Citing the "Obituary file, 1874-2004; obituary index, ca. 1874-2004" at FamilySearch

By History-Hunter on Wed, 11/23/2022 - 10:21

Forums

Citing the "Obituary file, 1874-2004; obituary index, ca. 1874-2004" at FamilySearch has been a bit of a struggle for me. This collection contains images of index cards in one set of films and the corresponding images of clippings in a second set of films.

To ensure a consistent look and feel across reports, I'd like to avoid creating special instances of the current physical-item-first template that I've created for my newspaper citations.

The information contained within in the films for the imaged clippings consistently gives sufficient information to complete the physical-item-first template. However; I should note that the page number sometimes has to be cited as "n.p.". 

The second layer is the real issue. Normally, I'd cite just the item format, website URL, access date and collection. However; due to having to use the imaged card-file and then browse through the indicated film of the imaged clippings, I'd really like to also include a direct "pointer" to the image for what I've cited in the first layer. So; I've placed the image ark reference in parentheses following the image-format description, which occurs at the beginning of the second layer (But; I'm not sure whether using square brackets would be better).

I believe I've not broken and hard-and-fast rules by doing this, but I would very much appreciate your feedback on the resulting format.

---

Source List Entry: Minnesota. Douglas County. Alexandria. (Alexandria, Minnesota) Park Region Echo, 1966.

First Reference Note: "Inga O. Lee Last Rites Held At Nora Church", (Alexandria, Minnesota) Park Region Echo, 9 June 1966, n.p., Inga O. Lee (born 24 March 1895, died 23 May 1966, [buried 27 May 1966]); digital image (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89VW-JCQH), FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org : downloaded 21 August 2022), "Obituary file, 1874-2004; obituary index, ca. 1874-2004".

Subsequent Note: "Inga O. Lee Last Rites Held At Nora Church", (Alexandria, Minnesota) Park Region Echo, 9 June 1966.

Note: The square brackets used in "[buried 27 May 1966]" indicates the date was calculated from the date on which she died and the stated day of the week on which the funeral was held. This was done to highlight that the date would not be found when reading the obituary text. While this could go in my notes, I find it rather useful to see it in my citations.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 11/24/2022 - 10:26

History-Hunter, you do provide us with interesting examples to mull!   In this case, I understand your reasoning, after you explained it, but there are several other issues involved:

  1. If you have to explain your reasoning to us, in this forum, so we will understand why you are handling a citation the way you are handling it, then the odds are good that readers of your citation will not intuitively understand what you've done.
  2. You are citing two separate things. That requires two separate citations. Two citations can be made in one reference note. But combining both sources into one citation, with two different URLs in the same citation, with incomplete identification for both, creates a head-scratcher that could (and should) be avoided.
  3. Your explanation actually doesn't cover a very major situation that's involved: You have not used the newspaper. Beginning your reference note with a citation to the newspaper would be misleading. You have used an obituary collection created by a historical society. To give credit where due, to clarify what you have used, and to avoid the sin of silently "borrowing citations" from another entity, your citation should be significantly restructured.

An Evidence Style citation would use this for the first reference note:

Douglas County Historical Society, "Obituary File, 1961–1972," alphabetically arranged by first letter of surname, clipping titled "Inga O. Lee Last Rites Held at Nora Church," citing Park Region Echo [Alexandria, Minnesota], June 9, 1966; imaged, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89VW-JCQH : accessed 24 November 2022) > digital film 7609610 > image 1255 of 3138.  Items in this file are located through the society's "Obituary Index" cards, also imaged; for this card, see  FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-V367-YCLB?i=227&cat=1201691) > digital film 8731855 > image 228 of 3870, "Lee, Inga O."

EE places the identity of the newspaper in a "citing ..." layer because we do not know, from our own research, the name of the newspaper in which it appears. (If we had used the newspaper itself, we'd be citing the paper and not citing this historical-society file.)  From using these cards, we know only that the historical society cites that particular paper.  We have not yet consulted the newspaper itself, for that date, to be sure that the society volunteer was not momentarily distracted and wrote the wrong newspaper name.

Regarding the editorial brackets that you used and explained:

  • Clarity is always enhanced if we can avoid stacking brackets inside parentheses.
  • An Evidence Style citation to an obituary would not normally include the birth date and death date, extracted from the source, or an added burial date that we extrapolate from other data. Under normal circumstances, those details would be in our narrative or our research note. (Birth and/or death dates would be included in a citation to a birth or death certificate because that data is often needed to identify and locate the exact certificate.)
  • The suggested citation above does include one set of brackets, at the point where the location of the Park Region Echo is cited. There, we place the location in editorial brackets because our source does not tell us where the Park Region Echo is published. We have obtained that information elsewhere and are adding it from our "personal knowledge."

 

 

 

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Thu, 11/24/2022 - 13:02

Thank you for the feedback and suggested approach. While EE book provides a great deal in the way of examples, it didn't have one for this unusual case. So I did what I could with what I had in the way of templates.

Your example looks to be a standard 2-layer structure with an appended note, but the elements are just a bit more complex. That's not a problem, as I see what you are doing. And; I'm sure I can copy and edit one of my standard templates to do the job without too much of an issue. (I have a lot of these clippings from the same source).

As I have already recorded the information you used in your citation for all the citations I require from the Obituary Clipping collection, I believe I can quickly recreate the citation for the remaining instances.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain!

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Thu, 11/24/2022 - 14:51

As I began to construct my other citations, I started to wonder why the example uses a path definition after the ARK URLs that already take one directly to the index card and the actual clipping?

If using the ARK URLs, the film and frame number appear to be redundant and including them as a path from the ARK reference is actually a bit confusing.

If using a path paradigm, wouldn't one use the URL of the catalog page as the base URL (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/1201691) and then give the film and frame reference relative to that?

If the extra information was intended as a "safety-net", wouldn't it go in ones research notes to avoid confusion in the citation?

Could you explain, please?

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Fri, 11/25/2022 - 09:42

I've constructed a template that allows me to make the citing of this "complex" source a little less prone to error. I've tried to do so in a manner similar to what you have previously indicated. It still permits me to retain the additional information about key dates by employing an appended note. The following is an example of the full-up citation. If I've done this correctly, perhaps seeing an example of my result will help someone else.

Hope I don't run into too many more of these "extended" citation cases :>)

First reference note: 
Douglas County Historical Society, "Obituary file, 1961 (from Dyrud, Ernest) - 1972 (to Swenson, Ida)", images alphabetically arranged by first letter of surname, clipping titled "Inga O. Lee Last Rites Held At Nora Church", citing (Alexandria, Minnesota) Park Region Echo, 9 June 1966; imaged, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89VW-JCQH : downloaded 21 August 2022). This record was located via one of the society's corresponding imaged index cards; in this case, "Obituary index, Larson, Lorns to Odens, Dale", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QHV-V367-YCLB), "Lee, Inga O". Clipping contains the obituary of Inga O. Lee (born 24 March 1895, died 23 May 1966, funeral 27 May 1966).

Subsequent note: 
Douglas County Historical Society, "Obituary file, 1961 (from Dyrud, Ernest) - 1972 (to Swenson, Ida)", clipping titled "Inga O. Lee Last Rites Held At Nora Church", citing Park Region Echo, 9 June 1966.

Source List: 
USA. Douglas Co. Historical Society. "Obituary file, 1961 (from Dyrud, Ernest) - 1972 (to Swenson, Ida)". Images alphabetically arranged by first letter of surname. FamilySearch. https://familysearch.org : 2022.

Just a small addendum that corrects an oversight on my part.

"...citing (Alexandria, Minnesota) Park Region Echo..." should be "...citing Park Region Echo [Alexandria, Minnesota]...". 

Submitted byEEon Fri, 11/25/2022 - 10:13

History-Hunter wrote:

"As I began to construct my other citations, I started to wonder why the example uses a path definition after the ARK URLs that already take one directly to the index card and the actual clipping? If using the ARK URLs, the film and frame number appear to be redundant and including them as a path from the ARK reference is actually a bit confusing.

Yes, that's redundancy, but it serves a purpose and it does conform to structural rules for both writing and citation.

Re the value of the redundancy within that citation format: 1) ARKS are supposed to be permanent, but after 40+ years of "personal computing" we've all learned that nothings is permanent. 2) Typos happen easily. If we make a typo in the ARK as some point, we still have the path.

As for structure:  Let’s go back to the basic structure for publications:

Creator, Title (Place of publication : date), specific item/page.

If we were citing a multi-volume publication, the basic structure would be this:

Creator, Title (Place of publication : date ), vol. no.: page.

Following the basic rules of grammar and punctuation, when something is in parentheses, we should be able to omit it and the remainder should "make sense." It should be a “complete sentence.” So, let’s eliminate the publication data from the basic citation for a multi-volume work:

Creator, Title, vol. no.: page.

That, of course, is what we use for our “short form” reference note after we’ve once cited it in full.

When we apply this structure to the FamilySearch layer of the citation we’re discussing, and drop the creator field because the publication is self-named, we get this:

FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89VW-JCQH : accessed 24 November 2022) > digital film 7609610 > image 1255 of 3138.

Generically, that’s

Title (place of publication : date) > film no. > image no.  

Following the basic grammar/punctuation rules, if we drop what is in parentheses, the rest of the sentence should be a “complete sentence” (complete citation sentence). It is. And it’s one we could use for a short-form citation.

FamilySearch > digital film 7609610 > image 1255.

As for using a base URL for the database/collection title (rather than the ARK) and then adding the path. Yes, we can do that sometimes. However, with FamilySearch URLs/ARKs, that's not always possible. The source we’re working with is a case at point.

As for putting the path in research notes, are you referring to

  • actual research notes (i.e., the abstract, extract, and/or transcrption of the document—with added analysis); or
  • the discursive note that we add to a citation?

I think you mean the latter. In that case, the added on information would have to first define the point at which the path begins. Given that the ARK is not the beginning point for the path, then the database title and its URL would be the point; but then we're back to the issue that FamilySearch ARKs aren't always traceable back to a base URL for a database/collection. Past that issue, we're left with the fact that once our discursive note defines the base to which the path is attached, we've created redundancy also, no?

I am aware of the philosophical arguments for and against using ARK-references, but what confused me is that your provide example contained a curious mixture of ARK-references and paths. If there is a risk of rendering a citation unusable by using ARK-references, then the your example still exposes one to that risk. Moreover; there really isn't a base path to the film images of this collection that does not contain an ARK-reference. Of course; one could use the more roundabout method of referencing the images by using the URL of the collection page, which is a non-ARK reference. However; FamilySearch has acknowledged that collections are not necessarily immutable, so that URL reference could also change.

When I store the information in my research notes, I don't just include a citation, but rather I also capture more extensive raw information on what I accessed/downloaded. That means that my notes contain more than just the ARK reference. So; I have no doubt that I am in the best possible position to locate the information in the future. I just don't place that in the finished citation, which will be printed from my program (currently RM8).

The template I constructed is capable of using either paths, ARK references or both. My recent example used ARK references as this was the most concise way to illustrate the overall citation structure at the current time and reflects how I would format the citation in a current report.

H-H, you wrote:

I am aware of the philosophical arguments for and against using ARK-references, but what confused me is that your provide example contained a curious mixture of ARK-references and paths. If there is a risk of rendering a citation unusable by using ARK-references, then the your example still exposes one to that risk.

I don't follow your reasoning here. If one makes a typo in copying the ARK or later editing, then the path can still be followed.

Here is my reasoning:

When writing my response, I was looking at the EE book and notice that sometimes you've used an ARK-reference and sometimes a regular URL with a "path", but I don't believe I've seen both in the same citation example.

I understand that the book doesn't explicitly say that one can't use both approaches at the same time and that both approaches have their merits and their risks. However; FamilySearch is unlikely to change the catalog numbers of their films and those films can usually be accessed via the catalog. This particular citation is already quite lengthy, so why would one not just use the base URL, "https://www.familysearch.org", and the suggested "path" to the image? In this case, it would seem to have a very low risk of becoming invalid and keep the the citation a bit shorter.

I apologize for the protracted discussion on this topic, but I believe it is so important for one to understand the underlying paradigm and not just the syntax of a specific example.

I reread your response a few times. For me; the use of the ">" and the use of the description, "path", was the source of confusion. The ">" is a symbol that is traditionally used in computer science to document nested directories originating at a "root". Because of the use of computer science nomenclature, this lead me to believe that the "root" was also a computer-related element; specifically the parenthetical URL. But, as you've explained, the "root" is actually the site name. This also explains why the parenthetical URL is often the one for the site and not the image being cited.

The EE book uses a "Book" paradigm, for websites. It also uses the colon to separate the hierarchal elements of a traditional book (ie. of chapters and additional named sub-divisions). Why not continue to use the same paradigm and employ a colon as the separator instead of the ">"? That consistent use of the book paradigm would make it clear that the elements are "chapters" within the website "book" and not a computer "path" from the URL.

Consistently using the "Book" paradigm would also conceptually simplify citing other websites, such as ScotlandsPeople. Because of the structure of that particular website, it is SO much easier to think of its sections as chapters in a book than as elements of a "path". By doing so, one does not fall into the trap of trying to document a series of "clicks" on hyperlinks that lead to the item in question.

H-H, the > used in path citations (a mathematical symbol meaning "greater than") follows the same function that you describe. It takes one through nested directories, generally from the root URL or database/collection title through a varying number of units within the website's structure, down to the smallest unit: the image.

Incidentally, genealogists also use the mathematical greater-than and lesser-than symbols in other ways--usually to denote descent/ascent of political jurisdictions or people, as in

  • Charles City > Henrico > Goochland > Albemarle > Amherst Counties
  • Amherst < Albemarle < Goochland < Henrico < Charles City Counties
  • John > Richard > James > Samuel > George > Philip
  • Philip < George < Samuel < James < Richard < John

 

I appreciate your explanation. I fully accept your note on of how genealogists use the symbology (">" and "<").

When I learn a new skill and/or read a manual; it is so important for me to see a consistent use of the paradigm, expressed consistently in examples. So; I'd like to risk offering the following suggestion...

The paradigm in the EE book is clearly based on viewing websites as being similar to books. Your initial example used the analogy of a multivolume set and was therefor very clear. But; I feel that reverting to drawing a parallel to computing will likely confuse some people. For a website, the elements of the "path" are often not actual directories and sometimes not even a sequence of hyperlinks. We really don't know how the website is actually structured. I think the word "path" may conjure up the wrong impression of its content and cause people to be be uncertain as to what it should contain. Using the book paradigm; I would suggest that path elements are identifiable website elements that are analogous to the hierarchal subdivisions (volumes, chapters, sections etc.) associated with physical books.

I also have a pair of simple, but related, questions...

1) I note that on EE book pages 233 and 333, there are examples that preface the "path" with the word "path" or "path:". I seldom see that in examples on the website. Are they simply artifacts of an earlier edition? They seem inconsistent in terms of the other examples in the EE book.

2) On page 333, the St. Liborious Church example, the second layer states a "path" to a specific image. And yet, in other EE examples I've seen, the second layer does not provide a full "path". Those seem to just make a general reference to the overall imaged material. Based on the forgoing discussion, I'd think that the additional detail would always be provided. What is the reasoning in deciding whether to include the extra detail or not?

I fully understand, if you feel these additional questions would be best handled as a separate issue.