State Census

By Anonymous on Sat, 04/09/2016 - 21:15

Forums

I've gotten to questioning how I've cited some state censuses.  Here's an example:

1915 Iowa state census, Adair County, population schedule, Fontanelle, census card no. 180, David C. Dentler; image, FamilySearch (http://familysearch.org/ : viewed 09 Apr. 2016); Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 1,379,446, [surnames starting] De - Dm.  This census used individual cards for each person enumerated.

This census was taken on cards: population information was on the face and farm information (if applicable) on the back.  The cards are untitled.

The term "population schedule" isn't used on the census cards and there doesn't seem to be another census (i.e., agricultural) that could be interpreted as a different schedule.

Should I retain or omit the term "population schedule", or use a different term?

I guess I'm confused whether it's appropriate to use "population schedule" as a generic descriptor for a type of census (and not necessarily an actual schedule), or to only use it when it appears as a title.

Brian 

Submitted byEEon Sun, 04/10/2016 - 19:57

Brian, you note that the cards themselves are untitled. What wording did you find on the filmer's "target" that appears at the start of the filming?  Can you post an image of the card?

Submitted byBrian Gon Mon, 04/11/2016 - 22:59

The target reads only "Iowa State Census, 1915".  

I've attached that target, as well as a card from the 1905 census and the card from the 1915 census.

The card from the 1905 census has "population schedule" printed on it, while the one from the 1915 census does not.

I now wonder if I'm thinking too hard.  If there was only one census, isn't an additional identifier of "population schedule" superfluous, even if it was actually used in the census (as in 1905)?

Submitted byEEon Tue, 04/12/2016 - 09:29

David, the simplest citation that includes all the essential parts would be this:

1915 Iowa State Census, Adair County,  alphabetized cards, David C. Dentler, Fontanelle (card 180); accessed as "Iowa State Census, 1915," database with images, FamilySearch (http://familysearch.org/ : viewed 9 April 2016), > Adair > Caddock, Earl–Gilliam, Jacob > image 1421 of 3350; citing "Iowa State Historical Department, Des Moines."

The colors indicate the three essential layers of the citation. Layer 1 cites the card and the data we actually see. Layer 2 cites the website and the path for getting to the exact card. Layer 3 cites what the provider actually cites. 

Our reasoning for the differences between your citation and ours are essentially these:

  • We would not use the term "population schedule" because that term is not an identifier used on this particular set of records. That term is common for the federal census, in certain years.
  • We would de-emphasize the card number because the arrangement is alphabetical, rather than numerical by the census card. Placing the number before the name of the person implies that the card number is used to find the person. With the organization used for this set of records, the card number (like the town of residence) would be just another identifier to ensure we had the right David C. Dentler or John Smith.
  • We would definitely include in our citation the FamilySearch path to get to the film, along with the image number. Otherwise, users of the citation have to do a guessing game as to where, amid 3350 images, that particular card might be.
  • Barring extenuating circumstances, our "source-of-the-source" layer would cite what the provider gives us as its source. In this case, you've gone an extra step to identify the FHL film from which the images were made. There's certainly no harm in doing that in our own research notes, but the inclusion of that film data, with a new number and a set of start-stop names that differ from the start-stop names used to locate the card in the database does complicate the citation in a way that is not essential.

Submitted byBrian Gon Wed, 04/13/2016 - 23:55

I see you found the second filming.  It's better quality than the one I cited!

Thank you very much for the tip on the card number position.  I'd completely overlooked the how it would be confusing where I'd positioned it.

Two questions on your citation:

1.  Why did you capitalize "state census" in "1915 Iowa State Census"?  

Are you following the initial cap's rule of EE 2.60 discussed in EE 2.62?  I'd originally followed that rule, then changed my citations to follow what I saw in EE 6.46 (and also the US censuses in 6.19 - 6.31) for images.

2.  Did you take the repository name from the film target?

3.  Why did you put it in quotes?

One last question which is more about stable URLs...

The 1915 Iowa Census index is at : http://familysearch.org/search/collection/2240483 but the film you cited can only be found at http://familysearch.org/search/catalog/539259 (it's not indexed).  Would you assume either of these URLs to be stable enough to use in a citation?  (I admit I've a number of "collection" URLs in my citations already.)

Thanks very much for your continuing help, and especially your patience!

Brian

Submitted byBrian Gon Thu, 04/14/2016 - 01:15

Sorry, I forgot to add some clarification.

EE 6.46 shows a citation for an FHL microfilm of a state census.  It seemed to me that only the First Reference Note needed to be changed to for use with online images, so I copied that structure for my Iowa citation.  (That's why I didn't cite the repository in the First Reference Note.)

Oops.

When I looked at the citation in 6.46 again, then looking at the microfilm it cites it dawned on me that the microfilm in that citation is an FHL copy of a Kansas State Histoical Society microfilm, not an FHL filming of original records.  That's why the structure is subtly different and not appropriate for my Iowa citation.

Brian

 

Submitted byEEon Thu, 04/14/2016 - 09:34

“Citing the Number of Images in a Database.”

Brian, I’m separating your issues into multiple messages, by issue, for easier digestion.

You've spotlighted an excellent example of the difficulties we have in citing material online. As you note, the citation I used leads to a different FamilySearch version of the same card you used. Yet I was led to the newer version by following the path you cited. The version to which the path led makes no mention of the microfilm.

The most obvious difference in the two is this:

  • The version accessed through your new citation to 539259 leads us to individually displayed cards in a database that includes 4863 images.
  • The version I accessed by following your path leads to a different display in a database that includes just 3350 images.

If, as in my sample citation, we include the number of images ("image 1421 of 3350" or "image ___ of 4863") then we provide a valuable piece of information for those who follow the path but may not realize that they have ended up with a different version.

If you prefer to craft a citation to the images from the film then how would you identify the specific image, given that the card 180 that you cite is not image 180 of the 4863 cards? 

Submitted byEEon Thu, 04/14/2016 - 09:43

Citing “Stable URLs”

Brian writes:

The 1915 Iowa Census index is at : http://familysearch.org/search/collection/2240483 but the film you cited can only be found at http://familysearch.org/search/catalog/539259 (it's not indexed).  Would you assume either of these URLs to be stable enough to use in a citation?

Well, actually, I didn’t cite the film because the set of images I used did not cite the film.  But that’s incidental to your question.  You will have noticed that EE3 addresses the use of stable URLs in several places, with examples—primarily 6.28 but also 6.50, 2.37, and the QuickCheck Model at p. 253. 

Deciding whether to use a supposedly “stable: URL is often an individual judgment based upon the particular site. The likelihood that any URL is permanently stable is slim.  FHL’s system promises to be more durable than many we find elsewhere.

The one issue I had in using the extended URLs that you give in Message 7 (04/13/2016 - 23:55) is that the second URL isn’t actually stable. On every browser I’ve used it on, it converts itself to https://familysearch.org/search/catalog/539259?availability=Family%20History%20Library. Then, from there, I had to go to https://familysearch.org/search/film/007625897?wc=QSZT-GP8%3A1291557702%2C1291559401%3Fcc%3D2240483&cc=2240483&cat=539259 to find the set of images for Adair county.

In a case such as this, it's definitely simpler to give the FHL root (or home page) and cite the collection and path. On the other hand the other version of the census, https://familysearch.org/search/collection/2240483, does appear to be a stable URL and you might well cite that instead of FHL's root.

I might also add that the first URL that you give is not actually to an “index” to the census. It is to the FHL database that will search for a name and deliver the image. That type of source is more explicitly identified by the phrase I used in EE’s version of the cite: “database with images.”

 

Submitted byEEon Thu, 04/14/2016 - 09:51

Capitalization:

Brian asks: “Why did you capitalize “state census” in “1915 Iowa State Census”?

Whether we capitalize the word “census” or the word “state” is not a rigid matter.  If we quote a manuscript title exactly, we typically capitalize the words. If we create a "title" of our own, we typically don’t.  EE’s examples to, say, 1850 U.S. census, do not capitalize the word “census” because "1850 U.S. census" is not the actual title. of that census.

However, within the framework of general "rules," there are also judgments to be made when one “rule” conflicts with another “rule.”

In this particular case, you will note that the FHL catalog’s 539259 page does not capitalize “state census” in its header, but it does capitalize “State Census” in its labels for each individual county.  For the database with images at the 2240483 URL, the collection title is “Iowa State Census, 1915.” Each word there carries the initial cap. 

Layer 2 of the EE citation to 2240483 carries the exact title of the collection, using initial caps. If Layer 1 of that citation had cited the source as “Iowa state census” and Layer 2 had cited it as “Iowa State Census” then—to the normal reader—our citation would appear to be carelessly inconsistent.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 04/14/2016 - 09:53

Repository Name:

Brian asks:  "Did you take the repository name from the film target? Why did you put it in quotes?"

At the bottom of the film strip (2240483 version), FHL gives this citation:

"Iowa State Census, 1915," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1971-45428-22134-53?cc=2240483 : accessed 14 April 2016), Adair > Caddock, Earl-Gilliam, Jacob > image 1421 of 3350; Iowa State Historical Department, Des Moines.

Therefore, Layer 3 of EE's citation—the place where we cite the source-of-our-source—quotes exactly what FamilySearch gives as its source: “Iowa State Historical Department, Des Moines.”  Quotation marks are used to indicate that we are quoting. They tell our reader: “We are citing this identity exactly the way our provider gives it.”

Submitted byBrian Gon Fri, 04/15/2016 - 02:24

Thank you for all that information.  It brought out a number of issues with my citation that I wasn't aware of.

And to think this all got started with my thinking I was asking a simple question about wording. 

I'm clearly not providing correct paths to items I'm citing.  That's a big problem!  I'm going to go off and do some practice citations to work on that.

Also, for some reason I've been laboring under a misconception that I should not list image numbers.  I'm no sure where I got that idea.  The "[surnames starting] De - Dm" in my original citation was a way to get near the record (like "item" for an FHL film) without listing an image number.  Something else to work on!

Thank you so much for your help,

Brian

 

Brian, your 'laboring under the (mis)conception' may stem from EE6.8. In discussing censuses, EE cautions:

WEBSITE IMAGE NUMBERS

Online providers of census images may assign an image number that is different from any of the page numbers ... . Citing the image number is not advised. Not only do those differ from one provider to another, but they can change within a provider’s own system when the website is reorganized or more material is imaged.

This has been a problem with census citations from the onset of digital online images. Many uers will cite the census year and locale. Then, instead of citing the page number from the document, they'll insert the image number from their particular provider—typically without identifying the provider or realizing that the number will be misleading if someone uses it for a different provider.

The underlying problem here, of course, is the mixing of details from the census (the document) with details from the provider's database. The "layering" concept that EE introduced with its digital version in late 2012 has helped researchers separate in their minds those two different sets of data—the document itself from the database. We do still see the problem in census citations, which is why the reminder still appears at 6.8. But when we use layers in our citation of material in online database, it is often useful in the database layer to cite the provider's image number.