Combining database and image source citation information

By allenawilson on Mon, 09/30/2024 - 09:00

Forums

I'll begin by saying I might be obsessing unnecessarily with this, but I would like to include both database and image information in one citation for many of my source citations that are found in "database with images" records at both Ancestry and FamilySearch.  I understand that I could just cite one or the other, but it's just my personal preference, if it can be done in an acceptable form that would allow others to find both records.

I have studied both the templates and chapter 11.5 in the fourth edition of the book, and hope I have arrived at an acceptable solution.  I'll simply post an example below and will welcome any suggestions, even if it's just a "bad idea."  

One comment is concerning the use of parentheses, which I felt was necessary because of all the commas and semicolons in the citation. 

database URL: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVP6-8916

image URL: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9392-SG9M-Y7

"Oklahoma, County Marriages, 1890-1995," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVP6-8916 : accessed 30 Sep 2024), Joe Allen Wilson and Velma Alzona Mcelmurry, Muskogee County, Oklahoma, 14 Aug 1942; imaged in FHL film 4709364, (Marriage records, 1907-1951; index, 1907-1976), Marriage record v. 46-47 1942, image 418 of 856, being page number 616.

 

Submitted byEEon Mon, 09/30/2024 - 10:07

Allen,

Let’s start with this:

  • The image of the original is one source that is found at one specific URL. 
  • The abstract page created by Family Search not only has a different URL, but it is an entirely different source. It is a source created by FamilySearch, whose details may or may not be correct.

Your citation should not morph the two. Users of your citation—and you at a different date after your recollection of this source has gone cold—need to know specifically whether the information you are asserting as fact came from the original document or the FamilySearch creation.  (Original source vs. derivative source is the number one consideration when we evaluate the credibility of information we take from that source.)

Any reference note may include citations to multiple sources, but each source should be in its own sentence so there is no confusing them. (EE4 2.25)

Because the original image carries far more evidentiary weight than the FamilySearch abstract, and because you have actually used the original, Evidence Style citations would first cite the original. You may then add a note to identify the location of the abstract—a note you would not include in a publication, unless your published work was specifically pointing out a problem with the abstract.

Muskogee County, Oklahoma, Marriage Record [book] No. 46, p. 616, Joe Allen Wilson and Miss Velma Allen McElmurry; imaged at FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9392-SG9M-Y7 : accessed 30 September 2024) > Image Group Number (IGN) 004709374 > image 418 of 856.  For an abstract of this document, see FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVP6-8916).

First

You will note that the original document has two differences from the abstract:

  • FamilySearch abstract:  Velma Allen Mcelmurry.  Original document: Miss Velma Alzona McElmurry
  • FamilySearch abstract: Date of event:  14 August 1942.  Original document: two events: license, 12 August 1942; marriage 14 August 1942

Second

You will note that EE’s citation identifies the specific book that is being imaged. This was omitted from your draft—an issue,  I suspect, of “the tree getting lost in the forest.” For that forest, see point three.

 

Third

In your draft citation there are two related issues:

"Oklahoma, County Marriages, 1890-1995," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVP6-8916 : accessed 30 Sep 2024), Joe Allen Wilson and Velma Alzona Mcelmurry, Muskogee County, Oklahoma, 14 Aug 1942; imaged in FHL film 4709364, (Marriage records, 1907-1951; index, 1907-1976), Marriage record v. 46-47 1942, image 418 of 856, being page number 616.

ISSUE A:  Nowhere do you cite the original book that you are using.  You cite a page number, but not the book’s name or number.  What book does p. 616 appear in?

ISSUE B:  There is a reason why you instinctively felt that your parenthetical information was bogging down the citation, prompting you to put it parentheses.  All the information in red should be deleted. That is not the identity of the original record. That is FamilySearch Library’s catalog description of the contents of an image group.  That FS image group covers two different books: Book 46 and Book 47. When you cite the original record (Book 46), there is no need for your citation to also say “Book 47 is also imaged in this image group.” 

See 2.41, last paragraph: “In the layer in which you cite the original source, you should not use FamilySearch’s generic catalog description as a substitute for the title.”  See also 3.16 for "The Rule That Has No Exception."

Also note one other point in your citation—a nitpicking issue of sorts—in red and underscored below for easier spotting:

"Oklahoma, County Marriages, 1890-1995," database with images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVP6-8916 : accessed 30 Sep 2024), Joe Allen Wilson and Velma Alzona Mcelmurry, Muskogee County, Oklahoma, 14 Aug 1942; imaged in FHL film 4709364, (Marriage records, 1907-1951; index, 1907-1976), Marriage record v. 46-47 1942, image 418 of 856, being page number 616.

In citations, as in normal writing, a comma never goes before a parentheses. The purpose of parenthetical data is to provide additional information about what came before it; the parentheses tell the reader that these two pieces of information belong together. The purpose of a comma is to splice or separate two different things. If you put a comma before a parentheses, you are giving the reader two different and contradictory mental instructions.

Submitted byallenawilsonon Mon, 09/30/2024 - 10:35

I can't thank you enough for such a detailed analysis.  For you to take the time to provide such a well thought out explaination means a lot to an amateur such as myself.  

Yes, I do most often extract information from the image, so your suggestions makes perfect sense.  I especially appreciate your comment about the use of parentheses, and if I had read page 90 more carefully, I would have already known that!

Thanks again!  

 

Submitted byallenawilsonon Thu, 10/03/2024 - 10:46

EE, 

I have a couple more questions if this thread is still being followed.  I noticed that in your example citation, you used the URL to the exact image as well as a path.  But the path given wouldn't make sense without a starting point such as https://www.familysearch.org/records/images/beta. 

On the other hand, if you use the "ARK" to the exact image, is the path necessary?

Is it acceptable to mix the two?

Allen.

Submitted byEEon Thu, 10/03/2024 - 18:10

allenawilson, using the exact URL as well as the path is a safeguard that many people prefer. When we do, the path goes from the database to the waypoints. As with anything parenthetical, the parentheses are supplemental pieces of information about the item that precedes it. One can omit the entire parenthetical sequence and go straight from what's before to what follows.