Ensuring clarity in citations containing information from pre-printed forms

Dear Editor;

I am currently working through immigration records relating to ships. I am seeing quite a few examples in which identifying the record requires citing a mixture of pre-printed text and handwritten text. Sometimes, the spelling of the handwritten text is also incorrect. I'm not sure how best to render this. I am torn between being faithful to what is written and ensuring that the citation is usable/readable (and not cluttered with annotations).

Here is one of my attempts in which I opted for stating the information in a way that the user knows they have the correct record. It does not reflect the presence of a mixture of printed and handwritten text, nor does it correct or highlight spelling errors. 

"New York Passenger Arrival Lists (Ellis Island), 1892-1924," database with images, "S.S. Columbia sailing from Glasgow 10th March, 1906" [and] "Arriving at Port of New York Mch 20, 1906", folio 13 (stamped), line 26, entry for David Murison; FamilySearch(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PT-F4XV?cc=1368704&wc=4FMB-7R8%3A1600312333: accessed 11 April 2019), Roll 677, vol 1480-1482, 19 Mar 1906 > image 516 of 739; citing NARA microfilm publication T715 and M237 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).

The portion in question is:
"S.S. Columbia sailing from Glasgow 10th March, 1906" [and] "Arriving at Port of New York Mch 20, 1906"

I have attached an image of the portion of the record from which this was taken.

 

Submitted byEEon Sat, 04/13/2019 - 17:55

History-Hunter, you do a great job of finding records that take deep thought to understand and identify!

EE’s citation of this particular list from that particular ship arrival does differ a bit from yours.  First, I’ll post our version and then discuss the differences. As usual in this forum, I’ll color code the different layers of the citation. Within each color, boldface is a point that will be discussed.

     1.  List of Manifest of Alien Passengers for the U.S. Immigration Officer at Port of Arrival [Second-Cabin Passengers], S.S. Columbia sailing from Glasgow 10th March, 1906 [and] Arriving at Port of New York Mch 20, 1906,” list A, sheet 15 (stamped at right), line 26, entry for David Murison;  “New York Passenger Arrival Lists (Ellis Island), 1892-1924," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PT-F4XV?cc=1368704&wc=4FMB-7R8%3A1600312333 : accessed 11 April 2019) > Roll 677, vol 1480-1482, 19 Mar 1906 > image 516 of 739; citing NARA microfilm publications T715 and M237 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.); image 487 indicates that this ship's rolls appear in NARA original vol. 1482.

Issue 1:

Your citation leads with the label FamilySearch gave to its database, then it discusses the actual record, then it goes back to FamilySearch’s website at which the database appears, then it moves on to the actual record’s archive location.  Peas and apples are being mixed. The database title, which is a FamilySearch construct, needs to go in the layer in which you cite FamilySearch. It should not be part of the identification of the original record.

Issue 2:

The “title” that you assign to the document itself ("S.S. Columbia sailing from Glasgow 10th March, 1906 [and] "Arriving at Port of New York Mch 20, 1906”) is not the actual title of the record. Three smaller issues crop up here:

  • The title of the record is the one printed at the top of the page in big type: “List of Manifest of Alien Passengers for the U.S. Immigration Officer at Port of Arrival.”  Among other things, this official title tells us that (a) the form only covers “alien” passengers; and (b) that it was a manifest created at the port of arrival. Both distinctions got lost in your draft.
  • Above that official title of the form are directions for those who fill out the form, including a descriptor that defines the one specific class of alien passengers that are to be included on this list: “Second-Cabin Passengers.” It would be wise to include that qualifier in the title, by placing it in square editorial brackets.
  • Below that title is the line you have snipped out and used for the title of the document—i.e., the ship name, places, and dates. It is indeed wise to include this in your citation; but it should be handled as a subtitle, subservient to the actual title.

Issue 3:

You cite the page as “folio 13 (stamped).” Four points here:

  • We aren’t actually dealing with folios. Folios are folded pages, similar to a booklet, that will have at least 4 sides and usually total something that is a multiple of 4. (See EE 6.8) What you are dealing with are loose sheets, on which the passenger list appears on one side with stamped sheet numbers, while the  other side (with a penned number) is used for two certifications by officials. When we look closely, we see that the certification side is filmed first; the stamped side is filmed after it.
  • Rather than “13,” the key identifier for that page is “List A.”  If we click back to the start of the lists for that ship (image 486, which carries the certification for filming, and then analyze the manner in which all the lists are formed, we get a clearer picture.  I’m pasting in a table of the pages as arranged. Note that there are two stamped numbers on the passenger side of each page. You’ll also notice that the lists were filmed in reverse order, sort of.
  • The reconstruction of all the sheets also informs us that the blurry digit in the right-stamped number for List A is 15 rather than 13.  You’ll notice on other pages that the “3” stamp has a rounded top, while the “5” has a straight top.
  • After the filming of List A, your item of interest, the sheets move on to steerage but are still consecutively stamped on the right, although the left hand column shifts to a different numbering system. The number on the right-hand side of the page does appear to be the controlling number for the full set of pages.

List No.

From

Class

Stamped No. on Left

Stamped No. on Right

Image Nos.

List 57

Londonderry

Steerage

42

16

517-18

List A

Glasgow

2nd

2

15

515-516

List B

Glasgow

2nd

3

14

513-514

List C

Glasgow

2nd

4

13

511-512

List D

Glasgow

2nd

5?

12

509-510

List E

Glasgow

2nd

6

11

507-508

List F

Glasgow

2nd

7

10

505-506

List G

Glasgow

2nd

8

9

503-504

List H

Glasgow

2nd

9

8

501-502

List I

Glasgow

2nd

10

7

499-500

List J

Glasgow

2nd

11

6

497-498

List K

Glasgow

2nd

12

5

495-496

List 50

Londonderry

2nd

13

4

493-494

List 51

Londonderry

2nd

14

3

491-492

List 52

Londonderry

2nd

15

2

489-490

List L

Glasgow

1st

1

1

487-488

Issue 4:

This FamilySearch database is one of those that is organized by a path, with waypoints. It’s useful to include that in Layer 2, where you cite FamilySearch. The path goes immediately after the parentheses that contain the URL : date. The path is then denoted by the greater-than > sign between each element of the path.

Issue 5:

For Layer 3, the source-of-your source data, you copy exactly the words used by FamilySearch. When we copy words exactly, they should go in quotation marks. In this case, given the fact that FS cites two different microfilm publications without indicating which one carries your list, if you don’t put quotation marks around the citation that you have copied exactly, then your own readers will wonder why you cited two different microfilm publications instead of specifying the exact one.

Issue 6:

When we study the pages for this ship closely and scan back to the start of the set for the ship, we see at image 487 that this set appears in NARA’s vol. 1482 (whereas the FS path gives the far-less-specific "vol. 1480-1482." You may want to add the actual volume number to the end of the source-of-the-source data in case there comes a time when the original volume needs to be checked to verify something that may not be clear on the image.

Nitpicks:

  • When writing the name of a ship, it is conventional practice to put the ship name in italics—but not the initials that precede the name. (EE 6.39)
  • When typing the parenthetical publication data (URL and date), a space should be left between the URL and the colon so that the colon does not become part of the URL and make it unworkable. (EE 2.37, last para.)

Whew!

 

P.S.

As for the preprinted-form issue and whether we should distinguish between words that are typeset and words that are handwritten, the overriding issue is that we are now all using typeset for everything we create. If we make the distinction by typing the handwritten words in some penmanship font, we also introduce two issues:

  • We still are not reproducing the original exactly, because the penmanship font won't match the idiosyncrasies of the original scribe.
  • We make it harder for ourselves and others to follow the text of what we type in that penmanship font. Typeset text is easier to read.

In analyzing this record, what added value do you see in distinguishing the preprinted words from the penned words?

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sun, 04/14/2019 - 07:48

Dear Editor;

First, I'd like to sincerely thank you for providing a revised citation and then explaining your reasoning. Citing passenger records seems to me far more difficult than some other types I've encountered.

I also appreciate the substantial work you've done in analyzing the structure of the manifests. Myself; I've done a bit on the Ellis Island version of the NARA records, but never seen what you've noted documented an any length. I only wish that database owners would provide a similar level of discussion of the records they are offering. The description, when offered, is far from what is necessary to adequately understand the source or the logic used in archiving the material. As such, properly citing the viewed records is far from easy. This information, pertaining to the structure and organization of the material, needs to be compiled somewhere or it will eventually need to be "re-discovered" at some point in the future. I know that I've started compiling my own "notes" on the various sources, but this won't help others. The providers need to do this for their clients.

I would like to note that the "citations" offered by the mainstay databases are typically not very helpful in citing their own material. As you've clearly demonstrated in the course of your notes, the one in question would have to be totally rewritten. In its original FamilySearch form, it read as follows:

"New York Passenger Arrival Lists (Ellis Island), 1892-1924," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PT-F4XV?cc=1368704&wc=4FMB-7R8%3A1600312333 : 26 January 2018), Roll 677, vol 1480-1482, 19 Mar 1906 > image 516 of 739; citing NARA microfilm publication T715 and M237 (Washington D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.).

The care used in crafting the citations we used to see in printed publications has not been carried forward to electronic formats. We can often use the former without much alteration.

The original issue, "Ensuring clarity in citations containing information from pre-printed forms", deserves further discussion in some (perhaps not this) forum. It relates to the balance of fidelity versus clarity in citations (and possibly transcriptions). I've seen a few articles that discuss this. All make the points that you do (as well as others). Yet, I've never seen a concrete solution offered. I note that EE, itself, often uses such qualifiers as "penned" in many of its examples. I must admit that I often don't see that the added notation makes a difference in the interpretation of the material and wonder why it was included.

Submitted byEEon Sun, 04/14/2019 - 09:34

History-Hunter, EE uses "penned" and "stamped" to identify page numbers primarily on censuses where many of those will have two to three different "page" numbering schemes going on—some stamped and some penned. The point is to identify which set of numbers one is using.

Your passenger list also serves as a good example, where there are two different sets of stamped numbers. When you cited "Sheet 13 (stamped)," you were looking at the stamped series at the top right of the page. Aside from the 13 vs.15 readability issue, sheet 13 (as stamped at top right) is List C from Glasgow, whereas sheet 13 (as stamped at top left) is List 50 from Londonderry.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sun, 04/14/2019 - 13:06

Dear Editor;

Thank you for your quick response to the use of the parenthetical notations.

I was going over the suggested citation and have a few questions. The first is with regard to the following clause (layer 2).

 “New York Passenger Arrival Lists (Ellis Island), 1892-1924," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PT-F4XV?cc=1368704&wc=4FMB-7R8%3A1600312333 : accessed 11 April 2019) > Roll 677, vol 1480-1482, 19 Mar 1906 > image 516 of 739;

The noted permanent "ark" link in layer 2 takes one directly to the specific record used in layer 1, not a set of records that requires an additional path. All the other images in the set have unique links. Why, then, is the "> Roll 677, vol 1480-1482, 19 Mar 1906 > image 516 of 739" required? If we do document that additional information, it appears that it actually reflects the specific location in the source-of-the-source (layer 3) from which the FamilySearch image was taken.

Also; in the last clause, from where did the image 487 reference originate?

image 487 indicates that this ship's rolls appear in NARA original vol. 1482.

Submitted byEEon Sun, 04/14/2019 - 13:46

History Hunter asks: Why cite the path when the URL is supposed to be a permalink and it takes one directly to the image?  Because it's awfully easy to make a typo when typing 90 characters of gibberish. Because often when editors typeset a URL they have to add non-breaking characters, sometimes have to experiment to get a break in an appropriate place, and sometimes characters get lost in that process. And because "permanent" links, at this point, represent optimism more than reality.

Re the question "from where did the image 487 reference originate?": I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking "where on image 487 does the NARA volume number appear?" or .... ?

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sun, 04/14/2019 - 15:27

Dear Editor;

I find the use of the ">" confusing, since to me (and likely others) it indicates that what follows is a form of "path" from what is to its left. In this case, a correct permalink stands on its own, as does the series of terms that follow. How can one make it more clear that the two are alternatives?

The image number for the record in question is "516", as shown earlier in the citation, not "487". Was this a typo or does it have a different number in the original NARA roll?

Submitted byEEon Tue, 04/16/2019 - 07:22
History-Hunter, you are right in saying that a correct permalink should stand on its own. On the other hand, "should" doesn't always mean "does." Image 487 represents the start of the series for that ship roll, not the one or two images of your interest. Scrolling back to the start of a series to see what is there often provides us with more information or a better perspective. On your exact image, the provider's heading tells us that the image comes from somewhere in volumes 1480, 1481, or 1482. If we scroll back to image 487, we learn that the exact volume is 1482. That is why EE's suggested citation added the note "image 487 indicates that this ship's rolls appear in NARA original vol. 1482."

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Tue, 04/16/2019 - 10:58

Dear Editor;

Thank you for the explanation of the "image 487" reference in the last clause.

The Information->Film/Digital Note tab of the image 516 page shows:

  • v. 1480-1482 Mar 19 1906 (NARA Series T715, Roll 677)

Is it reasonable to amend the clause to read:

...; the "Film/Digital Note" for image 516 identifies the original NARA publication as T715. A penned notation on Image 487 the same image set indicates that this ship's rolls appear in vol. 1482 of the specified NARA publication.

    Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Tue, 04/16/2019 - 11:02

    My apologies. I seem to have missed a word...

    Is it reasonable to amend the clause to read:

    ...; the "Film/Digital Note" for image 516 identifies the original NARA publication as T715. A penned notation on Image 487 [of] the same image set indicates that this ship's rolls appear in vol. 1482 of the specified NARA publication.

    Submitted byEEon Wed, 04/17/2019 - 07:01
    History-Hunter, the volume number refers to original volumes at NARA. Film publications are cited by their name/number (T715 in this case), roll number, and frame number.