Forums
FamilySearch has published a record collection, "Arkansas, Death Index, 1914-1950," that it obtained from Ancestry.com.
When citing the FamilySearch collection in a source list, how much provenance should be included? I'm inclined to cite it as:
- "Arkansas, Death Index, 1914-1950." Index. FamilySearch. http://FamilySearch.org : accessed 2012. Citing Ancestry.com. www.ancestry.com : 2005.
Should I attempt to indicate where Ancestry.com says they obtained the records from? (Genealogical Society, Little Rock.)
Would the approach be any different for reference notes? If one included their source, it might look something like:
- "Arkansas, Death Index, 1914-1950," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VJRV-7HN : accessed 16 Nov 2012), Mary Raymond, 1925; citing Ancestry.com; certificate number 302, volume 42, roll 6, Genealogical Society, Little Rock.
TIA,
--rr
RRaymond asked: "When citing
RRaymond asked: "When citing [this] collection in a source list, how much provenance should be included?"
EE is inclined to answer this with a question: What is the purpose of citing "provenance" or "source of the source"?
The suggested citation at "1" provides more details, but it's a puzzler because
At this point, EE is feeling like the cat that chased its tail until it caught it and is now wondering where it has ended up. New questions:
The specifics of the Mary
The specifics of the Mary Raymond example were illustrative only. Sorry about that. There's nothing like an answer to flag how poorly a question was worded. My question is not about a particular citation from that collection, but the general form.
Since posting my question, Ancestry.com has improved their citation, making the provenance a little clearer. The information came from "Division of Vital Records, Arkansas Department of Health. Arkansas Death Index, 1914-1950. Arkansas: Arkansas Genealogical Society. Microfiche."
So here's the provenance:
How much of that provenance should I include?
RRaymond asked: >How much of
RRaymond asked: >How much of that provenance should I include?
EE's inclined to answer: "The whole darn kit 'n caboodle, so users will be jolted into wondering what affect all that "deriving" has upon the reliability the data!" By EE's count, the database represents at least a fifth-generation derivative—if we assume that the Arkansas DOH made its index from the original. The DOH could have made that index from a copy of an original form kept at the county level, which would make FS's database entry a sixth-generation derivative.
Of course, odds are that any attempt to construct a complete citation to each and every generation would collapse for want of needed data. So, practically speaking, we might fall back upon the "giving credit where due" consideration and, at the end of the FS citation, add that the database was derived from the Ancestry database titled "......" At that point, EE would likely add a sentence to say explicitly that the FS database was at least a fifth-generation derivative, given that Ancestry created its database from a db of the Arkansas Genealogical Society, which AGS based on an index to the records kept by the Arkansas DOH.
EE also suspects that FS—who helpfully supplies "suggested citations" for its users—might not want to point out in its own citation that it is offering a fifth-or-sixth generation derivative! However, knowing how careful FS is about matters of provenance, I would not be surprised if FS did not end up embedding that caution in its discussion of the database.
Now, if only we could get FS to uniformly provide "Reference Note" models. As a point of fact, most users of FS databases and images rarely create formal bibliographies. It's the Reference Note models they need the most. (Optimistically, someone from FS will be reading this suggestion.)
Generally, where the FS and A
Generally, where the FS and A.com database titles are the same, would you repeat the title a second time? What if they were similar, but different?
Between 1 and 2, which is better?
Between 1 and 3, which is better?
Any other tweaks you would recommend.
If someone at FS were listening, theoretically, you might soon see this citation at the bottom of the record page.
RRaymond,
RRaymond,
EE would likely use option 3 because it is more informative. The additional of the flag "a multigenerational derivative" is helpful, in any case. Less experienced researchers, EE suspects, would not know what is meant—in which case that notation should encourage them to (a) think it through; and (b) realize the importance of that derivation. The fuller explanation would help them understand what they are dealing with.
What do you think about the
What do you think about the redundant database titles? Should the title be repeated three times? Because the title is the same, a reader can easily locate the database on Ancestry.
Rraymond, EE doesn't like
Rraymond, EE doesn't like redundancy either. That's why, for example, when a website is eponymously named, EE suggests omitting the creator's name. But this extreme example of yours involves three databases created or offered by three different entities. Readers of your citation won't know that the database title is the same in all three cases unless you tell them. One can't assume that the title would be the same throughout, especially in this case because the middle entity in this example is well-known for creating its own unique titles when presenting material from other collections.
The Editor,
The Editor,
I have been struggling with a Reference Note, where an Ancestry.com INDEX is from a State INDEX. The struggle is with my software, I am sure.
I reivewed EE 2.12 (3rd Edition) and totally agree that the Ancestry Index is a Finding Aid. It is pointing to another Finding Aid.
Read EE 8.6 and QuickCheck Model; Derivatives: Databases, online. Clearly that is what I am looking at, BUT, there is another index involved.
A Specific Record:
http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=CAdeath1940&h=8073201&indiv=try
Ancestry tells me:
Source Citation
Date: 1952-04-06
Source Information
Ancestry.com. California, Death Index, 1940-1997 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2000.
Original data: State of California. California Death Index, 1940-1997. Sacramento, CA, USA: State of California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics.
Description
This database is an index to the death records in State of California, USA, from 1940 through 1997. The database provides such valuable information as first, last and middle names of the descendants, birth dates, mother's maiden name, father's last name, sex, birth place, death place, residence at time of death, death date, social security number (when available), and the age of the individual when they died.
I am not completely happy with the Template I choose in FTM2014, but here is the Reference Note that I crafted.
"California, Death Index, 1940-1997", database, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 08 March 2016), entry for Clinton Porter Worthington, Death Date: 06 Apr 1952; citing State of California. California Death Index, 1940-1997. Sacramento, CA, USA: State of California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics.
What I am not happy about that the "Ancestry.com Operations, Inc" statement. I am trying to determine if there is another Template for me to choose, as the Publisher of the First Index, isn't all that important to me. Keeping that field blank isn't very help either.
What I am working on, is some enhancement request for the new company to help the end user select the best template for this type of a record.
The Reference Note (my only option for a Citation) will get me back to where I could order that death record from. Or, I think a better description might be a Finding Aid to get to the Death Record.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Russ
Russ, you've raised two
Russ, you've raised two different issues that I would love to respond to but the first (Ancestry's confusing approach to identifying its sources in a chaotic, bifurcated manner) is one I'll by-pass here.
Your primary interest seems to be the efficacy of the citation you are creating from that chaos:
"California, Death Index, 1940-1997", database, Ancestry.com Operations Inc, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 08 March 2016), entry for Clinton Porter Worthington, Death Date: 06 Apr 1952; citing State of California. California Death Index, 1940-1997. Sacramento, CA, USA: State of California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics.
What I am not happy about that the "Ancestry.com Operations, Inc" statement. I am trying to determine if there is another Template for me to choose, as the Publisher of the First Index, isn't all that important to me. Keeping that field blank isn't very help either.
In EE's opinion, citing (1) Ancestry as the creator of (2) Ancestry at (3) www.ancestry.com is a bit of overkill. With eponymously named websites, it suffices to just identify the website and the URL. (EE addresses this at several points—9.6 and 14.21 come to mind now.) Dropping this from the creator field would eliminate several problems:
There's one other alteration that might be made in the first layer of that citation: The website name is now just Ancestry. It has dropped the .com.
In the second layer of your citation, two issues should be addressed. The most serious is the use of internal periods. A period, when used in a reference note, is a full stop that says end of this citation; now I'm about to cite a different source. Some redundancy could also be eliminated. EE would write this more simply as
citing "California Death Index, 1940-1997," California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Sacramento.
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your very clear response. As I mentioned, I am fighting my genealogy database program here in several areas. The major one, is in your last comment about the use of periods. I have NO control over that. I will raise that as a specific issue to the new owners of the program.
It's easy to drop the .com. I think that was my carry over from when I started, but do remember you saying that earlier. One habbit to break now.
The other about "Ancestry.com Operations, Inc" is similar. I look at the information that is provided in that ....... Source Information from Ancestry, and that term is the Publisher of the Database at the time it was created.
I have noted Page 662 of the 3rd Edition about dropping the suffix. Another old habbit to break.
Two easy fixes, the other, not so much.
I will go after a better Source Template, now that I have your feedback.
It's just a shame that Ancestry.com, in their database descriptions MAKE us simple end users work so hard to craft a reasonable Citation / Reference Note. Then to get our Genealogy Software Database Management programs to give us the tool(s) to help along the way.
Thank you so much.
Russ
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
I went back and made the changes
"California, Death Index, 1940-1997", database, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 08 March 2016), entry for Clinton Porter Worthington, Death Date: 06 Apr 1952; citing "California Death Index, 1940-1997." California Department of Health Services, Center for Health Statistics, Sacramento.
So, it's Not a Copy / Paste world our here.
Thanks again for your help and guideance.
Russ
Russ, regarding those periods
Russ, regarding those periods in the middle of a citation, that is appropriate for the manner in which Ancestry presents its data. As we've all noticed, the company provides numerous details (some of it repetitive and illogically arranged) but, in a "bibliographic" style format, periods are supposed to be used between major elements. Then, when we create the reference-note citations, we convert those periods to commas or semicolons, as appropriate to a ref-note citation.
For certain, Ancestry seems to be intent on making all users learn the elements of good citation {tongue in cheek, here}. We have to, to sort out and rearrange what they give us.
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
I was never good with periods and comma's. Just ask my wife. But, I am learning.
I have been working on cleaing of some of my other Citations, where Ancestry as a publisher was in the Reference Note. The Redundant Ancestry is greatly reduced.
Thank you
Russ
Russ,
Russ,
I wanted to chime in with personal observations. I have a large swath of my wife's family who is from Arkansas, and I was struggling with citations on both the "Arkansas, Death Index, 1914-1950" and the "Arkansas, County Marriages, 1837-1957" databases right about the time I finally broke down and dove into Evidence Explained. I had been treating these databases as primary sources, and through the book I came to understand where they really stood in the evidence hierarchy. As I read more on the forums I picked up on the Editor coming back to the idea of Indexes of any sort being cited only when they are used as temporary placeholders, until the original records the index is derived from can be obtained/cited.
Once I made the leap to understanding Indexes were jumping off points, I found a treasure trove of original documents available for Arkansas! For Death Records, Arkansas Department of Health has an online portal where you can search, and order, Certified Death Certificates for 1935-1961 at a cost of $10/certificate. Even if you don't order, each search will give you name, date of death, and (often) mother's name, which can yield a lot of hints. For Arkansas deaths pre-1935, you can order those via mail from the Arkansas Department of Health, but they don't offer a way to confirm if they have a record before you do. However, the Arkansas History Commission has an index of all Death Certificates filed in the state from 1914-1948 and they will confirm names on that list via email. It saves you a lot of time being able to confirm a record exists before you send away for it.
In addition to Death Records, the Family History Library has the "Arkansas, County Marriages, 1837-1957" online with digital images of the original ledgers. This was one of the first citations I was trying to figure out using Evidence Explained, and once I understood that the Ancestry.com database was built off of a FHL database I decided that I'd finally request my first microfilm from them, but it turned out they had digitized the entire collection. Now, I'll still have to visit the counties in question to view the originals, but until then I've got much better records than the indexes.
I just wanted to share those sources, in case you weren't aware, because in my journey to figure out how to cite these databases I learned how to mostly bypass them and go straight to the root sources.
Happy Hunting!
rickinracine,
rickinracine,
Oh, I totally understand. An Index is a breadcrumb trail to get to another record.
But, my question back to you is, what does Temporary Placeholder mean to you ?
Please remember that my question was driven by my genealogy database management program. So, does the "temorary placeholder" mean that I Delete that Citation from my database ?
Sorry, I am not going to do that. That Index is how I get to / got to THE record in question. In this case, two indexes to get to THE record. I want that paper trail in my database so that I or others can re-trace my steps.
The only thing, to me, that I can't use that Index for, is a proof arguement. I certainly would not use an Index to help resolve conflicting information. It would get me to get that document that the 2 indexes were pointing me to.
Russ
Russ,
Russ,
Personally I do remove the Index entries from my records once I've replaced them with the original source documents. It's a personal choice we all get to make, but for me the index is only a jumping off point that's sourced as a placeholder until I get the chance to work further down towards the original. So, for the "Arkansas, Death Index 1914-1950" entries I had in my database tool, once I received the Certified Death Certificates for the direct line ancestors I did remove the index entries because they were purely derivative and provided no new insight. I did leave them as Sources for my other non-direct line ancestors because I'm not as interested in doing my entire tree and the records provide enough information to be reasonably accurate and provide breadcrumbs for other researchers.
What will be more difficult for me is not the indexes, but once I get to Ouachita County and go through the Marriage Books first hand, and so I don't need to cite the FHL digital microfilms any more. I'll likely keep both citations since the FHL images are such a great tool and likely will be the closest most researchers will ever come to the original, but I don't see the need to cite them once I've sourced the originals.
In the end I think it's personal preference how we choose to deal with these Indexes, and we get to choose how and where we use them. I will say I leave them in my "working" trees, but replace them in my "certified" trees, so they do have a place in my records.