New York Passenger Record at Ancestry

I need help to determine if I am thinking this citation through correctly.

Layer 1 & 2

Passenger Manifest, Ship Universe (Liverpool to New York), arriving 29 July 1863, unnumbered pages, entry 422 for Michl Banks; imaged in "New York, U.S., Arriving Passenger and Crew Lists (including Castle Garden and Ellis Island), 1820-1957," database with images, Ancestry ( : viewed 20 January 2021) > Date > 1863 > Jul > 29 > Universe > image 9;

Q: There is no clear title to document. Is the description sufficient?

I am also not sure what to use as the source of source - Ancestry citation or original data.

citing "Year: 1863; Arrival: New York, New York, USA; Microfilm Serial: M237, 1820-1897; Line: 1; List Number: 790". Roll 231, not cited but identified at NARA.

original data:
citing "Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving at New York, New York, 1820-1897. Microfilm Publication M237, 675 rolls. NAI: 6256867. Records of the U.S. Customs Service, Record Group 36. National Archives at Washington, D.C." Roll 231, not cited but identified at NARA.

Both include information the other doesn't have and I admit, I do nor know the relevance in Ancestry's citation for "Line 1; List number 790." Nor do I know what the NAI number is, although it appears in both.

I am inclined to cite the original data instead of what Ancestry is using as a citation given that it seems to make more sense but I want to make sure I am not missing anything. Having gone to the NARA site I was able to identify the roll number, which I put at end.

Thank you.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 01/21/2021 - 18:35

TheCount, you've done well with layers 1 and 2. The conundrum, of course, is how to identify the "source of the source" in layer 3:  i.e., exactly where did Ancestry get these images?

As you point out, the citation to "Line: 1; List Number: 790" is not relatable to anything we see on the image that we are eyeballing.

The rest of the data is valuable.  These images come from microfilm originally created and published by the National Archives. That issue is addressed at EE 11.12–11.18 "Immigration, Passenger 7 Seamen Records."  11.15 specifically covers "Microfilm (NARA)" and gives us models showing what is essential. In a nutshell:

Title of Film, microfilm publication no., x-number rolls (Place of publication: Publisher, 1980), specific item/roll number.

(Gee, that looks like a basic citation for a book or most anything that's been published. The one added field appears after the title, the position in which we would cite Series ID for a book that is part of a series and say how many volumes are in the series.)

Against this foundation, if we review what Ancestry offers for the item, we'd come up with a third layer that looks like this:

...; citing Passenger List of Vessels Arriving at New York, New York, 1820–1897, microfilm publication M237, 675 rolls (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.), roll not specified but identified in NARA catalog as roll 231.

"NAI: 6256867" refers to National Archives Identifier number for that collection of materials—the original documents that are in NARA Record Group 36. Those are organizational numbers within the archives and are entirely different from the identity of the microfilm. Ancestry did not film the originals and its source information mixes peas with peanuts.  If we're using one, details from the other should not be mixed into it. EE would not use the NAI number or the RG number for citing film.

Submitted byTheCounton Thu, 05/20/2021 - 13:17

I have a question related to the one I asked a few months ago. If the microfilm publication and roll numbers are included in the path, is it necessary to repeat it in the source of the source or would something like this work? Just looking not to be redundant.

“List of United States Citizens (for the Immigration Authorities),” S.S. Carmania (Liverpool to Boston), arriving 27 March 1928, folio 66 recto (stamped, lower right), Margaret Carr, imaged in “Massachusetts, U.S., Arriving Passenger and Crew Lists, 1820-1963,” Ancestry ( : accessed 18 May 2021) > Roll > T843, Arriving at Boston, MA, 1891-1943 > ALL > 333 > image 203 of 547; citing Passenger Lists of Vessels Arriving at Boston, Massachusetts, 1891-1943, (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).

Submitted byEEon Fri, 05/28/2021 - 16:45

TheCount, my apologies for not seeing this question when you posted it. This site's system doesn't alert me when something is added to older posts.

Short answer this time: No. It's not necessary to repeat it if it's in the path.