Citing Nominal Rolls on the Library and Archives Canada site.

By History-Hunter on Sat, 07/20/2019 - 19:15

Forums

Dear Editor;

On the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) website, I've found the Nominal Roll containing Private David Murison. Unfortunately; I'm having trouble figuring out how to cite a pdf'd document, which is part of a collection of similar documents. The organization of the LAC site adds so substantially to the confusion that I'm not sure where to start. Just getting to the document is a "labour of love."

So; if you can, I could use a bit of a nudge in the correct direction...

The document is contained in a volume/box called, "Canadian Expeditionary Force - 49th to 60th Battalions - Nominal Roll of Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men", which is a collection of several similar documents under LAC reference RG9-II-B-3, Volume/box number: 79. After a lot of trial and error, I finally determined that this collection can be accessed via, http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=2006095

The document is a PDF of the paper copy that the site refers to as, "50th Canadian Infantry Battalion - embarkation 1915-10-27 - arrival 1915-11-04 (item 2)".

The pages of interest are pp. 1 (title page showing embarkation information) & 15 (showing entry for Private David Murison, #434298), taken on strength 15 January 1915 at Calgary.

And... When I finally did get to the actual document, I found the direct link was simply, http://data2.archives.ca/e/e444/e011089541.pdf (However; I know from past experience not to use that.)

Submitted byEEon Sun, 07/21/2019 - 11:13

H-H,

First, I must say I'm impressed at the depth and breadth of your research on David Murison. You model what  we should all do to ensure that we correctly reconstruct a person’s life and clearly separate him from other same-named people.

I should also add that my examination of the material to which your first URL points may not be the same as yours. Likely it’s because it’s a Sunday morning when (supposedly) people don’t use archives and (theoretically) IT staff can do maintenance with minimal effect on users. Currently, the page is flagged with a banner saying: “Work on this record display is under way. Some features may be unavailable or non-functional."

You state three points that I’ll address:

The document is a PDF.

A PDF is an image copy, right? It’s a different digital format from, say, a jpg or png. It can be manipulated so that we can do this-or-that with it, but so can jpg or png formats. Ergo, should the fact that a document is imaged as a PDF affect a citation?

The direct link was simply …. However, I know from past experience not to use that.

The direct link does work in the sense that it leads us straight to the document where we can view the whole thing. However, the document is out there in limbo, hanging on some peg, without any clue for the user as to where it comes from or any understanding of what it represents. The only clue we have is the fact that the URL contains the word "archives." But, then, there are  a kajillion archives in this world and, for all we know, the URL could be to some private site where someone is posting materials taken from various archives.

The document is contained in a volume/box called  …  After a lot of trial and error, I finally determined that this collection can be accessed via http….

This page, where I see the flag, is the typical catalog page describing an archival collection and its parts. (And you have obviously sleuthed well to find the page.) Here I see text and hyperlinks, some of which are tucked inside layers of the menu. As I explore the menu, I do see a link that leads to the direct link under your No. 2 above.

Our question now seems to be this: Should we

  1. Cite the direct link and leave the document hanging out their on that peg in limbo?
  2. Cite the more informative path, which the archives’ IT staff may change by the time it finishes this Sunday morning maintenance?

In such cases, we might consider citing both. For example:

     1. Canadian Expeditionary Force: 50th Battalion, Nominal Roll of Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men; Embarkation Port: Halifax, Ship S.S. "Orduna", Date October 27th, 1915, … issued with Militia Orders, 1925, printed government document, p. 15 for David Murison; PDF image, Library and Archives Canada (LAC) (http://data2.archives.ca/e/e444/e011089541.pdf : accessed 21 July 2019) also accessible via LAC catalog path Home > Collection Search > Collections and Fonds – 2006095 > Digital Objects >Object 2; citing “Canadian Expeditionary Force – 49th to 60th Battalions – Nominal Roll of Officers and Men,” item 2006095, volume/box 79, reference RG9-11-B-3, Archives / Collections and Fonds.  [96 words]

This approach, however, is exceedingly wordy, given that the path repeats the data that appears in the source-of-the-source layer.

A more concise approach that includes the same data would be this:

     1. Canadian Expeditionary Force: 50th Battalion, Nominal Roll of Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men; Embarkation Port: Halifax, Ship S.S. “Orduna”, Date October 27th, 1915, … issued with Militia Orders, 1925, printed government document, p. 15 for David Murison; PDF image, Library and Archives Canada (http://data2.archives.ca/e/e444/e011089541.pdf : accessed 21 July 2019); citing “Canadian Expeditionary Force – 49th to 60th Battalions – Nominal Roll of Officers and Men,” item 2006095, volume/box 79, reference RG9-11-B-3, Archives / Collections and Fonds.  [74 words]

Or, as a compromise:

     1. Canadian Expeditionary Force: 50th Battalion, Nominal Roll of Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men; Embarkation Port: Halifax, Ship S.S. “Orduna”, Date October 27th, 1915, … issued with Militia Orders, 1925, printed government document, p. 15 for David Murison; PDF image, Library and Archives Canada (http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/collectionsearch/ : accessed 21 July 2019) > Collections and Fonds – 2006095 > Digital Objects >Object 2; citing “Canadian Expeditionary Force – 49th to 60th Battalions – Nominal Roll of Officers and Men,” item 2006095, volume/box 79, reference RG9-11-B-3, Archives / Collections and Fonds.  [85 words.]

EE’s approach would likely be the 74-word version.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sun, 07/21/2019 - 13:26

Dear Editor;

Thank you for your kind words and for providing more than just a "nudge". In my family it's not uncommon to have three generations with the same name. So careful research is an absolute necessity. That said; I love the challenge of telling an engaging, yet fully verifiable, story of a persons life. For me; Genealogy doesn't have to be dry as bones... :>)

As demonstrated by the various options you've presented, some records on the LAC site can be a challenge to cite. The LAC has some defined collections with webpages to search them. It also has, as in this case, items which are stored in a more classic archival hierarchy.

Knowing what I do about how the LAC numbers their electronic files, I don't think the filename will change. However; the path could. That said; I also like the 74 word version. This is because, the documents still exist in physical form and the citation gives enough to locate them in the physical archives or to request help locating them online.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sun, 07/21/2019 - 14:40

Dear Editor;

As this is a somewhat more complex than usual citation, I thought I'd post my thoughts on the Source List Entry and Subsequent Note ... just to see if I've got it correct. We never seem discuss them much, when talking about crafting citations, so I'm still learning how to handle them.

I think the Source List Entry is likely acceptable, but I wonder if the Subsequent Note is more wordy than necessary. Perhaps, "issued with Militia Orders, 1925" could be dropped. I suppose, technically, the ellipsis should still remain.

Source List Entry

Canadian Expeditionary Force: 50th Battalion, Nominal Roll of Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men.printed government document. Library and Archives Canada. http://data2.archives.ca/e/e444/e011089541.pdf: 2019.

First Reference

Canadian Expeditionary Force: 50th Battalion, Nominal Roll of Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men; Embarkation Port: Halifax, Ship S.S. “Orduna”, Date October 27th, 1915, … issued with Militia Orders, 1925, printed government document, p. 15 for David Murison; PDF image, Library and Archives Canada (http://data2.archives.ca/e/e444/e011089541.pdf : accessed 21 July 2019); citing “Canadian Expeditionary Force – 49th to 60th Battalions – Nominal Roll of Officers and Men,” item 2006095, volume/box 79, reference RG9-11-B-3, Archives / Collections and Fonds.

Subsequent Note

Canadian Expeditionary Force: 50th Battalion, Nominal Roll of Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers and Men; Embarkation Port: Halifax, Ship S.S. “Orduna”, Date October 27th, 1915, … issued with Militia Orders, 1925, printed government document, p. 15 for David Murison.

Submitted byEEon Mon, 07/22/2019 - 11:32

H-H, EE would definitely truncate that long title in Subsequent Notes. If you'll look in EE's index under titles > shortening, you'll find references to examples for various types of sources. Basic guidelines are at 2.43-2.45.

In the current example, Canadian Expeditionary Force: 50th Battalion, Nominal Roll would sufffice to identify the source and its purpose in subsequent notes.

Re your Source List Entry, all's well, aside from the typo that seems to have resulted from the cut 'n paste.