9.32 Birth Record and Layers When No Database or Index Is Involved

By c0r8g30 on Tue, 01/15/2019 - 21:06

Forums

Dear EE,

I want to check my understanding. In review of 9.32 for the NYC example (p 456), I would understand that most people with a NYC vital record would use 3 layers:

1. WHAT:  identify the overall source itself, in a vacuum:  Kings County, New York, New York, Brooklyn Birth Certificate #001, John Doe, 1 January 1961

2.  WHERE: identify the origin of the image: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

3. WHEREIS: Identify where the copy being reviewed or stored is now located: Certified Copy held by Jane Doe, 123 Main Street, Any Town, NY, 11210

And that putting all the layers together would yield this source citation:

Kings County, New York, New York, Brooklyn Birth Certificate #001, John Doe, 1 January 1961; New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; Certified copy held by Jane Doe, 123 Main Street, Any Town, NY, 11210.

Would you add in the last known date of where/when the image is? Perhaps

Kings County, New York, New York, Brooklyn Birth Certificate #001, John Doe, 1 January 1961; New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; Certified copy held by Jane Doe, 123 Main Street, Any Town, NY, 11210, reviewed 15 January 2019.

I would welcome your feedback.

Submitted byEEon Wed, 01/16/2019 - 14:37

Yes, c0r8g30, adding the date of ownership is appropriate for privately held items (EE 3.25). We could, in the case of items we obtained ourselves, include the date we obtained it, if we wish. (That data would likely be stripped from our citation in the event that a journal or book publisher were publishing our work at their expense.) 

In the case above, we are assuming that you personally obtained the certificate from the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

Your repetition of "New York, New York" might not be understood unless you say "New York City, New York." However, considering that you are also identifying the repository as "New York City Department …," your citation would be cleaner if the repetition were eliminated in "New York, New York." 

After reading c0r8g30's post, I had a couple of follow up questions. 

  1. The First Reference Note example from EE that was mentioned above (EE 9.32):

    "New York County, Manhattan death certificate no...

    After reading your response to c0r8g30, I'm now a bit unclear if the first reference note for a city-certificate should also include the state (similar to the 9.32 Kansas City, Kansas example or c0r8g30's Brooklyn, New York sample above).

    "New York County, New York, Manhattan death certificate no..."
     
  2. In terms of the agency/creator for city-level records, I don't totally understand why the agency/creator is the county itself, rather than the New York City Department of Health?
     
  3. For New York City records, wouldn't the jurisdiction be at the level of the borough (rather than the county?). 
     
  4. The Source List Entry example on EE 9.31 lists the coverage of the record series ("1866–1919"). I was wondering when it is appropriate to include this. Funny enough, the coverage for Manhattan birth certificates now seems to be through 1948!

Thanks, in advance, for helping me iron out some of these points!

Good questions, NY-researcher.  I'll repond to each issue separately.

Question 1

Including the state is always safe. If an editor doesn't later like it, the editor can omit it.

As the response to c048g30 implies, EE tends to avoid repetition and redundancy, when possible, given that reference notes are so irritatingly long already. As a general rule also, most style guides suggest that citing state names are not necessary when the city or jurisdiction is exceedingly well known--as "Manhattan, New York County" certainly is. EE discusses this briefly in the fundamental principles for the chapter on citing books (12.1).

In the Kansas City example, because there exists both a Kansas City, Kansas, and a Kansas City, Missouri, the inclusion of the state name is imperative. 

Questions 2 & 3

We cite the agency or the jurisdiction according to the record or record set that we use. Agencies and jurisdictions changed across time. 

Question 4

Again, we identify the record according to its identity at the time that we used it. Often, record sets are expanded. Sometimes, some earlier records are deleted. As those record-set names change, it would not be wise to revise our citations to fit a current set, unless we have examined that current set to ensure that what we originally used is still in the set.

Submitted byc0r8g30on Wed, 01/16/2019 - 19:17

Yes, you are right, I am "Jane Doe", in the example. I did personally obtain the copy.

I learned a long time ago (from you) that citation is an art. That said, the redundancy of New York and New York is really only because 

a) Brooklyn is not a City

b) New York City is also New York

I do like cleaner (and less citation) but since this is not going to a journal for publication, and because I am trying to reinforce my habit of "county, city, state", I will cite it as New York City.

Thank you so much for taking the time to give this feedback, I truly appreciate it.