How to use source information given by Ancestry?

(I have previewed this post twice and it looked fine both times.  Keeping my fingers crossed.)

I think I am in analysis paralysis due to too much information!  I found a record for my great-greatgrandfather's registration for the Civil War draft (Union) on Ancestry.  I choose to believe Ancestry is trying to be helpful, but they present two different listings of source information (well, not totally different) that leave me wondering how to put together an "EE-approved" citation.

 Here's what the printout of source information from Ancestry says: Record URL: ..........a very long URL............. Source Citation: National Archives and Records Admnistration (NARA); Washington, D.C.; Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration Records (Provost Marshal General's Bureau; Consolidate Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865); Record Group: 110, Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War); Collection Name: Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865 (Civil War Union Draft Records); ARC Identifier: 4213514; Archive Volume Number: 1 of 3. Source Information: Ancestry.com. U.S., Civil War Draft Registrations Records, 1863-1865 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.Original data:  Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration, 1863-1865.  NM-65, entry 172, 620 volumes. ARC ID: 4213514. Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War), Record Group 110. National Archives, Washington D.C.  I have read the beginning sections of EE chapter 11.**Do these two paragraphs of citation information "map" to the two citation styles mentioned in EE section 11.11 pp. 570-71?  "NARA style" and "Publication style" ?That would mean I could just choose the style I want to use, right?  If not... Using the Legacy Family Tree template for Military records > United States > Other records created at the national level > Draft registrations > Online database and images  (also listed under EE page 598), the first reference notes that I can construct based on the Ancestry source information are:      "Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registrations, 1863-1865," database and images, Ancestry.com (accessed 10 Oct 2012), Albert Clough; citing National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington, D.C; Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration Records (Provost Marshal General's Bureau; Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865); Record Group: 110, Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War); Collection Name: Consolidate Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865 (Civil War Union Draft Records); ARC Identifier: 4213514; Archive Volume Number: 1 of 3.  OR     "Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registrations, 1863-1865," database and images, Ancestry.com (accessed 10 Oct 2012), Albert Clough; citing Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration, 1863-1865; NM-65, entry 172, 620 volumes. ARC ID: 4213514; Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War), Record Group 110; National Archives.   Are either of these correct?  Close?Thanks so much!--Paula in Texas

Submitted bypdryburnon Sun, 10/14/2012 - 22:49

Argh!  I will try again tomorrow, typing it all from scratch instead of copy & pasting.  Thanks for your patience.

 

I'm trying to get this pasted as quote.... I don't have an answer for you but thought I'd save you some headache by re-posting your question for you.  Looks interesting, and I can't wait to see where this goes.

Regards,

Scott

Here's what the printout of source information from Ancestry says:

Record URL: ..........a very long URL.............
Source Citation: National Archives and Records Admnistration (NARA); Washington, D.C.; Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration Records (Provost Marshal General's Bureau; Consolidate Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865); Record Group: 110, Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War); Collection Name: Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865 (Civil War Union Draft Records); ARC Identifier: 4213514; Archive Volume Number: 1 of 3.

Source Information: Ancestry.com. U.S., Civil War Draft Registrations Records, 1863-1865 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010.Original data:  Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration, 1863-1865.  NM-65, entry 172, 620 volumes. ARC ID: 4213514. Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War), Record Group 110. National Archives, Washington D.C. 

I have read the beginning sections of EE chapter 11.**Do these two paragraphs of citation information "map" to the two citation styles mentioned in EE section 11.11 pp. 570-71?  "NARA style" and "Publication style"? That would mean I could just choose the style I want to use, right?  If not... Using the Legacy Family Tree template for "Military records > United States > Other records created at the national level" > "Draft registrations" > "Online database and images"

(also listed under EE page 598), the first reference notes that I can construct based on the Ancestry source information are:     

"Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registrations, 1863-1865," database and images, Ancestry.com (accessed 10 Oct 2012), Albert Clough; citing National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington, D.C; Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration Records (Provost Marshal General's Bureau; Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865); Record Group: 110, Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War); Collection Name: Consolidate Enrollment Lists, 1863-1865 (Civil War Union Draft Records); ARC Identifier: 4213514; Archive Volume Number: 1 of 3. 

OR    

"Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registrations, 1863-1865," database and images, Ancestry.com (accessed 10 Oct 2012), Albert Clough; citing Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registration, 1863-1865; NM-65, entry 172, 620 volumes. ARC ID: 4213514; Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War), Record Group 110; National Archives.  

Are either of these correct?  Close? Thanks so much!--Paula in Texas.

Submitted byEEon Wed, 10/17/2012 - 10:58

Paula, your pain is shared by a lot of history researchers. We love Ancestry for all the records it provides, but the manner in which it identifies its records leaves most users perplexed—partly because of that redundancy you've noted and partly because of its illogical separation of data parts. On the positive side, this is good because it compels us to learn what we're dealing with. (That devil's imp inside of us does make us wish that research was just a matter of point, click, and copy! Both NARA and Ancestry do a good job of making sure that imp doesn't win.)

All this, of course, is why EE has an Ancestry QuickSheet to guide researchers through the six basic types of material found at Ancestry. Here, space does not allow us to go into all the points that the QuickSheet covers, so we'll focus on two issues: sorting out the rats' nest of details that Ancestry provides about this source; and reconsidering what is essential in a citation to military records at NARA.

Ancestry, as you've noted, arbitrarily divides its source information between "Source Citation" and "Source Information." What it calls a "citation" does not meet the standards of any citation guide nor the needs of researchers. Consequently, we have to understand what pieces of data are essential; then we have to cherry pick details from both sections to construct that citation.

The basic format for citing a database, as shown in both EE (2.33) and the Ancestry QuickSheet, is the same as citing, say, a chapter in a book—with one exception noted in square editorial brackets below:

  • Author of chapter or database (if there is one),
  • "Title of Chapter or Database,"
  • [for websites, at this point we also say what type of material we're dealing with]
  • Author of book or website
  • Title of Website
  • (Publication place/URL : Date),
  • Specific item of interest;
  • Source of the source.

Following this pattern, we see four tweaks to make in your citation:

(1) The title you show for the database is not actually the title of the database. What you are showing here is a title that Ancestry gives for its source. Using the source-of-the-source title means that Ancestry's card catalog does not return this set of records, when we enter that title.

(2) Your "Publication place" data is missing. If we filled in all three data fields above, Ancestry's name would appear in all three fields—a needless redundancy. Consequently, for websites whose title is the name of the author/creator, we can skip the author/creator field, but we cannot skip the URL field.

(3) Your specific item of interest appears as "Albert Clough." However, this Ancestry database has 3 different Albert Cloughs, in addition to Albert B., Albert C., Albert P., Albert S., and Albert W. This is a common situation in virtually all military collections. Consequently, researchers have to provide certain specifics about the person in order to identify the correct one. In the military and military bounty-land sections of EE (11.28, 11.32–11.40) you'll see certain pieces of information about the soldier (i.e., identifiers) that must always appear in our citation.  Also, because the "identifier" you entered at the third bullet above cites both a database and images, your specific data for Albert Clough will need to tell us which type of item you are citing—Ancestry's database entry or the actual image.

(4) The "source of the source data" that you provide is almost perfect. The basic principle that's not observed here is the need to put quotation marks around anything that you quote exactly. (Always, anytime, everywhere!) A smaller tweak that's needed is likely a result of the difficulty you had with putting things in HTML. Whatever citation Ancestry or any other source makes, if the title appears in italics we should render it that way also. (If we must work in ASCII, where the italics option is not available, then the convention is to put an underscore at the start and end of the words that should appear in italics.)

Finally, thanks for your patience while EE's overseer was toiling in other vineyards.

 

 

>We love Ancestry for all the records it provides, but the manner in which it identifies its records leaves most users perplexed—partly because of that redundancy you've noted and partly because of its illogical separation of data parts.

 

”We” also love how Ancestry consistently misidentifies the sheet number as the page number on its census citations!

Submitted bypdryburnon Fri, 10/19/2012 - 15:16

Well, of course, I wished you would just tell me what the citation should be, but I know I'll only learn by doing it myself.  Thanks for your detailed response.

  • I learned where the Ancestry card catalog is, and consequently, I rejected all the stuff in Ancestry's "Source Citation"--the database title was in their "Source Information."  
  • Though my printout of the record also includes the "Record Index," I'm opting to say I have consulted online images, and I've put "Ancestry" in there only twice.  
  • In your list of elements, I'm not positive on where to put the publication date (2011) because it would seem the accessed date (10 Oct 2012) goes to the right of the colon inside the parens.  *hmm*  
  • Looked at 11.32, but because it's a draft registration, there's no rank or unit, and the war is in the title already.  But I did test the search on his name and residence state to ensure he is the only one who pops up.  
  • None of the Ancestry citation information was presented in italics.  
  • I still don't know what to put inside quotes for your item (4), though I did pare that bit down.  

So... here is my next attempt at a reference note:

 

     "U.S., Civil War Draft Registrations Records, 1863-1865," digital images; Ancestry, 2011 (www.ancestry.com : accessed 10 Oct 2012); Albert Clough of Michigan; citing Consolidated Lists of Civil War Draft Registrations, 1863-1865; Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War), Record Group 110; National Archives, Washington D.C.

 

Signed,

Hopefully Closer

 

 

So, it occurs to me, that you could use my citation to get to the image online, but you could not necessarily get to the original at NARA, or at least not as directly.  Am I supposed to be providing that much of a path to the original when I have not viewed the original myself?

Signed,

Second Guessing

 

Submitted byEEon Sat, 10/20/2012 - 15:04

 

Paula, you're much closer. With regard to your specific questions:

  • The "publication date" Ancestry gives for a database can be handled as you've shown. On the other hand, in most cases, it's not essential. At this website, it typically has no correlation to the date the record was created; and, in the case of databases in which corrections have been made, Ancestry does not go back into its source information to say "revised edition," with a new date. The more relevant date, with Internet databases is the date we accessed it. That concretely identifies the point of time at which the website gave the explicit data we collected.
  • For draft registration records that don't show a unit, the info to add there would be the draft district in which the person registered. Your updated citation shows the state, but not the district or his location—both of which would be needed if your man had a more-common name.
  • Possibly, your Ancestry display is showing differently than ours but, on our display, Ancestry's identification of its source does use italics. (Actually, Ancestry uses those italics improperly; but if we don't know the particular records Ancestry is citing and we're quoting their citation exactly to avoid guesswork, then we would replicate the italics.)
  • For us to attempt to properly cite the original collection at NARA on the basis of what Ancestry provides would be a risk, yes (not to mention an exercise in futility in most cases). For relocation purposes, the best thing to do would be to cite that ARC Identifier Number—a unique ID that NARA is now adding to records it digitally processes, and the collection to which the ARC number belongs.

All things considered, EE would probably use the following:

"U.S., Civil War Draft Registrations Records, 18631865," database and images, Ancestry, 2011 (www.ancestry.com : accessed 10 October 2012), digital image, 3d Congressional District, Albert Clough, Ingham, Michigan; citing ARC Identifier 4213514, Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 18631865 (Civil War Union Draft Records); Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War), Record Group 110; National Archives, Washington D.C.

Submitted bypdryburnon Sat, 10/20/2012 - 17:20

In reply to by EE

Gotcha!  I follow all of that.  I was looking at my printout of the Ancestry image, index and source information, which did not have any italics---they were on the screen, though, as you saw them.

BTW, in response to a poster's lament that we were all just interested in the mechanics of source citations, I did read through the threads on the other forums and found them VERY enlightening.  And how cool to see people of genealogy fame posting there. ;)  Thanks!

--Paula

 

Submitted byEEon Mon, 12/02/2013 - 19:06

Patti,

I've not replicated your exercise in Ancestry's database (my coterie of clones didn't show up today to do my other chores so I could play with records off my beaten path), but your efforts to better identify the original records rather than rely on Ancestry's description is a very commendable approach. Using that approach, your citation seems to cover all the essentials.

Submitted bynewonashon Fri, 12/06/2013 - 20:38

EE, I am confused about the need to use quotation marks.  In the reference note, what is cited to in Ancestry.com:  "Consolidated Enrollment Lists ... Draft Records)" and "Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau ... Washington, D.C." is copied verbatim, but quotation marks are not used in the reference note.  Should quotation marks have been used?  If not, why not?  Thank you.

Submitted byEEon Sat, 12/07/2013 - 12:40

Dennis,

I assume that the "reference note" to which you refer is EE's own in Message 8, rather than one of those posted by our users. I'll repost the citation from Message 8, here, and then comment:

"U.S., Civil War Draft Registrations Records, 18631865," database and images, Ancestry, 2011 (www.ancestry.com : accessed 10 October 2012), digital image, 3d Congressional District, Albert Clough, Ingham, Michigan; citing ARC Identifier 4213514, Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 18631865 (Civil War Union Draft Records); Records of the Provost Marshal General's Bureau (Civil War), Record Group 110; National Archives, Washington D.C.

The phrase "Consolidated Enrollment Lists, 1863–1865 ..." is the name of a collection at the National Archives. Collection names at archives or other repositories are typically not placed in quotation marks. With regard to national and state archives, you'll note many examples of this in EE's chapters 9–11.

If a website such as this were to badly botch the identification of a record set that it purports to cites or if its identification is seriously inadequate, then EE would likely put that faulty citation in quotation marks to indicate this is exactly what the record provider says, although it has obvious problems.  If you have the QuickSheet Citing Ancestry.com Databases & Images, you'll see this done in several examples that involve several different circumstances.

Submitted byEEon Mon, 12/16/2013 - 08:47

FCJ:

The online world is still flexible on this point and many companies advertise themselves as simply www.____ .  The important point to note is this: Not all URLs begin with http—and not all use www.

As a rule, it's best to use the exact and full URL. With a site as well known as Ancestry whose images and databases are cited over and over and over again in just about every research project that is based on original records, there are good arguments for using the short form. On the other hand, some well-known web entities use different patterns for different webpages or different divisions of the company. Take Google, for instance:

  • Google search: https://www.Google.com
  • Google news:   news.google.com
  • Google books:  books.google.com
  • Google images: www.google.com/imghp

The bottom line is that there is no one cookie-cutter pattern to use in every case.

Submitted bydochugheson Wed, 10/15/2014 - 17:35

I have also been struggling with a citation from this databae, and this discussion has been ENORMOUSLY helpful in not only providing the proper citation form, but in demonstrating the step-by-step logic in developing it. 

Thanks to those that asked the questions and to EE for having the amazing patience to walk us all through it!

Tim Hughes