • the author is up front that this is not a beginner book and then proceeds to write to the reader in a tone which supports that statement.
  • the book focuses on common intermediate/advanced problems, such as MIA in the censuses, multiple people with the same name in a locale, and solving problems before 1850.
  • the book is entertainingly written.  It is a great combination of case studies, options and development of a research plan for each problem.

I think this would make a good reference book to have on hand. But, this is not a reference book like The Handybook but more like a guide to solutions in general.

I want to thank Karen in Chicago for continuing the dialog on certification.  She shared with me some of her wonderful work product and caused a big shift in how I do citations.  I had been using Evidence! but on her recommendation I moved over to Evidence Explained, both by ESM.  I admit I still like the census citations better in Evidence! but I will live with it.  She also was kind enough to review one of my documents (she is taking the ProGen course) and I failed everything!  Back to work.

Happy Hunting!


What I have done since the last post:  completed (!) the SGS Bulletin and the newsletter for this quarter.  Now it needs to be printed (could occur next weekend) and mailed (could occur the Friday after Thanksgiving.  Woo hoo!  This has been totally consumptive.  I also had a genealogical emergency….had to put in a few hours for a client to add some information related to a project I had done for her for a birthday that is just a week away.  I presented to the SAR on the changes to medicine and health care before, during and after the Civil War, a topic that has interested me ever since I did the Jens Dahle report.  This week I will speak to the Seattle Newcomers Club (50 are registered, a record!) on starting your own genealogy.  Should be interesting.  Found out that one auction is completed and someone bought my services!  I guess there were a number of bidders (even better.)

1. Rising, Marsha Hoffman. The Family Tree Problem Solver Cincinnati, Ohio: Family Tree Books, 2005.

2. Mills, Elizabeth Shown. Evidence Explained, Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace. Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, 2007.

3. Mills, Elizabeth Shown. Evidence! Citation & Analysis for the Family Historian. Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1997.

4. Everton, A. Lee. The Handybook for Genealogists. Logan, Utah: The Everton Publishers, Inc., 1999.