Post by Peter HowarthPost by Peter StewartPost by Peter HowarthPost by P J EvansThis site [ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/ ] has links to several style guides, which should provide you the information you want. (Look in the style guide for "electronic". For example, the APA style is https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/reference_list_electronic_sources.html and the MLA style is https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_electronic_sources.html )
US academic circles seem caught up in a need to specify every comma and capital letter of a citation and for each organisation to have its own individual way of doing things. In the UK we seem to be more relaxed about it. The whole object of a citation is to allow someone else to find the cited source as easily as possible. That is not always straightforward with discussion groups. It used to be possible to use Rootsweb to reference a post. They have given up. Now we are pretty well limited to Google Groups, and we have no guarantee that they will keep going in their present form. And of course Google Groups allow posters to delete their posts at any time. There is therefore little point in trying to provide a URL except in the very short term. And since posts cannot be amended, there is no need to specify the date when the post was accessed. We must therefore provide the following information in order to find a post, using whatever methods will be available in the future.
1. Name of poster. This is important since it will to a large extent determine the weight given to your citation by your readers. However, you will have to decide which version of the poster's name to use, the one on the heading, the one in their signature (if any), or even their real name. You can if you want use two versions, with one of them in brackets.
2. Title of thread or topic. You can put this in single or in double quotes, depending on your local usage. Writers in German and French don't seem to bother with either. You may have to adapt the title if it is changed part way through the thread.
3. soc.genealogy.medieval -- perhaps in italics, with or without [Google Groups] added in brackets.
4. Date of post. This will help to distinguish which post if the poster has posted more than once. There is no point in adding any time, since that is always given in the time zone of the reader, rather than that of the poster.
The use of italics and various punctuation marks are in fact irrelevant when trying to find the citation. So it is up to you to decide on the version you want to use; however, it looks better if you are consistent.
I admit to being an ignoramus about the internet, but can't the URL (if
that's the correct term) for the thread be usefully given?
For instance, for this one it appears to be
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/soc.genealogy.medieval/9MIwOeH8eEk.
Is that likely to be a universal and permanent link, or might it be
localised to Australia and/or become obsolete before long?
Peter Stewart
I agree that it is possible to give the URL in the way you have described. The problem is that I used to do that using the Rootsweb URL. They are now useless. Google have a history of changing their offerings if they don't feel they are getting sufficient returns. As a result I feel unable to rely on any URL for a discussion group and I download and save anything I think might be useful. The International DOI (Digital Object Identifier) Foundation provide more permanent URLs beginning 'doi:', which can be found on some academic websites. But I don't trust Google.
However, I agree that there is no harm in providing one of their URLs, so long as you don't expect it last long term.
I see - this is the approach I've taken to Google books from the start,
downloading anything available that I might ever want just in case it
disappears. This is tiresome, but it has turned out to be worhtwhile as
some titles in the public domain have been treated as copyright works
again once some publisher has issued a reprint.
I suppose there is weird a kind of honour among opportunists.
The level of hypocrisy in the self-righteous media against Google for
data exploitation and tax avoidance, as against Facebook and Twitter for
not trying to regulate fake political news, astounds me. CNN, that has
built its international business model on fleecing third world audiences
with flagrantly dishonest advertisements, and its domestic US coverage
on giving free air time to high-rating liars in the pretense that this
is "balanced" journalism, is of course the most pious fraud in this way.