citing multiple records from an online image database

By Anonymous on Mon, 03/21/2016 - 19:29

Forums

I'm working with an online image database. I've already created a layered long-form reference note for one particular page from a digitized bound volume--original layer, repository, digital layer--now I need to cite a different page of the same volume. Do I need to create a new long-form reference note every time I cite a new page? Is the answer the same or different for citations of searchable databases vs. a browsable database that requires waypoints?

9.42 State-level Registers example (EE, p. 468): the short-form example drops everything but the original layer. However, it is citing the same record on the same volume and page. 

If I were using the NEHGS image database of these records, which are searchable, I would need to add a digital layer. If I subsequently wanted to cite a different record (different volume and page) in the same original and digital sources (i.e., state-level registers and NEHGS database thereof), should I write another full long-form citation with all three layers (original record; repository layer; digital layer)? Would I drop the repository layer, as I would if I were working with the originals? My inclination is yes, but I can’t really find any guidance on the issue.

For a browsable database which requires waypoints, the digital layer seems crucial to each subsequent citation of a different volume, page, etc. But in a searchable database such as this, where the original layer includes all the data one needs to search by name and year OR by volume and page, is the digital layer still necessary for subsequent citations of different records?

Submitted byEEon Tue, 03/22/2016 - 12:16

prr924, NEHGS is not a state agency offering its own records. It's an outside party, offering records from a state agency—records that have been processed in some way. So the particulars depend upon what form they take at NEHGS. Can you take a specific example from the NEHGS website and create a draft citation that we can work with?

Submitted byprr924on Tue, 03/22/2016 - 18:42

I guess I phrased my last post badly! I am aware that NEHGS is not a state agency. I'm just learning citations, but I will make an attempt at an example:

Massachusetts Vital Records, 358:487, no. 802, William E. Elkey, birth, 1885; Massachusetts Archives, Boston; digital image by subscription, “Massachusetts Vital Records, 1841-1910,” New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS), AmericanAncestors (http://www.americanancestors.org/search/advanced-search : accessed 22 March 2016).

Following the examples on p. 468, it looks to me like I would drop the repository layer for the short form in a subsequent note, but I’m uncertain about the digital layer. 

If I subsequently want to cite the death record of Anna Jones, the layer for the original record would be: 

Massachusetts Vital Records, 66:39, no. 15, Anna Jones, death, 1852

Should I include the repository and digital layers for the citation of the new record, if I’ve already given that information the first time I cited the state-level registers? 

Submitted byEEon Wed, 03/23/2016 - 12:40

Patricia, thanks for giving the link and the draft citation.  From the draft, it appears that you want your Reference Note and your Source List Entry to emphasize the collection held at the Massachusetts Archives rather than the database. There are a couple of problems with that.

  1. The images themselves don’t provide us with the necessary information to cite that collection at the Massachusetts Archives. The images do not show even book or page, much less the collection/series/record group data under which the archives catalogs the records.
  2. While your first layer cites the image, it is “borrowing” information from the database that you’ve cited in the third layer and commingling it with details that are visible in the original image. A basic rule for citing layers (whether the style guide calls it layers or not) is that data for each layer needs to stay within that layer. (As a comparative example, if we are citing a county record book that is paginated and has been imaged on microfilm, we would attach the microfilm image number to our ID of the microfilm , not to our ID of the original book.)

Given that you are using the database and relying upon the database to give you accurate information about the source, it would be better to turn your citation around and use the database as the lead element. From that standpoint, only 2 layers would be needed.

  • Layer 1 would cite the database in appropriate form, state that it is a database with images, and identify the specific item of interest according to what is visible on the image itself.
  • Layer 2 would provide the “source-of-the-source” data, as given by this database.

The result would be this

 “Massachusetts Vital Records, 1841-1910,” database with images, New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS), AmericanAncestors (http://www.americanancestors.org/search/advanced-search : accessed 22 March 2016), unnumbered page image, “Births Registered in the City of Springfield [1852],” no. 802, William E. Elkey; citing Massachusetts Vital Records, 358:487, Massachusetts Archives, Boston.

This format would then be easily usable for anything else you take from this database. To use your Anna Jones example, the details in red would be those that have changed:

“Massachusetts Vital Records, 1841-1910,” database with images, New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS), AmericanAncestors (http://www.americanancestors.org/search/advanced-search : accessed 22 March 2016), unnumbered page image,“Deaths Registered in the Town of Pittsfield … 1852,” no. 1-15, Anna Jones; citing Massachusetts Vital Records,66:39, Massachusetts Archives, Boston.

Submitted byprr924on Wed, 03/23/2016 - 13:13

Thank you for the helpful tutorial. I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm still a little confused. The image pages on the NEHGS website do show volume and page numbers (not in the images themselves, but at the top of the page). Would I not list those after the URL and date accessed, rather than "unnumbered page image"? That is one way to search the database, without entering name, date range, location, event type, etc. 

It appears from your examples that I should continue showing the repository and city of the original in all subsequent citations of the database, which answers one of my original questions. But to be honest, I have no idea how to go about creating a short form citation for something like this. I will have to do some further reading in Evidence Explained! 

Patricia, the NEHGS pages show volume and page numbers, but that's part of the NEHGS database. You are relying upon NEHGS to be accurate with its identification of the volume and page. You don't know the volume and page from your own observation of the original because, as you say, the volume and page numbers do not show on the image.

If we put the volume and page number immediately after the URL, we would be instructing people to go to that URL and then look for that volume and page; but the database (from what I could see in my cursory examination) is not set up to allow us to browse. We go to the database and enter the name of the person, the year, and the locale. Ergo, those pieces of data constitute the "specific item of interest" that we cite after we identify the database and its URL.  Then in the next layer, we report what the database says is its source, using whatever data it supplies.

As for the short form, let's use an example you're more familiar with. If you were citing an article that appears in a journal, your short form would be

Author, "Article Title," specific item.

Right? So, the same holds for the short-form citation to a specific item in a database:

Author (if there is one), "Article Title," specific item.

Submitted bykasmetson Thu, 03/24/2016 - 11:39

I'd like to jump in this conversation.  I am working with a just an index at this point.   If the following are my first (hypothetical) 4 reference notes in an article I am writing:

1 Social Security Administration, "U.S. Social Security Death Index," database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 15 March 2016), entry for Lillian T. Waclawek, 2011.

2 Social Security Administration, "U.S. Social Security Death Index," database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 20 March 2016), entry for Bernice Waclawek, 1886, SS no. 336-44-3673.

3 Thomas W. Jones, Mastering Genealogical Proof (Arlington, Va.: National Genealogical Society, 2013), 35.

4 Social Security Administration, "U.S. Social Security Death Index," database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 24 March 2016), entry for Bronislawa, 1987, SS no. 376-24-8833.

Can I shorten notes 2 and 4 beyond the following?

2 "U.S. Social Security Death Index," database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 20 March 2016), entry for Bernice Waclawek, 1886, SS no. 336-44-3673.

4"U.S. Social Security Death Index," database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 24 March 2016), entry for Bronislawa, 1987, SS no. 376-24-8833.

From reading the discussion above, the answer appears to be no.  I should not use 'Ibid.' for footnote #2, even if the access date were the same.  And I should not leave out the words 'database,' and/or 'Ancestry.com.'

Kristine, the answer to your question is: It depends. The main factor that determines whether you should use ibid. is when?  If you're in rough draft stage, don't use it. When you get to your final draft, so you know exactly where all of your content is going to appear, then you can (and should) go through the draft and substitute ibid. where appropriate.

So, let's say you are at that stage, now. In this final draft, your four notes would look this way:

1 Social Security Administration, "U.S. Social Security Death Index," database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 15 March 2016), entry for Lillian T. Waclawek, 2011.

2 Ibid., entry for Bernice Waclawek, 1886, SS no. 336-44-3673.

3 Thomas W. Jones, Mastering Genealogical Proof (Arlington, Va.: National Genealogical Society, 2013), 35.

4 Social Security Administration, "U.S. Social Security Death Index,"Ancestry, entry for Bronislawa Waclawek, 1987, SS no. 376-24-8833.

By way of explanation:

  • You can use ibid. at note 2, because you are citing the same source, just a different item within that source. That's the equivalent of citing a different page in a book: same source, different page.
  • The one item that varies between notes 1 and 2 (aside from the specific item) is the date at which you retrieved the information from the source. But, if you're writing an article for a journal, your editors will expect you to make one last check of all URLs before you dispatch the manuscript, to be certain the URLs have not changed. So your date of examination would be the same for all three SSA entries.
  • You can't use ibid. at note 4 because ibid. means same source as the one just cited and note 4 is not citing Jones.
  • At note 4 you can use a short form. As discussed in our last response to Patricia, that short form for a database typically needs just cite Author, "Name of Database," specific item of interest. However, in this case, because different providers offer their own version of the SSA's Death Index, we do need to identify the provider in the short form.
  • The word "database" does not need to be repeated in the short form in this case. If we were using a database that offered images as well as its own proprietary excerpts, then it would be appropriate for the short-form to specify whether we used just the database entry or the image.
  • Yes, Ancestry has officially dropped the .com from its website name.

Submitted bykasmetson Thu, 03/24/2016 - 11:41

Just realized I left out Bronislawa's last name in footnote #4.  It is also Waclawek.  And I understand we can now cite Ancestry.com, just as Ancestry.

Submitted byprr924on Sat, 03/26/2016 - 12:50

Yes, this has been a very enlightening conversation! Would it be okay to circle back to the Massachusetts vital records for a minute? The FamilySearch database, "Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915," has full images with visible page numbers. Also, one can page back to the beginning of each section and, scrolling forward, see the microfilm numbers and images of the volume covers. If I were to cite from that database, would I then use the original as my lead item, as I've attempted below? Should I drop the repository and digital layers for subsequent citations? My attempts at examples below. 

First Reference Note

Massachusetts, Deaths, 66:39, no. 1-15, Anna Jones, Pittsfield, 1852; Massachusetts Archives, Boston; digital image, "Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915," FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1463156 : accessed 26 March 2016). 

Subsequent Note

Massachusetts, Deaths, 355:57, no. 6, Henry Jones, Otis, 1884. 

If I wanted to add the microfilm and digital folder numbers, would I modify my first reference note like this?

Massachusetts, Deaths, 66:39, no. 1-15, Anna Jones, Pittsfield, 1852; Massachusetts Archives, Boston; digital image, "Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915," FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1463156 : accessed 26 March 2016), from Famiky History Library (FHL) microfilm 960,168, digital folder 4219405.

I'm fuzzy on how to add the microfilm number (960,226) and digital folder number (4223250) to the subsequent note. Would I handle it similarly to Kristine's note 4 example?

 

Patricia, now you've opened a can of worms. :)

In this draft citation, your first layer cites "Massachusetts, Deaths, 66:39, no. 1-15, Anna Jones, Pittsfield, 1852."  You are citing to the original document. But that citation to the original doesn't tell us all we need to know about the original. Who created that volume called "Massachusetts, Deaths, 66"? Where is the volume held today?

You state (correctly) that when we eyeball the imaged page, we can scroll back to the start of the images and identify the volume.  In that case, we need to identify the volume fully. When we start at the beginning of the imaged series, we find this:

Image 1     [microfilm no.] 960168

Image 2     [blank]

Image 3     ["Mass 00003  roll 282"

Image 4     [a GSU target reading ...] "Division of Vital Statistics, State House, Boston, Mass., Registration of Deaths; Microfilmed by the Genealogical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah; vol. 66  1852, 30 April 1974."

Note that from this, we don’t have an entity called “Massachusetts, Deaths” and nothing that we are eyeballing on the images tells us that the records are at “Massachusetts Archives.”

Using the details on the film that is being imaged—which is what we would need to use to complete a full citation to the images on this film—would give us this (following the patterns at EE 9.32 .)

Massachusetts, Registration of Deaths, vol. 66 (1852): 39, no. 1-15, Anna Jones, Pittsfield, 1852; Massachusetts Division of Vital Statistics, Boston [plux citation of the film].

To cite the digital image, we would add a layer:

Massachusetts, Registration of Deaths, vol. 66 (1852): 39, no. 1-15, Anna Jones, Pittsfield, 1852; Massachusetts Division of Vital Statistics, Boston; digital image, "Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915," FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1463156 : accessed 26 March 2016), imaged from Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 960,168.

But then we have one element left from your draft citation: digital folder 4219405.

On the portion of the database that frames the image, we see “Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915 • 09601608 (004219405)” without identification of what those numbers stand for. If we go rooting around the drop-down screens we do see “Film # 004219405” but it takes deeper digging (or a trip back to FS's own database entry)  to come up with something expressed as “Digital Folder Number 4219405.”  Still, you did that digging, so it’s appropriate to include in your citation the identification that you found within the database.

That leaves the issue of saying these records are at the “Massachusetts Archives,” something I don’t see on any of those images—only the database entry.

Meanwhile, FamilySearch’s own suggested citation (emphasizing itself and its database, of course) is this:

"Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N7V5-RR4 : accessed 26 March 2016), Anna Jones, 15 Feb 1852; citing Pittsfield, Massachusetts, P 39, State Archives, Boston; FHL microfilm 960,168.

If you want to emphasize the original collection, instead of the database, probably the cleanest way to do that would be this:

Massachusetts Division of Vital Statistics (Boston), Registration of Deaths, vol. 66 (1852): 39, no. 1-15, Anna Jones, Pittsfield, 1852; digital image, "Massachusetts Deaths, 1841-1915," FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1463156 : accessed 26 March 2016); citing  Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 960,168, digital folder 4219405, and originals at Massachusetts State Archives, Boston.

 

Submitted byprr924on Sat, 03/26/2016 - 15:26

It seems it's only by opening the can, that I learn it's full of worms. :) 

I get what I did wrong regarding the creator of the original, and what that original is called called. Where things start to get confusing again is citing the repository as shown on the GSU target, which is dated 30 April 1974. If I go to the present-day web page for the Department of Health and Human Services, Registry of Vital Records, which appears to be the current incarnation of the Division of Vital Statistics, it tells me that events which occurred 1841-1920 are at the "State Archives" (http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/dph/programs/admin/dmoa/vitals/) If I go to the present-day website for the Secretary of the Commonwealth, under "Massachusetts State Archives" it tells me that the "Massachusetts Archives" is the repository for the official records of the state government (http://www.sec.state.ma.us/arc/arccol/colidx.htm), including state-level records of births, marriages and deaths 1841-1920. 

Lots to digest here. I have to keep at this until I master it. I need to cite 112 Massachusetts vital records, from several different volumes, so I assumed for the purpose of handling the subsequent notes, it would be better to emphasize the original collection. However, I could very easily be wrong about that! Nothing about citations is coming easily to me, but I will keep at it until it does. I appreciate your patient explanations more than I can say.