APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2004-12 > 1101975961


From: "Natalie Cottrill" <>
Subject: RE: [APG] Citing Sources - Original, Derived, etc.
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 01:26:12 -0700
In-Reply-To: <004901c4d812$02c43300$0900a8c0@LISSALAP>


There have been, as usual, some really good points made on this thread about
what to cite and when (even if there is/was ensuing confusion). Richard
Pence humorously said (paraphrased) "maybe we ought stop being so nitpicky
and consider what is important." Well, what is important? To some degree,
this probably boils down to each of us considering what is practical for our
situation, while also striving to be as consistent as possible. I say
"practical" because what represents a practical citation for one publication
or intellectual creation, might not be practical for another. Some of us
create citations for our own use, others create citations for clients, while
still others create citations for scholarly journals. Doesn't it seem
logical that there will a few differences in what is considered "practical"
or "important" in each of these situations?

As Elizabeth pointed out, many records and record sets are unique (e.g.
manuscripts housed in only one location). In these cases, it seems critical
to make sure the citation tells exactly where these unique records can be
found again. Then, as Elissa pointed out, still other records or record sets
might actually have several copies in different places across the globe, but
the copies might be of varying quality (some sets might be poorly archived,
water damaged, or so worn, that they aren't very legible), or some copies
might have restricted access. It seems logical in these cases to add a note
about record access and quality in the footnote, especially if access to the
record is restricted, or if the record is in poor condition. This might cost
a few extra seconds of typing, but this information could save time and
trouble later.

An extra line of detailed information in a footnote can be an article or
journal editor's nightmare, and that has been pointed out to us before. But,
with ongoing personal or client research (think years), it seems efficient
to have the citation do two things for us: a) tell exactly what the source
was and where the genealogist viewed it b) tell what condition it was in
when the genealogist viewed it (Is it in German? Is it legible? Was it an
old typescript on decaying onion skin paper? Does one need special access to
a website to see that record again? Did access to the source require hiring
an agent in Ukraine?).

This citation, below, might not be practical for everyone, but it offers up
some good detailed information about the source, which would help some
audiences evaluate it.

1901 British Census, Northern Division, Aylsham, Norfolk County,
England, RG13/1831, folio 99, page 15, household 29 for Jane Nichols
(London: National Archives, 2004), subscription database, [Digital image of
originals in The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU],
<http://www.1901census.nationalarchives.gov.uk/, accessed May 2004.

The above citation clearly tells where one can find Jane Nichols's household
within the source generally known as the "1901 British Census" - even if the
folio, regional division, or household number might be hard to read on some
other version of the record. Yes, the citation could have stopped right
there, and with some publications, it might have. HOWEVER, the rest of the
citation tells that:

- this record is within a subscription database (so it requires special
access),
- the image represented a digital scan of original records (image might have
been "enhanced")
- the original records are currently housed in Surrey
- on the date accessed, the electronic image was at ___ URL.

Ok, here is where the "practicality" weighs in *for me.* With the ongoing
research projects I do, the long term value that I derive from taking a few
extra seconds while I'm creating a citation, to add the repository, call #
and quality information, far outweighs any negative visual element that
might result from my adding an extra line of text to the citation. Knowing
exactly where the record source was viewed and in what condition it was at
the time is particularly handy when I reopen older client files. I can quick
ly evaluate what quality of sources were studied, and where those sources
were, so that I can estimate what the next logical research steps might be,
based on source evaluation. For instance, with the archive call number in
the citation, I can quickly put my hands on source again without having to
stand in line at computers or card files waiting to get a chance to use the
catalog. In another instance, if the source is in Germany, and it exists
only in Germany, then I can prepare the client for the expense of having
someone overseas access the source again.

Other detailed citation examples:

Ontario Registrar General, Marriage Index Surnames A - Z for the Year
1919 (Salt Lake City: filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1992-2003)
[Microfilm of original records at the Archives of Ontario, Toronto, Canada],
FHL Microfilm 2223688 Items 6 - 31.

State of New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, Bureau
of Vital Statistics, "Certificate of No Record Found for Jane Stuart between
1 January 1957 and 31 December 1959." [Certified document acquired via
correspondence with State of New Jersey Department of Health and Senior
Services PO Box 370, Trenton, NJ 08625-0370.]

Katholische Kirche Oberailsfeld (Oberailsfeld Catholic Church
Registers), 1646 Burials, Fiche 34, p. 14, "Burial of Margaretha Halt dated
13 December 1646" [Photocopy of original record viewed at the Archiv des
Erzbistums Bamberg, Bamberg, Bayern].

Since I've made it a habit to include the repository, call #, and quality of
the source in each citation, this all goes pretty quickly now. I don't have
to stop and have a personal debate with myself each time I create a
citation, wondering "hmm, what should I include (or leave out) in this
citation?" I had been driving myself nuts being concerned about "who" might
nitpick "what" in my citations, so now I just "throw it all" in there.

I certainly don't want to blow anyone's mind here, or say that the above
"throw it all in there" way of citing records will be or should be equally
practical or valuable to other genealogists. But, these days, with so many
of us working globally - with agents all over the world, with eclectic
unique records sources housed in unusual places, and/or with all the new
electronic media - I have found it practical and efficient to include
information about the repository, call # and quality in citations. Then, not
only is there a solid trail to follow when that record needs to be found
again, but there is also a pretty good image about the quality of the source
before revisiting it.

I hope that my colleagues on this list can agree to some degree, at least,
to my overall suggestion (though a bit long - sorry!) ... that the inclusion
and exclusion of some elements of a citation will depend on the audience.
What might be "nitpicky" for some audiences, might be "important material"
to others.

Respectfully,

Natalie Cottrill
ProGenealogists, Inc.
PO Box 900188
Sandy, UT 84090-0188
(801) 596-3230 - Main Office
(801) 699-9470 - Mobile
(801) 596-3380 - Fax
http://www.progenealogists.com

ProGenealogists, Inc. 2004, All rights reserved.

This thread: