APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-12 > 1101945588


From: "John M. Scroggins" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Census - What is the source?
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 19:02:32 -0500
References: <111.3e753dc9.2edf969a@aol.com><200412012258.iB1MwAJI010950@mail.rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <200412012258.iB1MwAJI010950@mail.rootsweb.com>


At 05:58 PM 12/1/2004, Mills wrote:
>Ahh, yes, NARA! On the one hand, it's their records and their film, so they
>can make the citation as long and unwieldy as they want it to be <g> --
>which is why Chicago Manual* and most other style guides ignore NARA's
>Leaflet 17. In fact, even NARA's own journal (Prologue) ignores those
>"rules" set forth in Leaflet No. 17!
>
>And, of course, NARA's preferred method cites microfilmed material as though
>we consulted the original, and just inserts NARA film number in parentheses.
>Its model does not cite at all the title of the microfilm, as listed in
>NARA's own microfilm catalog. Is this why even NARA's own *Guide to
>Genealogical Research in the National Archives* (3d ed.) ignores Leaflet 17
>and cites film by exact title and publication number instead of six levels
>of archival hierarchy?
>
>No wonder we all stay so confused!

It's not likely that anyone representing NARA will try to explain this
inconsistency. A simple version of my personal take on it, based on my
experience in the agency (and I've been away from NARA for several years
now) is this:

The original purpose of Leaflet 17 was to tell researchers how to cite
original archival materials or copies thereof. The application of the
general principles in Leaflet 17 to microfilm copies of census records
probably reflects a view that those microfilms are simply copies in the
same sense as the older microfilm, photostatic, or more recent
electrostatic copies NARA makes for researchers on demand.

On the other hand, the National Archives made a deliberate decision in the
early to mid-1940's to treat as publications, not simply copies, the
microfilm copies made on the Archives' initiative. What is the
difference? National Archives Microfilm Publications--generally the
microfilms with "M" rather than "T" numbers--are subject to advance
planning, include title pages and other publication-like editorial
materials prepared by NARA, and are subject to specific preparation and
editorial standards that are similar to what was done for traditional
documentary publications--beyond what would normally be done in response to
a researcher's request for copies. (There are some exceptions and
anomalies in the way this has been carried out over the past six decades,
but they don't seem relevant to this discussion.)

The NARA staffs responsible for Prologue and the various Guides have
generally taken the approach that Microfilm Publications are publications
and have devised ways to cite them as such, rather than as just copies of
archives.

I must say in defense of Leaflet 17 that the details it requires can make
it much easier for NARA staff to find a specific rarely used record again,
as when another researcher is checking a footnote. Shorter citation forms
can make it difficult or impossible to find a specific document again. The
two major exceptions are the "M" microfilm (because NARA does not normally
serve the originals and does not need the long form citation to serve the
microfilm), and the very most commonly used genealogical records (because
the staff works with those series daily).

I know this can be confusing, and I won't argue that it is completely
logical, but I hope the explanation is clearer than mud.

John Scroggins

This thread: