Citation content question on Citing Military Records—Person-Based

By History-Hunter on Sun, 08/30/2020 - 11:13

Forums

Dear editor;

With regard to adapting First Reference Note "2", in Sec. 11.40 (Pension Files), p.604, EE 3rd ed. (c) 2015:

I'd like to ask for a bit of clarification for the reasons explained below.

The record package with which I am working addresses a single person over the course of his involvement in two military engagements; WWII and his subsequent regular Canadian airforce military service. As such he also has a separate service ID for each. As his service spans more than 20 years, he also has held various ranks in both engagements.

[The material was provided as a package under a "Request Number" and contains selected images from a specific "Jacket Number". The archivist determines the "Jacket Number" from an internal index using the person's name and most recent "Service Id". Having discussed this with the archivist, the index also appears to cross-index to other "Service Ids" the person may have held. It appears that the rank, service and military engagements are not actually used to access the correct "Jacket". While not yet digitized and online, I am told that the "Jacket Number" is also the likely grouping that will be used. This may have a bearing on how one cites the records for future relocation.]

I will be referencing individual documents within the package to support my discussion of the military service. 

It appears that the semicolons divide the package of information, from which the "Deposition of Claimant" was extracted, into a hierarchy (so I assume the intent is to form a "layered citation").

Could you confirm whether I've understood the purpose of the clauses in the hierarchy and respond to the question on clause #2?

---

Clause #1 appears to be an identification of the specific record in the package.

Clause #2 appears to be an identification of the entire physical package from which the "Deposition of Claimant" was extracted. Why does the parenthetical note state a specific rank, company and engagement when the person may have several within the package? Would that type of detail not belong in clause #1? On that item, the military individual would have a specific rank, company and engagement.

Clause #3 appears to be an identification of the collection from which the package was taken.

Clause #4 appears to be an identification of the parent grouping from which the collection was taken.

Clause #5 appears to be an identification of the repository holding the source.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sun, 08/30/2020 - 12:10

Dear Editor;

After reviewing the situation further and examining the three examples presented and accompanying notes, I think the following citation just may work.

Note: "{...}" has been used in place of redacted information.

Source List Entry 

Military Personnel Service Information. 1919-1997. Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) & Personnel Records (ATIP&PR), Library and Archives Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

First Reference Note

  1. Statement of Service, {date redacted}, {name redacted}, Regular Force RCAF Service no. {number redacted} (WW II RCAF Service no. {number redacted}); included in Genealogy Package {number redacted} [containing images of selected documents from Jacket No. {number redacted}]; Military Personnel Service Information, 1919-1997; ATIP&PR, Library and Archives Canada. Ottawa. Ontario. Extracted by {name redacted} of the ATIP&PR Section for the purpose of documenting a military service timeline.

Subsequent Note

  1. Statement of Service, {date redacted}, {name redacted}, Regular Force RCAF Service no. {number redacted} (WW II RCAF Service no. {number redacted}).

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sun, 08/30/2020 - 12:15

Note that I've made a typographic error in the first reference note. "ATIP&PR, Library and Archives Canada. Ottawa. Ontario" should read "ATIP&PR, Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa, Ontario"

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Sun, 08/30/2020 - 17:40

One last tweak, which I hope shortens the citation and brings it more in line with similar examples on p. 604 in the EE book. (I changed the title a bit to better reflect that printed on the record sheet and tried to make use of abbreviations once the whole term had already been provided.)

I really hope that I'm now somewhere close to a reasonable citation :>)

Footnote:
Record of Service, {date redacted} to {date redacted}, {service-person name redacted}, service no. {number redacted}, (WW II, Special Reserve, R.C.A.F.); included in Genealogy Package {number redacted} [containing images of selected documents from Jacket No. {number redacted}]; Military Personnel Service Information, 1919-1997; ATIP&PR, Library and Archives Canada (LAC), Ottawa, Ontario. Extracted by {compiler name redacted} (LAC) for the purpose of documenting a military service timeline.

Short Footnote:
Record of Service, {date redacted} to {date redacted}, {service-person name redacted}, service no. {number redacted}, (WW II, Special Reserve, R.C.A.F.); included in Genealogy Package {number redacted}.

Bibliography:
Canada. Military Personnel Service Information, 1919-1997. Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) & Personnel Records, Library and Archives Canada (LAC), Ottawa, Ontario.

Submitted byEEon Tue, 09/01/2020 - 16:56

Hello, History-Hunter.  Your final draft works, though EE would tweak one thing (two instances). The first time we use an abbreviation or initialism, we need to write it out in full. You have two of those: R. C. A. F. and ATIP&PR. Of course, we think “Everybody should know what that stands for,” but some people will not and—going forward into the future—more of those who use your work will not.

With regard to the five points you raised in your first message, I’ll post each point below then add a response.

Clause #1 appears to be an identification of the specific record in the package.

Yes. Following the standard practice for citing manuscripts in formal archives (not just EE’s practice, but across all humanities-based styles), we start with the smallest element (the document itself) and work up to the largest element (the archive and the city/state/country where it is located).   (Caveat, as noted at EE 3.3: in some countries of the western world, that sequence is reversed; their citations customarily start with the largest element and works down to the smallest. As researchers working internationally, it’s best for us to pick one sequence and consistently use it.

Clause #2 appears to be an identification of the entire physical package from which the "Deposition of Claimant" was extracted. Why does the parenthetical note state a specific rank, company and engagement when the person may have several within the package? Would that type of detail not belong in clause #1? On that item, the military individual would have a specific rank, company and engagement.

Many service men and women have had multiple ranks. Most national archives, to whatever extent they consolidate military records for an individual, will consolidate them under the highest rank. The pension example to which you point demonstrates citing a record from the U.S. National Archives. Before those military records were transferred to that facility, they were organized by the War Department/Bureau of Pensions (which adjudicated the claim) or the Treasury Department (which paid the approved claims). Records for each pension applicant were consolidated in a “packet” or “jacket.” On the outer face of the jacket, the original clerk wrote several pieces of information, principally: name, highest rank known, name of one company and/or officer, name of war.  Today, those are the identifiers we use in a citation to ensure that other find the right file.

Clause #3 appears to be an identification of the collection from which the package was taken.

Clause #4 appears to be an identification of the parent grouping from which the collection was taken.

Clause #5 appears to be an identification of the repository holding the source.

Yes. The common architecture by which formal archives organize their materials is an issue discussed at 3.1 (the chapter that introduces archives), and 11.1 (the chapter that focuses specifically on National Archives).

My apologies for the late response. I actually answered this Sunday, but apparently failed to hit “Post." Just now, after a couple of days of PC reboots, I discovered that you were still left hanging.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Tue, 09/01/2020 - 18:20

Dear Editor;

Thank you for your response and explanation. I'm pleased that you did. No apology necessary.

This research package plays a significant role in my research, so I wanted to make sure I understood exactly why things were done before using it as a pattern for so many citations.

Just a note or two for those who are researching Canadian WWII records. I only discovered the "Jacket Number" by calling the archivist who prepared the Genealogical Package and asking about how the original material was marked. As such, I thought it best to use square brackets when mentioning it to ensure readers didn't think I actually saw it on my copies of the documents. Per the archivist, the critical indexing keys (must have) are "Name" and "Service No." If there is more than one "Service No.", don't worry. They are cross-indexed. This is why I put the remainder, "(WW II, Special Reserve, R.C.A.F.)", in parentheses.