Citing Ancestry’s Swedish-American Church Records Collection

By F.T.C. on Mon, 01/30/2023 - 20:19

Forums

When I first used Ancestry’s “U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Swedish American Church Records, 1800-1947,” I constructed my reference notes to lead with the document rather than the database. Now that I’ve used that collection many times, I’m considering reworking my citations to lead with the database.

My proposed First Reference Note and Subsequent First Reference Note for Same Record [following the format for “citing multiple records from an online image database” (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/index.php/content/citing-multiple-records-online-image-database)] are:

FIRST REFERENCE NOTE:

“U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Swedish American Church Records, 1800-1947,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/61584/ : accessed 30 September 2020) > USA > Pennsylvania > Philadelphia > Zion Lutheran Church > image 111 of 627, Church register, double-page 80, 11th unnumbered entry, Amanda Amalia Kaminsky; imaged from microfilm at Swenson Swedish Immigration Research Center (hereinafter, SSIRC), Rock Island, Illinois.

SUBSEQUENT REFERENCE NOTE FOR SAME RECORD:

If the subject’s name is in or very near the bit of narrative text to which the note is attached:

“U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Swedish American Church Records, 1800-1947,” Ancestry, Zion Lutheran Church (Philadelphia, Penn.), church register, image 111 of 627.

If the subject’s name is not in or very near the bit of narrative text to which the note is attached:

“U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Swedish American Church Records, 1800-1947,” Ancestry, Zion Lutheran Church (Philadelphia, Penn.), church register, image 111 of 627, Amanda Amalia Kalinsky.

Re: the first layer:

The QuickTip “Citing Layers vs. Paths: Is It Really an Either-Or Choice?” presents two variations for citing images. The first one cites only the image number; the second cites both the image number and the total number of images in the group.

QUESTION 1: Is citing only the image number sufficient, and if not, why?

Re: the second layer:

For this particular church register, Ancestry provides a specific SSIRC microfilm roll number (S-708). For others, of course, it provides different ones. And for still other church record books in the collection, it doesn’t provide a roll number. Instead, under “Source Information,” it says:

Swenson Swedish Immigration Research Center

[Ancestry’s own database]

Original data: Baptisms, Marriages, Deaths/Burials (Swedish Churches), Gustavus Adolphus College, Saint Peter, Minnesota, USA.

Swenson Swedish Immigration Research Center, Augustana College, Rock Island, Illinois, USA

It’s my understanding that all of the records in this Ancestry collection were imaged from microfilm at the SSIRC.

QUESTION 2: Because the Subsequent Reference Notes drop the “citing” layer, is my proposed “imaged from microfilm at Swenson Swedish Immigration Research Center (hereinafter, SSIRC), Rock Island, Illinois,” appropriate/sufficient in the First Reference Note? I’m trying to provide adequate source-of-the-source information without giving the misleading impression that the subsequent notes (such as the one below for a different state, city, church, and/or book) all refer to a particular roll of film.

SUBSEQUENT REFERENCE NOTE FOR DIFFERENT STATE, CITY, CHURCH, BOOK AND/OR RECORD:

“U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Swedish American Church Records, 1800-1947,” Ancestry, First Lutheran Church (Moline, Ill.), image 418 of 1,662, church register, double-page 27, 2nd unnumbered entry, Pig. [Miss] Ana Sofia Kohler.

I’ve followed the previous Subsequent Reference Note format for this one up through the image number by substituting the appropriate church, city, state and image number. I assume stopping there would not provide an adequate source citation, but I’m uncertain how much additional information is needed or in what order it should be presented. I’ve continued the citation by adding the record type, page, entry and subject’s name (listed from largest to smallest item).

QUESTION 2: Is my Subsequent Reference Note in acceptable format as to content, structure and punctuation?

QUESTION 3: Could I tighten it by eliminating anything, and if so, what?

Thank you very much for making this Forum available and dedicating so much time and expertise to explaining the intricacies of source citations.

F.T.C.

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 01/31/2023 - 12:58

Hello, F.T.C., my apologies for not responding sooner. I can handle a long and complex query occasionally; but yesterday I hit the proverbial jackpot with three of them amid an intractable work deadline of my own

Question 1:

Answer: It does not matter. We may do either.

Question 2:

Answer:  A Subsequent Reference Note does not repeat what our source says it got its information from. That level of detail is given in the First (Full) Reference Note.

Question 2 (the second one of that number):

F.T.C., your First Reference Note, in your third paragraph, is well done.  Your several Subsequent Reference Notes are making your life more complicated than necessary. Your first example is this:

SUBSEQUENT REFERENCE NOTE FOR SAME RECORD:

If the subject’s name is in or very near the bit of narrative text to which the note is attached:

“U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Swedish American Church Records, 1800-1947,” Ancestry, Zion Lutheran Church (Philadelphia, Penn.), church register, image 111 of 627.

If the subject’s name is not in or very near the bit of narrative text to which the note is attached:

“U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Swedish American Church Records, 1800-1947,” Ancestry, Zion Lutheran Church (Philadelphia, Penn.), church register, image 111 of 627, Amanda Amalia Kalinsky.

Your second version here is the best for both situations. You may shorten that “image 111 of 627” to simply “image 111.”

Then you present another option:

SUBSEQUENT REFERENCE NOTE FOR DIFFERENT STATE, CITY, CHURCH, BOOK AND/OR RECORD:

“U.S., Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Swedish American Church Records, 1800-1947,” Ancestry, First Lutheran Church (Moline, Ill.), image 418 of 1,662, church register, double-page 27, 2nd unnumbered entry, Pig. [Miss] Ana Sofia Kohler.

A subsequent note is a short form of a record description that has already been described in full.  In this last citation, you’ve changed church, city, and state. You’re not using the same record set and you’ve eliminated several pieces of information that are essential to the location and identification of that record set.  For example, your First Reference Note to the database gave a path that sent us to a set of 627 images. This Subsequent Reference Note tells us we’re in a set of 1,662 images.  How do we get to that set of 1,662 images when we’re in a set of 627 images?  

Within this database, once you change the church, you need another Full Reference Note to identify the new church, the new path to get to its register(s), and the source-of-its-source data that Ancestry provides.

EE also recommends, when working with church registers that carry a distinctive title (typically on the cover or the inside first page), that the exact title of that register be cited.  See particularly:

  • QuickCheck Model for Church Records: Imaged Copies: Digitized Online, p. 314.
  • EE 7.13 “Record Books, Cited by Exact Title.”
  •  

Question “3”:

“Could I tighten it [the last Subsequent Reference Note] by eliminating anything?”

Answer: No. That last Subsequent Reference Note needs expanding.  For the essentials in a Subsequent (Shortened) Reference Note, see the QuickCheck Model cited above.

Thank you so much for explaining what I need to do and why. I think I understand the issues now. My apologies for having clobbered you with a long and complex set of questions when you were already snowed under. You were very kind to answer so quickly and completely.

Best wishes,

F.T.C.