Forums
Finally getting around to adding citations for 1950 US Census records found on the National Archives History Hub website. A majority of my original census research occurred many years ago using microfilm at the National Archives. I set up all of my citations based on the published guide to citing records from NARA. Then as more digital records became available, I continued to add new census citations using the same guide. Those citations are lengthy and I looked to EE to see what I should've been using. As I've started to add 1950 census citations I decided to investigate EE 4th edition section 7.28 to see the latest recommendation on how to cite. From that example, the second layer, 'imaged, “1950 Census,” U.S. National Archives, History Hub (https://1950census.archives.gov/search/ : accessed1 October 2023)', only points to the collection page without a path or a URL to the actual document page. Then I went back to EE sections 7.17 to 7.27 and saw those examples also only gave the URL for the collection. Is there a reason that the second layer in all these examples does not show more details to find the actual image? For some of these examples, the census location and ED information in the first layer can be used to direct you to the actual image, but in others, like the 1940 example from Puerto Rico, I had to do a little sleuthing to find the right image.
Hello, Mike Bartholomew: I…
Hello, Mike Bartholomew:
I’m puzzled as to why you see a difference 1950, 1940, and the censuses that came before it. All use the same basic pattern:
You state that, as a matter of policy,
I have to ask here, two questions:
As a review of core principles, which some readers of this thread made need to more-clearly understand our discussion:
Thus:
When citing an online provider
You ask: Is there a reason that the second layer in all these examples does not show more details to find the actual image? What additional detail would you propose for the access layer? For online images of census records, EE 4 suggests:
If, by “additional detail, you mean exact URL or path > waypoints > image number, you can always add that if you wish. However, there are two considerations:
You also state that, when following EE4’s example for the 1940 census, you had to “do a little sleuthing” to find the right image. When I retraced the steps to locate that census just now, at the cited website, I noticed two issues. Either of them may have triggered your need for more “sleuthing.”
Locale Name
Personal Name
EE4 7.27’s editing process created a problem with the name of the person. This census uses the traditional Spanish practice of double surnames—first the father’s surname, then the mother’s surname (without the connector "y" between the two surnames as in some times and places). Each census entry begins with the surname and ends with the given name. This entry, as written on the census, is Díaz Román Ramón. The sample footnote should have rendered it as Ramón Díaz Rámon, rather than Román Ramón Diaz. You have our apologies and a promise that it will be corrected when EE4 is next reprinted.
With this problem, you also make the case why redundancy can be helpful—citing the exact URL, or path for the exact image, rather than the collection’s search page—if we are not constricted by relational database software.
Thanks again for your very…
Thanks again for your very complete and detailed response. It appears that I may not have been clear in my main question and other remarks.
The NARA document I was referring to for citing census records is Using Records in the National Archives for Genealogical Research, General Information Leaflet Number 5, revised 1990. Much of my research was done at the National Archives in Washington, DC, where I used microfilm and made 11" x 17" copies. When digital images became available online and before I was introduced to Evidence Explained, I continued to use the format from Leaflet 5 even though I was getting my information from FamilySearch or Ancestry. Now I know better.
I did not mean to imply that there was a difference between the 1950 census and the 1940 and earlier censuses. I believe they are consistent. My main question was about the layer 2 (the access layer) URL. It seems that in EE 3rd or 4th edition, other types of records from online providers that reference the National Archives (like Ship Passenger lists or Military documents) generally use the URL to the exact image or the URL to the collection followed by a path or waypoints to the image. The census records citations only use the URL to the collection. Your response that adding the path increases the length of the citation and duplicates information that is already stated in layer 1 (the record layer). I fully understand that reasoning.
My confusion about using only the URL to the collection is due to my preferred way of documenting records is by browsing via the waypoints and not searching by name and/or location. Although I do use the search features to find the right document in the first place. Here is the 1940 census example from EE 4th edition section 7.27 that I mentioned:
1940 U.S. census, Arecibo Township, Puerto Rico, Barrio Factor, enumeration district (ED) 12-26, sheet 6-B, household 105, Román Ramón Díaz; imaged, “United States Census, 1940,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/collection/2000219:1 October 2023).
When I went to the FamilySearch collection page, as you indicated, I found that searching on the individual's name did not give me a clear match. I then decided to use the browse feature starting with Puerto Rico, followed by Arecibo. The selections at this point did not include the exact wording "Barrio Factor", so I proceeded to click on each selection until I found the sub locality that had ED 12-26, which was simply "Factor". Thus I was able to find the correct page and entry. The path for that image is "Puerto Rico > Arecibo > Factor > 12-26 Barrio Factor > image 12 of 30". My confusion was just looking for the word "Barrio", which is neighborhood, and not realizing I should have been looking for "Factor".
I also mentioned that there appeared to be issues with other census examples. For the 1910 example, also from EE 4th edition section 7.27 for New York County, New York, Bronx Assembly District 33, the enumeration district was listed as 38, but after I found the correct image, I saw that the ED should have been 1513, so just a typo. By using the browse / path approach doesn't have an ED 38 to choose from, creating the confusion.