Forums
In December 2014 I created a citation for a person of interest appearing in a Dutch database. My original citation read,
Delft, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands, birth record 1884, no. 989, Johannes van Santen, 16 December 1884; database, Delft Archief, Digitale Stamboom Delft, (http://www.archief.delft.nl : accessed 8 December 2014). query: registry office from 1812: birth, town/city: Delft, achtenaam: Santen, voornaam: Johannes.
Today I went back to that archive's website and wanted to replicate my search and results, but it was not possible. Some of the query fields have changed, and no matter how many variations on the search criteria I performed, I could not find the result for that person of interest any longer. I then posted a query in a Dutch Genealogy Facebook group about my dilema and wondered if anyone knew if the Delft Archive site had changed its content recently. A member of the group suggested I try serching another website for the information, and much to my relief I was able to find the record again. I still do not know why I couldn't replicate my results on the Digitale Stamboom Delft website. Today I wrote another citation for the new website,
Delft, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands, birth record 1884, no. 989, Johannes van Santen, 16 Decemebr 1884; database, Delft Archief, Collectie Delft, (http://collectie-delft.nl : accessed 31 January 2016). query: achtenaam: Santen, voornaam: Johannes.
This being said, what is the protocol for handling my previous, now "broken" citation? Should I retain it as a record of what "used to be" with editorial brackets discussing its status or should I jettison the original citation and simply replace it with the new one?
Ah, David, I feel your pain.
Ah, David, I feel your pain. I also have that problem every time I do a new edition of EE. In fact, that problem has been a key trigger for each new edition.
The simplest solution to your situation here would be to just use the current citation that works. If you wish to retain the earlier citation (as, say, evidence that you had consulted the source at that earlier point in time) one way to do that would be to close out the new citation with a period, start a new sentence, and say: previously consulted as [old citation]; however, on 31 January 2016, the document was no longer retrievable through that website.
May I also pick one nit: In both your old version and your new, you have a comma before the parentheses that contains the publication data. Drop it.
Think about normal sentence construction. Have you ever seen a comma before a parenthesis in an edited published work? When we put data in parentheses, we are saying "I'm adding this to tell you more about what I just said." It's like whispering to somebody something about what you just said out loud. The two are connected. The purpose of a comma, on the other hand, is to separate what comes after it from what came before it. You don't want a comma to separate your parenthetical data from what it modifies. That's like dragging a person into another room, away from everybody else, before you do your whispering.
David, I should have asked
David, I should have asked you one more thing: Does that "database" at the website Collectie Delft, have a name? If so, the database name would go in quotation marks before the word "database." That word is then the descriptor that tells us what the quoted title represents.
Please allow me to chime in
Please allow me to chime in as someone who knows these websites well. The Digitale Stamboom is a website by a software developer, Mindbus. The current website is built by Picturae. It looks like the Delft City Archives changed vendors, and hence had to change websites. I know this doesn't help your citation, but I always like understanding what's going on so thought I would explain it :-)
I have two suggestions about your proposed citation for the new website:
My version would be:
Delft, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands, birth record 1884, no. 989, Johannes van Santen, 16 December 1884; imaged as "Zoek door Registers" [Search through Registers," database with digital images, Delft Archief, Collectie Delft (http://collectie-delft.nl : accessed 31 January 2016), query: achtenaam: Santen, voornaam: Johannes.
BTW, I like how your question demonstrates the value of good citations. Even though the website where you found the record no longer exists, the first layer of your citation provided enough information for other researchers to guide you to the new location.
Correction:
Correction:
Delft, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands, birth record 1884, no. 989, Johannes van Santen, 16 December 1884; imaged as "Zoek door Registers" [Search through Registers], database with digital images, Delft Archief, Collectie Delft (http://collectie-delft.nl : accessed 31 January 2016), query: achtenaam: Santen, voornaam: Johannes.
(argh, proofread but missed the incorrect closing ]".)
Editor and Yvette,
Editor and Yvette,
Thank you for your input. I will most certainly drop the comma before the parentheses. Your explanation and analogy could not have been better. To answer your question about the name of the database, I initially didn't think there was a database to cite such as is found on Ancestry.com or FamilySearch. From the Home page, there is a link entitled "Nadere toegangen / Zoek naar personen" [Further entries / Search for people], which leads to a page where you can search on query fields such as surname, forename, and a few others. There didn't appear to be a special name for the database, which is why I didn't include one, but Yvette's suggestion to replace:
Delft, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands, birth record 1884, no. 989, Johannes van Santen, 16 December 1884; database, Delft Archief, Collectie Delft (http://collectie-delft.nl : accessed 31 January 2016). query: achtenaam: Santen, voornaam: Johannes.
with
Delft, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands, birth record 1884, no. 989, Johannes van Santen, 16 December 1884; imaged as "Zoek door Registers" [Search through Registers], database with digital images, Delft Archief, Collectie Delft (http://collectie-delft.nl : accessed 31 January 2016), query: achtenaam: Santen, voornaam: Johannes.
makes perfect sense after studying the web page. On the top of the query fields are the words "Zoek door Registers" Yvette referred to in her citation.
Yvette makes a good point that this is a database with digital images and I originally hadn't considered mentioning this because I had gotten into the habit of making two different citations. The first citation is for the database, and the second is a citation for the digital image, which might look something like this:
Delft, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands, birth record 1884, no. 989, Johannes van Santen, 16 December 1884; digital image, Delft Archief, Collectie Delft (http://collectie-delft.nl : accessed 31 January 2016); citing Delft Archief, Delft, Netherlands. query: achtenaam: Santen, voornaam: Johannes.
I base my reasoning for two citations on the fact that I found the information I was looking for in two different places, the database transcription of the record and the digital image. Citing the database "with digital images" seemed too verbose since I was already covering the image in a separate citation, but in retrospect, it is more precise to state "database with digital images" because that's actually what it is.
This brings up another question regarding citations for a database with digital images.
I've long heard that we shouldn't stop with a citation of an index because that index is pointing to an original record somewhere. We should continue to seek the original record and once obtained, write a citation for that document.
Similarly, for databases with digital images, the database (like an index) may lead us to the image of the original document.
Should we retain a citation for an index once we're obtained the original document it lead us to, or a citation for a database that has lead us to a digital image of the document? I can see both pros and cons for keeping both citations.
David and Yvette,
David and Yvette,
We all benefit when someone experienced with a particular set of records weighs in. Thank you, Yvette.
To answer David's concern about verbosity and the phrase "database with digital images" can be addressed somewhat by simply saying "database with images." It is a given, if the image is online, that it is digital. Ten years ago, when online research was far more limited and most researchers did not know the lingo or the parameters, the explicit phrase "digital images" helped new researchers. Now, now so much.
As for "should we retain a citation for an index once we've obtained the original document," that can depend upon the situation. Let us say that we are citing a digitized court case or census. The online provider offers a database with an abstract of the document, but the names of key individuals are rendered wrong. Typically, if we cite the image and render the name correctly, that correct name would not be found by someone (or by us at a later date) using the database. To relocate the entry through the database's search box, we'd have to use the incorrect name. In that case, it makes sense to retain the citation to the database extract/abstract--or to add an explanation to the citation for the image.
My preference is the latter
My preference is the latter (thus, eliminating one of the citations): abc [indexed as ABC].
One more tip, David: "Nadere
One more tip, David: "Nadere toegangen" are finding aids in the form of indexes, not just "further entries." It's a term specifically used by archivists, and a useful one to watch out for as they often contain a lot of genealogical information :-)