loose certificates in files

By cwhermann28 on Thu, 04/06/2023 - 20:24

Forums

I am struggling with the digital image of a California State Death Certificate on FamilySearch at this link 

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89SJ-B1X5?i=1305&cc=2001287&cat=1131994

Normally I would cite this as follows:

Bibliography
California. Department of Public Health. Death Records. Los Angeles County Recorders Office. Norwalk. Digital images. FamilySearch. https:/familysearch.org : 2021-2023.

Footnote
California, Department of Public Health, certificate of death no. 11033 (1940), Margaret D. Beattie; digital images, FamilySearch (https:/famillysearch.org/search/catalog : downloaded 28 September 2021) > DGS 5597218 > image 1306 of 2506; imaged from FHL film 2281257.

Short Footnote
California certificate of death no. 11033 (1940), Margaret D. Beattie.

When I reviewed the DGS to locate the title card (DGS 5597218 > image 4 of 2506) to confirm the repository and location, I noticed that the loose certificates are stored in file folders, (image 1267). 

Although they are issued/authored by the state, the certificates for Los Angeles County are kept on the county level and the numbering sequence of the certificates for Los Angeles start over each year.  I reviewed other images of California State death certificates and this arrangement appears consistent: repositories are at the county level with sequential numbering for each county starting with 1 each year.

I feel I have handled the repository information in the Bibliography entry, but I am struggling with the file folders. Do I need to include how they are arranged?  Initially, my thought was it does not matter, the certificates could be in a vertical file, shelves, or storage boxes on shelves - in most instances I do not know - only that in this instance, the filming crew decided to include images of the file folders and decided on the following:

California, Department of Public Health, certificate of death no. 11033 (1940), Margaret D. Beattie, contained in file "11000," stamped 1940; digital images, FamilySearch (https:/famillysearch.org/search/catalog : downloaded 28 September 2021) > DGS 5597218 > image 1306 of 2506; imaged from FHL film 2281257.

I thought about citing similar to probate files and then a specific image within the file, but decided a file of loose certificates is not the same as a case file and questioned if I am trying to force information that should be in research notes into the citation.  I doubt the file number would be needed at the repository to locate the record. 

I know this is an art, not a science, but I also realize clarity of what I am citing is important.

Curt

Submitted byEEon Fri, 04/07/2023 - 10:08

Hi, Curt.

Your citation is usable, as is. The record can be located at the online site, and it can be analyzed there in context. However, the fact that you’re still mentally wrestling with the set of details you’ve assembled indicates that you sense a problem you can’t put your finger on.

It seems to me that the problem is this.

  1. You are using an online image, with some background information supplied by the image provider.
  2. You are trying to cite a physical filing system that you have not physically used, at a repository you have not personally visited—when three separate repositories are involved (local registrar, state registrar, and state archives).
  3. You are doing extensive background study to piece together details that seem appropriate, but are wrestling with what piece goes where.

Your Full Reference Note citation is this:

California, Department of Public Health, certificate of death no. 11033 (1940), Margaret D. Beattie; digital images, FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org/search/catalog : downloaded 28 September 2021) > DGS 5597218 > image 1306 of 2506; imaged from FHL film 2281257.

Meanwhile, the citation that FamilySearch suggests in the Information tab at the bottom of the image is this:

"California, County Birth and Death Records, 1800-1994," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89SJ-B1X5?cc=2001287&wc=FG67-4WL%3A285174601%2C285335701 :     22 August 2018), Los Angeles > Death certificates 1940 no 9900-11999 > image 1306 of 2506; California State Archives, Sacramento.

Obviously, there are significant differences.

Issue 1.

You’ve chosen to emphasize the original document, whereas FamilySearch is emphasizing the database it has specifically created for California vital records.  There’s no problem with that choice. It's obvious why FS prefers to emphasize its creation. If we take multiple documents from this database, using the FS arrangement would be easier for doing data entry in most software with built-in templates.

Issue 2.

Your citation provides the URL to the FamilySearch catalog, then it creates a path to get from that URL to the image:

… (https:/familysearch.org/search/catalog : downloaded 28 September 2021) > DGS 5597218 > image 1306 of 2506;

Is there a reason why you choose to cite the catalog-plus-path, rather than using the ARK that goes straight to the page? EE sees these pros and cons:

Pros:

  • Citing to the catalog creates a shorter citation.
  • It avoids the possibility of making a typo within that long ARK and thereby invalidating it.
  • It avoids the typographical problem of dealing with a URL that’s too long for a line of type in our work product. 

Cons:

  • It is less convenient than a citation that takes us directly to the source.
  • Given that FS is moving all of these documents into the digital architecture of a database with ARKs, can we be assured that a citation directly to its film number will be permanent—or will that older system be phased out?
  • An email of 18 February 2023 by David Rencher, Family Search’s Chief Genealogical Office, to associates of the Board of Certification of Genealogists states that the term DGS (acronym for Digital Genealogical Society) has been replaced by IGN (Image Group Number)  [although, obviously, the acronym has not been changed throughout the probably billions of usages at the website]. 
  • Rencher also recommends that, when we choose to cite a film number, we use the original FHL film number (which is now called FSL, after the library’s rebranding from Family History Library to Family Search Library).

Issue 3.

Our options for source-of-the-source data are definitely contradictory and confusing:

  1. You’ve cited the Family History Library film number.  
  2. FamilySearch's suggested citation credits the California State Archives.
  3. The start of the roll of film (image 4) presents the filmer’s target, which identifies the source as “Locality of Record: Los Angeles County Recorders Office, Norwalk, CA 90650."

Issue 3-a:

Given that the new FamilySearch DGS number and the old FHL microfilm number lead to exactly the same set of images, what is gained by citing the old film number as opposed to the actual archive from which the images were made?

Issues 3-b and 3-c

Which should we believe?  Was the filmer physically at the Recorder’s Office in Norwalk when it made the image in 2002? Have those records been removed, since then, to the California State Archives, which is credited in FS’s suggested citation?  We don’t know.

Because we don’t know, our Layer 3 (the “citing …” layer) must do one of two things. That layer can accurate say

…; citing “California State Archives.”

Or it could accurately say:

…; image 4 of this record set reports the “Locality of Record” in 2002 as “Los Angeles County Recorders Office, Norwalk, CA.”

Issue 4. File Folder

An Evidence Style citation would definitely not get into the weeds of how file folders are arranged in a repository we have not personally visited in order to use and understand the filing system.

Wrap up:

All things considered, an Evidence Style citation (Full Reference Note) that follows your preferences would be this:

       1. California Department of Public Health, certificate of death no. 11033 (1940), Margaret D. Beattie; digital images, FamilySearch (https:/familysearch.org/search/catalog : downloaded 28 September 2021) > FSL film 2281257 > image 1306 of 2506; image 4 of this record set reports the “Locality of Record” in 2002 as “Los Angeles County Recorders Office, Norwalk, CA.”

Submitted byagilchreston Fri, 04/07/2023 - 11:36

How death certificates in California are generated is not what you think. Nor are they authored by who you think. When someone dies the death certificate is generated at the county level using a form printed and supplied to the various counties by the California Department of Health. This form is filed out by the mortuary and sent to the county. The counties assign a number and file the certificate in their offices. A copy of that certificate is then sent to the state and the state assigns a different number. 

In reality, what you are viewing on FamilySearch is not the California Department of Public Health certificate and number. It is the county's version of the certificate.  

If you tried to get this certificate from the California Department of Health using the number on the certificate you would not succeed. 

I have many cases of this in my own records. I cite the county copy by stating the county at the beginning of the citation. 

Los Angeles County, California Department of Health...

Submitted byEEon Fri, 04/07/2023 - 14:11

Ann, you are right. I should have added "Los Angeles County," before California. (And I should not have attempted to work through Curt's problem before going downstairs for my morning coffee!) Thanks for being more awake than I, this Friday, and taking the time to weigh in.

Submitted bycwhermann28on Fri, 04/07/2023 - 19:24

 

Thank you Ann and EE,

You answered a follow up question I was going to post.  Shortly after I posted this, I found another set of California Death Certificates I had cited, using County, State as these were stamped "filed MMM DD YYYY Mame B. Beatty, County Recorder. So I was planning to raise the question if this is a state or county record.  Your insight also answers the question I noted above that although they appear to be issued by the State, they are stored and sequentially numbered by the counties. Also explains why the film targets note the location as the county courthouse.

In response to the numerous "issues | pros | cons" about various approaches EE raised, I will explain my rational to my approach in the hopes that it may provide some food for thought for other readers.

Issue 1 - emphasizing record vs database

1a. Early in my dealings with FamilySearch records, I had located a marriage certificate through a database with images. And like many of us starting out, was "going to come back later" to download the image.  The problem was, when I came back to the database, neither the database entry nor the image were found.  Although I didn't know what they represented at the time, fortunately I had written down the DGS and image number.   I called the FamilySearch help desk and they explained that, although not often, data bases do get revised or broken into smaller subsets as more indexing takes place.  They also helped me locate the certificate using the DGS and image number via the catalog search.  From that point on, I have always put more emphasis on the DGS number rather than the database name and search parameters.  Experience has also shown me that often, when images are moved into a database, the set if images for the database may come from a number of films and therefore are assigned a different DGS number. Usually this "image set" will not include the binding covers or the original film targets.  So, for example, you may have an image with a page number, but you have no idea what the bound record set is.

1b. I have not done a detailed count, but I would estimate that 90% of the records I currently have downloaded as digital images, (from both FamilySearch and Ancestry), come from records not indexed and were located through the catalog and browsing through images, so emphasizing the record is the only way to cite these.

1c. I have a significant number of land records, probate records, etc. that I have obtained directly from the courthouse or repository.

I concluded that emphasizing the record provided the most consistency for similar records obtained from different repositories.


 

Issue 2 - Catalog-plus-path vs ARK

After my experience with the changing database, I decided to "standardize" my digital image management around  waypoints or paths using the DGS numbers for FamilySearch and catalog numbers for Ancestry.  In addition to using them in citations, I also use them as part of the file name for the image.  For example my file name for the above image is:

BeattieMargaretD_1940_CA_Los Angeles Co_dc_FS_5597218_i1306 of 2506


 

Based on the above and determining how I wanted to structure the templates in my genealogy software, I developed the following guidelines for my citation structures.

  • If possible, locate the film target, bindings images and other information to understand the structure of the original document, then emphasize the document.  This provides consistency across my citations, no matter where I viewed/obtained the image.

  • Use the DGS directly to image rather than citing the the "Collection" or the "Database."  This way I reduce the risk of not being able to locate the image, if the FamilySearch changes their database.  In addition, entering the DGS and image number into a template is faster than copy and pasting the full ARK. And, as you noted, it leads to shorter citations.

I have taken note of David Rencher's recommendation to cite the film number, but this raises another issue, for which I will reach out to him for clarification.  As FamilySearch continues to add digital records, there are more and more that were digitized directly, not from a microfilm.  These images only have a DGS (soon to be IGN) numbers, so it seems it would make more sense to cite the IGN number and if appropriate, add "imaged from FSL film XXXXXXX." 

Thanks again for the clarification and insight,

Curtis

Submitted byEEon Sat, 04/08/2023 - 09:59

Curt, you raise an important point in your first paragraph: "I was planning to raise the question if this is a state or county record."  Your question is the most-basic issue for everyone citing birth and death certificates.

When researchers personally order a certificate from a specific office, they know where it came from. If it came to them via family papers or if they found it online, there is almost always your question: Is this a copy of what is on file at the local level or the state level. It’s a question that matters because there can be significant differences in the two.

Every state has had its own practices, and in every state those practices have varied across time.  For the online certificates, even when someone studies the cataloging data and imaging history as you’ve done with this certificate, we often discover discrepancies of the type I pointed to yesterday—where the filming places the record in one locale and the provider’s cataloging or suggested citation credits it to another. 

“Learning the system” of each geographic area, for the specific year of a certificate, can take many hours of study in statute books as well as the certificate files of that specific place and time from which we can draw patterns. If it is a locale in which we are doing extensive research, we will likely invest that time—IF there is open access to those files. If it is a time and place for which we have just a one-off record, adequate background study may not be possible or feasible.

This is why Evidence Style has two basic rules for vital record certificates:

  1. When we come into possession of a copy we did not personally order, we do not attempt to cite it to a specific office. We cite it as an artifact.
  2. When we use online images of any record of any type, we cite three things: (1) the details we can see on the image itself, (2) the website where we found it, and (3) whatever that website provider identifies as its source.