APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-12 > 1101946427


From: "Barbara Vines Little" <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Census - What is the source?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:13:47 -0500
References: <111.3e753dc9.2edf969a@aol.com> <200412012258.iB1MwAJI010950@mail.rootsweb.com> <6.1.2.0.2.20041201182201.03a6ee80@pop.erols.com>


Is it not the purpose of a citation to be able to find the item again? Thus
if the "rules" do not provide sufficient information--aren't the rules
wrong? And, isn't the converse also true?


----- Original Message -----
From: "John M. Scroggins" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:02 PM
Subject: RE: [APG] Census - What is the source?


> 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
>
>
> ==== APG Mailing List ====
> The Association of Professional Genealogists
> http://www.apgen.org/publications/apg-l/index.html
>

This thread: