Source-of-Source Again

I'm scratching my head whether adding information that's not on a database citation is appropriate.

For example, a FamilySearch citation reads as follows:

"Pennsylvania Births and Christenings, 1709-1950," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V2VJ-W12 : 9 December 2014), Sara Momeyer, 25 Jul 1819; Christening, citing SAINT JOHNS LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CHURCHES,MOUNT PLEASANT TWP,WESTMORELAND,PENNSYLVANIA; FHL microfilm 1,036,838.

That second layer is actually a citation to the book imaged on the microfilm, but that's not apparent on from the database entry being accessed.  (The date listed isn't the date I've accessed the database, either.)

I'm wondering whether it's better to discard some information and simply cite what seems clear from the database entry on the web page, leaving the additional information in my own notes:

"Pennsylvania Births and Christenings, 1709-1950," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V2VJ-W12 : accessed 25 June 2017), entry for Sara Momeyer, christened 25 July 1819; citing Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 1,036,838.

Or, follow the microfilm information on FamilySearch and include the publication:

"Pennsylvania Births and Christenings, 1709-1950," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:V2VJ-W12 : accessed 5 June 2017), entry for Sara Momeyer, christened 25 July 1819; citing Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 1,036,838.  The microfilm images Della Reagan Fischer, Saint John’s Lutheran and Reformed Churches; Mount Pleasant Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (McKeesport, Pennsylvania: p.p., 1968).

I've run across a number of databases with "source of source" not listed on the web entry, but easy to figure out.  What should I be thinking about when I consider whether to include "source of source" that's not a direct "citing..." layer?

Thanks!

Brian

Submitted byrraymondon Tue, 06/06/2017 - 10:06

Brian,

Because of various technical issues, FamilySearch doesn't always suggest an adequate citation. This is one example. You found you could easily identify the original source:

  • Della Reagan Fischer, compiler, St. John's Lutheran and Reformed churches; Mount Pleasant Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (McKeesport, Pennsylvania : D.R. Fischer, 1968), p. ??.

Once you've examined Fishcer's book, physically or on microfilm, this citation will be all that is necessary (filling in the proper page number). In your private notes, you could specify the library and call number or the FHL microfilm.

Hopefully the book will identify the original source from which it was derived. Once you've examined the original source, your public citation will not need to mention either the book or the FamilySearch database.

Until you've examined the book, I like the citation you proposed last because it signals that the FamilySearch database is based on a book. That is essential information in judging the strength of the evidence.

 

Robert Raymond
FamilySearch

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 06/06/2017 - 19:57

Brian, as always, Robert Raymond's advice is sound. I might add one thing more. If you say " citing SAINT JOHNS LUTHERAN AND REFORMED CHURCHES,MOUNT PLEASANT TWP,WESTMORELAND,PENNSYLVANIA; FHL microfilm 1,036,838," that would not be accurate reporting, because the site you used did not actually cite all of that.  When we say that a source is "citing ...," that means our source is citing that. It doesn't mean that we are citing that.

Whatever the source actually cites is what follows that word "citing."  We may then, if we wish, start another sentence and add as much additional detail as we wish. We just make it clear that the added information is information we are adding. In these cases, we may need to add a qualifier to say that the additional detail appears to apply to the source we used or to say where we found the additional information, etc.

And now, a question:  why the all caps in this citation?

Submitted byBrian Gon Tue, 06/06/2017 - 23:40

Editor,

I wondered if it was unclear how I'd magically determined the microfilm imaged that book!

I will make sure information that I add to future citations also indicates how I found that information.  For this one in specific, I'll add something like:

The FamilySearch catalog entry for the microfilm identifies that the microfilm images Della Reagan Fischer, compiler, Saint John’s Lutheran and Reformed Churches; Mount Pleasant Township, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania (McKeesport, Pennsylvania: p.p., 1968).

As for your question, the citation with the cap's was under the heading "Citing this record" on the FamilySearch web page and I simply cut and pasted it to here.  I don't know why the cap's were there.  Perhaps Robert can explain that.

Thank you for your help.  And thank you, Robert for your advice as well!

Brian

 

Submitted byEEon Wed, 06/07/2017 - 10:48

Aha. Cut and paste.  Simplest way to copy exactly what the source cites.  One more injunction here. Almost always, a cut and paste of someone else's words--be it text or citation--calls for putting their words in quotation marks, especially when they use abnormal punctuation, capitalization, phrasing, etc. That tells all our readers (and ourselves at a later date), that we're copying someone else's words.

Submitted byc0r8g30on Tue, 05/22/2018 - 01:27

Using the same idea, and understanding that when the following database was created, digital images from the FHL were not posted online, would this be a valid source citiation:

“Hungarian Births Database,” database, JewishGen (https://www.jewishgen.org : accessed 7 May 2015), entry for Weinstok, Moritz, 23 Jun 1869, in Tokaj, Tokaj Jaras, Zemplen Megye, page 98 line 14;citing Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 642,959, Item 3.  The microfilm images Hungary, Zemplén, Tokaj - Jewish records, 1827-1895 (Registers of Jewish births, marriages and deaths for Tokaj), filmed in the Hungarian National Archives in Budapest, 1965.

Submitted byEEon Tue, 05/22/2018 - 07:11

c0r8g30, may I ask why you think it might not be "valid"? What do you think might be wrong with it?

 

The last part, beginning from the period seems wordy. Also, typically my citations are layered using a semi-colon, but I was not sure if the part after the period was another layer, and if so, what phrase to use. Perhaps a semicolon and then "imaged from ....". Also would I be placing the year imaged in paranthesis (1965)? Is there a real title that would need to be in quotes for that scannng in 1965? I could not tell by reading the FHL Catalog entry. And if there is a real title, is there another portion that is not the title that should be in italics? 

Hence, my posting of the question. Any feedback/opinion would be welcome. I know it is art not science. Just want to be precise and consistent in my artwork.

Submitted byEEon Wed, 05/23/2018 - 07:15

c0r8g30, "wordiness" is a concern for researchers at the output stage, not at the input stage. At input, we can add as much to our citation as we need to explain the source so we can better understand it and make valid judgments about the reliability of the information we're taking from it. We can add whole sentences or even whole paragraphs, if an explanation warrants it. At publication, with both research notes and source notes, we rethink how much detail is necessary to present our conclusions and the evidence that supports it. In that version, we edit with the benefit of hindsight that we did not have when we first used a source.

As for the use of quote marks in that explanatory sentence you added, we use quote marks only when we're quoting--i.e., copying exactly--what our source says. If our source offers a long description of its own source and we want to summarize that, then we use quote marks only around the phrases we copy exactly.

As for using parentheses around the year, as opposed to the manner in which you present it above: parentheses are a punctuation tool we use to set off certain items whose nature or relatedness might be otherwise confused with the main set of details. In this case, there's no need for parentheses.

Thank you for your clarity. I think what I need to do next is reach out to the Hungarian National Archive and determine how they reference their holdings and the actual reference they have for these birth records from the town of Tokaj, for someone wanting to research on-site. This probably also satisfies GPS 2 more fully. I appreciate your comments.

c0r8g30, I'm assuming you've checked to see if there is a catalog description online at their website. Do let us know what response you get in response to a "how to cite" question. It will be interesting to compare their response to those elsewhere.

Submitted byc0r8g30on Sun, 05/27/2018 - 09:41

Hello again, I do have news from the Hungarain National Archive. I would like to first focus on quoting this derivative source because five years ago, none of the detail I have now found would have been accessible. Also, there are other Jewish records from Eastern Europe for which only derivative sources, like an online index, are available, so the methodology will still be relevant. Taking what I wrote before, and going beyond a work product, I was considering this 3-source format for a legitimate source citation: 

“Hungarian Births Database,” database, JewishGen (https://www.jewishgen.org : accessed 7 May 2018), entry for Weinstok, Moritz, 23 Jun 1869, in Tokaj, Tokaj Jaras, Zemplen Megye, Hungary, page 98 line 14; citing Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 642,959, Item 3;  “Register of Jewish Births for Hungary, Zemplén, Tokaj, 1827-1895,” (Budapest, Hungary: Hungarian National Archives), microfilmed 10 May 1965 by the Genealogical Society of Salt Lake City, Utah.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 05/31/2018 - 14:51

The database is a treasure indeed, c0r8g30, and you've done a great job of capturing all essential details.  EE would suggest reversing the parts of Layer 2 so that "citing ..." is followed by the identity of the actual record before identifying the microfilm. That way the details of the microfilm can be consolidated in one place, rather than divided into two. The result would be this:

“Hungarian Births Database,” database, JewishGen (https://www.jewishgen.org : accessed 7 May 2018), entry for Weinstok, Moritz, 23 Jun 1869, in Tokaj, Tokaj Jaras, Zemplen Megye, Hungary, page 98, line 14; citing “Register of Jewish Births for Hungary, Zemplén, Tokaj, 1827-1895,” Hungarian National Archives, Budapest, Hungary; imaged as Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 642,959, item 3 (Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of  Utah, 10 May 1965).

This creates three layers. Layer 1 identifies the database and its information. Layer 2 identifies the original record (as cited by the database). Layer 3 identifies the film on which the material is imaged. In layer 3, we can then handle the production details as we do book productions

You'll notice three other tweaks in red:

  • The word "item," like "microfilm," would not be capitalized by English-language rules.
  • The identity of the filmer is the Genealogical Society of Utah (GSU), as discussee at EE 2.24. Salt Lake City was GSU’s business location.
  • The name and location of the Hungarian archives is taken out of parentheses and put in standard order for the citation of archived-based materials when cited by US conventions—i.e., start with the smallest element (the identity of the record) and move up to the largest (the identity of the archives). This is covered at EE 3.1

Arrangement wise, there is one other bit of fuzziness to clarify. Your Layer 1 cites "page 98, line 14,” but the reader is left wondering page 98 of what?  The page-line data applies to the register that you identify in Layer 2, so those details need to be moved there. The page and line is needed to locate the record within the register. It’s not needed to locate the entry within the database. The personal name, date, and place are the identifiers for finding the correct database entry. The result now is this:

“Hungarian Births Database,” database, JewishGen (https://www.jewishgen.org : accessed 7 May 2018), entry for Weinstok, Moritz, 23 Jun 1869, in Tokaj, Tokaj Jaras, Zemplen Megye, Hungary; citing “Register of Jewish Births for Hungary, Zemplén, Tokaj, 1827-1895,” page 98, line 14, Hungarian National Archives, Budapest, Hungary; imaged as Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 642,959, item 3 (Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of  Utah, 10 May 1965).

This principle of attaching the page and line to the register in which we look for that page and line is what EE facetiously calls The Velcro Principle: Don’t separate what’s meant to be stuck together. https://www.evidenceexplained.com/quicktips/source-citations-velcro-principle.

Incidentally, apologizes for the delay in responding. I posted this on the 28th, went away to EE's Facebook page to add an alert that the conversation was continuing, then moved on to other tasks without realizing that I had not "saved" the posting. Fortunately, I found the draft that Outlook had saved for me.

Submitted byc0r8g30on Sun, 06/17/2018 - 01:24

Hello,

You asked that I get back to you once I was in touch with the National Archives of Hungary. I asked them, "If I were to visit Budapest, what would I request from the archive in order to view the books? Is there a book number or other detail that you use?"
The archivist responded that during the microfilming that took place in the 1960's, the books were loaned and then sent back from where they came from - in my case: to the Branch Archives for Sátoraljaújhely. Budapest holds only microfilm and digital images at this time for BMD parish registers pre-1895.

The instructions they offered for how to request the microfilm would be to go to:
http://adatbazisokonline.hu/adatbazis/mikrofilm-anyakonyvek

On the left hand side of the page you can see the Hungarian localities in alphabetical order.
• Click on the letter for the location
• Click on the location
• Within location you can choose the type of religion and type of certificate
o "Születési" means birth
o "Házassági" means marriage
o "Halotti" means death
o "Vegyes" means mixed.
• Within the type of certificate you can find the time period as well
• If you click on the time period, the correct number of the microfilm box will show
• The actual images of parish registers are not available online
• You can research the digital images at the research room only and should make a research request one week before arrival

So, I was wondering if this citation, which includes some slightly long discursive notes (which I feel needs to be somewhere in the narrative), would be acceptable:

1. Izraelita egyház [Jewish Synagogue] of Tokaj, untitled 1827-1895 születési [birth] records, Felvétel szám [Recording number] 239, Kötet [volume] 421/1, Törzsszám [Registration #] X 5594), Dobozszám [Box #] A3556 (used for an on-site research request form), Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár [Hungarian National Archives], Budapest, Hungary; digital image, FamilySearch, Izraelita Hitközseg [Jewish Community of], Tokaj, “Hungary, Zemplén, Tokaj - Jewish records,” (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9PH-3999-N : accessed 24 May  2018), image 430, line 14, entry for Weinstok, Moritz, 23 Jun 1869; imaged  from Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 642,959, item 3. Note that the Hungarian Archives house the digital and microfilm copies of birth, marriage and death registers of Tokaj before 1895 and are kept at the 3rd building of the National Archives of Hungary in Óbuda, 3rd district (Bécsi Kapu tér 2-4., 1014 Hungary). Detail on the holding can be found on their website (http://adatbazisokonline.hu/adatbazis/mikrofilm-anyakonyvek : accessed 24 May 2018). The original Jewish registers of Tokaj can be found at the NAH Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Archives in Sátoraljaújhely (http://mlp.archivportal.hu/en/archives-of-hungary/the-hungarian-national-archives-borsod-abauj-zemplen-county-archives/ : accessed 27 May 2018). The Jewish Birth/Marriage/Death records for Tokaj on FHL film 642,959 span 223 pages and begin at image 330. Also note that the JewishGen Hungarian Birth Index incorrectly cites this record as page 98, rather than page 97.
 

Submitted byEEon Sun, 06/17/2018 - 12:04

In reply to by c0r8g30

c0r8g30, you just may have broken the record for the longest reference note created in this forum. And I may just break the record for the longest response.

Let's address the length issue first with two points:

  1. In your own working notes, you can add as much as you please to help you understand the source and guide you in the future.
  2. For better comprehension, a note this long is much better divided into two paragraphs. Paragraph 1 would identify the source. Paragraph 2 (and 3 and 4 if necessary) would then provide all the background or analytical detail that you want to capture.

For the rest of this discussion, let's work with paragraph 1.  As a background, I should add this: In our earlier messages, we focused on how to cite the JewishGen database. Your citation now focuses on the images itself, which you are viewing online at FamilySearch. That’s an entirely different entity with a different set of needs. You have addressed those needs this way:

1. Izraelita egyház [Jewish Synagogue] of Tokaj, untitled 1827-1895 születési [birth] records, Felvétel szám [Recording number] 239, Kötet [volume] 421/1, Törzsszám [Registration #] X 5594), Dobozszám [Box #] A3556 (used for an on-site research request form), Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár [Hungarian National Archives], Budapest, Hungary; digital image, FamilySearch, Izraelita Hitközseg [Jewish Community of], Tokaj, “Hungary, Zemplén, Tokaj - Jewish records,” (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9PH-3999-N : accessed 24 May  2018), image 430, line 14, entry for Weinstok, Moritz, 23 Jun 1869; imaged  from Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 642,959, item 3.

You'll notice that I've color-coded your citation to represent layers of the citation. We use layers when we’re citing an image copy of a record, because we have multiple things to cite. Each layer will then cite details to identify that one particular thing. For a register imaged at Family Search, the usual divison between layers is this:

Layer 1:
The original registers, which we identify from studying the filmed images of the register or the set of loose papers.

Layer 2:
The database and website in which the images appear. That layer typically follows the format for citing a published book or a chapter in a book. For example:

“Name of Database/Chapter,” Name of Website in Italics (URL=place of publication : date), exact spot within the publication.

If we’re citing the whole book, not just one particular chapter, then the first field (the one in quotation marks) is not used. We just start with the name of the book and end with a particular page, figure, plate, or whatever. When we're citing images from an online provider, we may have a database title to put in that first field—or we may not. This is one of those cases in which FamilySearch has not put the images into a searchable database. So we have nothing to use in that field. Layer 2 would start with the identity of the website

Layer 3:
Here, we put any source-of-the-source data that the website provider gives us, in addition to what we captured by studying the register for ourselves.

 

The most important thing to remember here is that details that apply to one layer should not be mixed into the other.  Against this foundation, let’s analyze what you provide:

Layer 1 (in black) identifies the register in the form in which you eyeballed it. But when I study that register, at the link you give, I don’t see any of the data that’s in your Layer 1.  Nor do I see anything in the images about needing to fill in a form to use the image; a dicussion there of filling in a form would confuse your readers, and even yourself after your recoolection of this source has gone cold.

Layer 2 (in green) tells us that the publication you used is FamilySearch. But, then, there’s a whole bunch of information between the identity of FamilySearch and its URL. All that info is not part of the title or identity of the website you’re using. All those words describe one particular thing you are using within the publication, but that’s not part of the identity of the publication/website that’s providing the info.  Actually, all those details are ones that identify the images you are eyeballing on the screen. Therefore, those details should be in Layer 1 where you cite what you are actually using. 

Layer 3 (in red) is your source-of-the-source info. All’s well there.

 

Let’s now rearrange details in order to (1) identify exactly what you used; and (2) follow the basic pattern for each thing being cited.

1. Israelitiscle Kirche (Tokaj, Kamitat: Zemplén, Hungary), “Geburts Register, Heiratsregister, Sterberegister, 1827–1895” [Israeli Church … Registers of births, marriages, and deaths, 1827-1895], page 97, line 14, entry for Weinstok, Moritz, 23 Jun 1869; imaged at FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9PH-3999-N : accessed 24 May  2018), image 330 (identity of register) and 430 (actual record); imaged  from Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 642,959, item 3.

For the details in Layer 1, incidentally, I thumbed back to the start of the register (item 3 on the film) to capture the identity of the source. When we do this, we usually find one or both of two things: (a) an image of the actual register cover; and (b) a “target” or “label” created by FamilySearch itself, on which it identifies the source.  If we have the actual image of the register cover, with its own wording, that’s the best identification to use. If we don’t, then we use the details on the target created by FamilySearch, which I did above. Note, too, that I added the page number in the original register. If we cite "line 14, entry for ..." then the obvious question is: Line 14 of What?   

You’ll also note that everything in your Layer 1 has been deleted. That’s because none of it is part of what you are citing. If you were accessing the register at the Archives, then you would cite it according to the archival scheme used there. But you did not use the register at the National Archives of Hungary. You used the FamilySearch images. It’s those images you cite.

In your second paragraph where you discuss the record set, you can include all those details that are currently in your Layer 1. You can write yourself a note that you contacted the National Archives of Hungary to ask how these records are accessed there and you were told ABCXYZ. But that’s part of your analytical discussion about the record set. It’s not part of your citation in which you identify what you used. 

Submitted byc0r8g30on Sun, 06/17/2018 - 15:34

Dear EE,

Thank you so much for really taking the time to break it all down.

Can you explain one more point for me? Do I cite a 4th level, the one where the microfilm exists in Hungary? I saw this concept when citing Ship Arrivals. I cite the manifest detail, the database with images from FamilySearch, and the NARA publication and roll. This is even though I never actally went to NARA and reviewed the film. I am citing the source-of-my-source; the archive FamilySearch went to in order to film the ship manifests. In this case, why don't I need to cite the source of the microfilm (ie: where FamilySearch  went in order to film these BMD books; the Hungarian National Archives)?
 

Submitted byEEon Sun, 06/17/2018 - 23:48

c0r8g30,

If you used microfilm made by the Hungarian National Archives, you would want to credit the archives for the film. In a case in which GSU or FamilySearch went into an archives and did the filming--then gave the archives a preservation copy--then you credit GSU or FamilySearch. In this case, the filming was done decades ago by GSU, so the GSU film at the Family History Library is what you'd cite in the source-of-your-source layer.

In your own working files, if you wish to add to your discussion of the source a note that the Hungarian National Archives also maintains a copy of the GSU film, that's your option.

In the NARA instances that you reference, those would be cases in which the Family History Library--or FamilySearch--is offering a copy of film produced by NARA.

Submitted byc0r8g30on Mon, 02/04/2019 - 22:38

Dear EE,

One last followup, to make sure I have the methodology. As a note, post-1895 records were not by religion. Rather there was a common civil registry for all religions. What would you say of this three-layered for my grandmother's birth: 

The Hungarian National Archives Tolna County Archives, "Puks Szuletes [births] 1907-1909", page 3, line 17, entry for Janka Weinstok,11 Jan 1907; imaged at FamilySearch https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9THJ-K7F?i=326&cc=1452460&cat=654631 : accessed 4 Feb  2019), image 327 of 807; imaged from Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 2,055,971 (DGS 5,036,622), item 3.

Submitted byEEon Fri, 02/08/2019 - 11:32

c0r8g30,

EE would make a couple of tweaks but, first, one point needs clarifying. In the author/creator field of the citation you state "The Hungarian National Archives Tolna County Archives." Did you intend to say that both archives created this record set?

Dear EE,

I hear the ambiguity of the source author. I used the name of the archive as it is titled, in this website: http://www.archivportal.hu/en/archives-of-hungary/the-hungarian-national-archives-tolna-county-archives/

Would I change that?

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 02/12/2019 - 10:03

c0r8g30, we do seem to be mixing peas and apples here, in threel ways:

1.  Record creator vs. record repository

The Hungarian National Archives did not create that set of records. Tolna County created it. Therefore, in Layer 1 where we identify the original record that we are eyeballing in imaged form, we identify the creator of that original record. The repository is not cited in this layer. The arrangement of layers should be this:

Layer  1 = the original record, using whatever identifiers are visible to us (i.e., those we can verify with our own eyes).

Layer 2 = the online provider, using this basic format: “Database Name, If Any,” Name of website creator if necessary, Website Title in Italics (URL=place of publication : Date), specific image number

Layer 3 = source of the source data, as given by the website provider

2. Family Search vs. Hungarian National Archives

The website you have cited is FamilySearch. The Hungarian National Archives has an excellent website, but that’s not where you found the record, so its not part of your Layer 1 or Layer 2. If Family Search tells us that the record is at the Hungarian National Archives or the Tolna County archives, then we include that in our source-of-the-source layer (layer 3). But Layer 3 should report what the provider provides.  

If we go elsewhere and attempt to locate more information—as in using the National Archives website to try to find more about that record FamilySearch imaged—then whatever we add from the National Archives should not be part of the basic citation.  

After we’ve finished the basic citation, we can add on as many sentences as we want—to discuss what we think about the record and where we think we can find more information. But if we use a record at Provider Website A and the go to Archive Website B and try to find a match, we may end up with a mis-match. That’s why we keep our personal additions separate from the basic citation.

3. Structure of Archives

The Hungarian National Archives, at Hungarian Archives Portal (http://www.archivportal.hu/en/), does provide a very helpful discussion of its organizational structure. It tells us that Hungary has a national archives that oversees all local archives. At http://www.archivportal.hu/en/archives-of-hungary/ it identifies the types of local archives. When we click “County Archives,” we see a repository name that matches your phrase: The Hungarian National Archives Tolna County Archives. When we choose that webpage we get an excellent discussion of the records maintained locally.

All of this helps us understand how the archival system works in Hungary. But the Tolna County Archives, which is a division of Hungary’s National Archives, did not create the record set that you use and it is not where you used the record. All of this detail about the organization of the archives and its records are things that you would discuss in your added remarks, after the source citation is done. Annotations of this type are often made by historical researchers, in their working notes, to help them understand what they’re using. Conventionally, annotations are appended to the Source List Entry.  

Finally (on the nitpicking issue of punctuation for clarity) your phrase The Hungarian National Archives Tolna County Archives is an exact rendition of how it appears at the website. However, when we are writing in English, where readers get their clarity cues from English conventions, one of the following would be clearer:

  • The Hungarian National Archives—Tolna County Archives.  
  • The Hungarian National Archives: Tolna County Archives.  

That one bit of punctuation makes it clear to others that the Tolna County Archives is a division of the Hungarian National Archives.

 

Submitted byc0r8g30on Thu, 02/14/2019 - 20:54

Dear EE,

I see I mixed my WHEREFROM with my WHAT. Thank you for helping to clarify. If you would indulge my current attempt:

WHAT: "Puks Szuletes [births] 1907-1909", page 3, line 17, entry for Janka Weinstok,11 Jan 1907

WHERE:  FamilySearch https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9THJ-K7F?i=326&cc=1452460&cat=654631 , image 327 of 807

WHEREFROM: Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 2,055,971 (DGS 5,036,622), item 3.

Putting it all together, I would have:

 "Puks Szuletes [births] 1907-1909", page 3, line 17, entry for Janka Weinstok,11 Jan 1907; imaged at FamilySearch https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:33S7-9THJ-K7F?i=326&cc=1452460&cat=654631 : accessed 4 Feb  2019), image 327 of 807; imaged from Family History Library (FHL) microfilm 2,055,971 (DGS 5,036,622), item 3. FamilySearch cites the original repository as Tolna Megye Levéltára (The Hungarian National Archives: Tolna County Archives).