Citing a "subpage" entry from Draper Manuscript microfilm

By billoates on Tue, 08/01/2023 - 08:32

Forums

   Let me bring an issue I initially raised on another website to this authoritative source. Following EE guidance, I had drafted a citation for a Draper Manuscripts entry that I had found on microfilm. My draft citation apparently had several unspecified issues. Here’s my draft citation (missing the roll number):

“Col. McGary,” The Draper Manuscripts, microfilm edition, 123 rolls. Teaneck, New Jersey: Chadwyck-Healey, n.d.), roll ?, Series CC, Kentucky Papers, vol. 2, p. 34a (18).

   I followed the model from EE Section 3.18 (mid-page on Page 129), which was for microfilm images of The Draper Manuscripts, rather than the Draper model for archived manuscripts on Page 96. I presumed that this Archived Manuscript citation would be the model to follow had I viewed the actual Manuscripts (however unlikely that might be).

   I see only two differences between my draft citation and the model on EE Page 129:

  1. I am missing the roll number (which I had been seeking with my initial post on another website).
  2. The page number is not a simple number. Mine has two elements, both of which may have issues: a. The first page element, 34a, has a letter with the number.  b. The second page element, (18), is not used in the EE model.

   Regarding 2.a.: 2CC34a is the identifier (volume number, series label, page number) provided by the Calendar of The Kentucky Papers of the Draper Collection of Manuscripts (https://www.familysearch.org/library/books/viewer/202963/) synopsis of the entry with my “Col. McGary” item (first entry on the Calendar's page 327 or digital page 335, “Interview with Mrs. William Anthony”). Frankly, my old notes had “34”, but I opted for this authority in using “34a”. Maybe I had missed that. Or maybe I should have stuck with “34”.

   Regarding 2.b.: The convoluted nature of the Draper materials may result in a single page number embracing a number of consecutive pages (or subpages) separately numbered. If you looked at the Calendar's synopsis of the interview with Mrs. William Anthony mentioned above, you saw that the interview covered 10 topics, each covered in these subpages. The subpage within the 2CC34 page bundle where “Col. McGary” is found bears the number at top of “18”. I had seen the “(18)” format before, so I added that to direct the reader to the exact frame. This is how I remember it, at least.

Why is this important? This Draper entry offers evidence that my 4th great grandfather is the son of Col. McGary.

I would appreciate your suggestions and comments on my draft citation. What modifications would you make?

Submitted byEEon Tue, 08/01/2023 - 09:58

Good morning, billoates.  It's clear that you're a thoughtful analyst when using these complex records. You've captured almost all the essential facts. The issues mentioned in the Facebook posting involve clarity—i.e., the “language” in which we express those details so that our readers will understand what we have used. Let’s compare three things here:

EE 3.18 (3d ed. rev.)

      1. “Muster Roll of Captain [Joseph] Martin’s Company of Pittsylvania Militia in 1774,” The Draper Manuscripts, microfilm edition, 123 rolls (Teaneck, New Jersey: Chadwyck-Healey, n.d.), roll 42, Series XX, Tennessee Papers, vol. 1, p. 6.

Your Facebook draft.

          “Col. McGary,” The Draper Manuscripts, microfilm edition, 123 rolls. Teaneck, New Jersey: Chadwyck-Healey, n.d.), roll ?, Series CC, Kentucky Papers, vol. 2, p. 34a (18).

Your draft above:

         “Col. McGary,” The Draper Manuscripts, microfilm edition, 123 rolls. Teaneck, New Jersey: Chadwyck-Healey, n.d.), roll ?, Series CC, Kentucky Papers, vol. 2, p. 34a (18). [This version introduces a third issue, everything appears in italics without the necessary typographic distinctions; but I suspect that was just a typo given, that the issue did not exist in the Facebook post.]

 

1: Reference Notes vs. Source Lists

EE 2.38 covers this in detail, but briefly:

  • In a Source List Entry, where citations are brief and generic and each entry stands in its own little world, periods separate each element of the citation.
  • In Reference Notes, which are often long and complicated, all citation details for one source should appear in one sentence.  No periods separate the details that identify that single source.

This distinction is essential. In a Reference Note, if we put a period in the middle of details describing a source, we’re telling readers (and ourselves at a later date) that we’ve used two or more separate sources—depending upon how many periods we put in the middle of those details.

In a Reference Note, where multiple sources are often cited in the same note, if periods appear in the middle of details for each source, readers have no way of knowing where the details for one source end and the details for the next source begin. Clarity is especially important when citing complicated sources such as the one you’ve used.

 

2: Author & Title

In the EE example, the author and title fields are one and the same: “Muster Roll of Captain [Joseph] Martin’s Company of Pittsylvania Militia in 1774.” The quoted title is self-explanatory, with one exception. We read the title and we understand what we’re reading—it’s a muster roll of somebody’s military company—but the title of the document does not fully identify the compiler/author of that roll or whose company it is. Therefore, we add the missing identification in square editorial brackets.

The document you’ve used is similar but more-problematic. Its title is especially cryptic. Those two words, “Col. McGary,” are not self-explanatory. Readers are left wondering what exactly you are citing. If it is a biographical sketch, is there an author?  In situations such as this, it helps users of our work if we add some explanation.

Ah! The mighty period. Your usage champions its full stop meaning. I’ve spent too much time, I suppose, using academic styles (APA, MLA, etc.) that don’t give it such power. But I’ve learned something. Also, I can more easily parse those multiple-entry footnotes in NGS Quarterly articles. Just look for the periods. Thanks for your helpful guidance. Period.

Submitted byEEon Wed, 08/02/2023 - 09:44

billoates, you might be amused by this post in EE's blog: Punctuation, Schmunctuation: (When) Does It Matter? <g>

One thing is certain: the "research materials" cited in fields that follow APA, MLA, and CMOS are far simpler than those used by the fields of history (my academic field in which I still publish) and genealogy. Academe can string together ten citations to books and journals articles in the same sentence and the citation is still easy to parse. If we tried that with our mixed bag of citations to BLM credit-under files, a state-archive pension file, an Osage census created by the tribe itself rather than the federal government, and your microfilm edition of the Draper Papers, we'd have a quagmire, for sure!