Forums
Dear Editor,
I have been working with World War I Draft Registration Cards and noticed some differences between the laminated QuickSheet, City Ancestry.com® Databases & Images, and my copy of Evidence Explained, 2007.
The format of the Full Reference Note is slightly different.
Page 598, [11.33] includes the Serial Number and the Order Number, while the Quick sheet only calls for a "no. ".
The records that I have looked at, (55 so far), are slightly different, in that some have the Serial Number and Order Number's on the Form, while some only have a hand written "No. ".
My question would be, IF I see the Serial and Order numbers on the image, should I then enter the EE format, and IF I only see the form with No. that I use the QuickSheet format for the Full Reference Number ?
Just a question.
Thank you,
Russ
Yes, indeed, Russ. If the
Yes, indeed, Russ. If the original form gives us both numbers, it's best to cite both. If the form gives only one, then we have only one to cite.
Incidentally, the example in EE is for World War II's "Old Man's Registration." The example on the Ancestry QuickSheet, is for World War I. The forms are different. The database titles are different. The source-of-the-source data are different. Otherwise, the format is the same.
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you. I wasn't sure.
Actually, I am glad I paid attention to both references and re looked at the Registrations that I had.
Thanks again,
Russ
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
I am glad we had this conversation. It caused me to go back and really look at these World War I Draft Registration Cards. I did a blog post on what I learned:
Lesson Learned: World War I Draft Registration Cards
http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/2014/11/lesson-learned-world-war-i-draft.html
What I really learned that these 3 forms had different questions, as mentioned in the Video, but by going back to "fix" the Citations, I had missed some small pieces of information. A couple of requests for Exemptions.
But, that's not why I am posting a follow up:
For the 05 June 1917 draft, this is what I was able to create with my genealogy program.
"World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918", digital image, The National Archives (www.ancestry.com : accessed 06 November 2014), registration card [a] for William Berth Nothnagle, no. 16, Pennsylvania, Delaware County, Draft Board 1: citing World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918, National Archives microfilm publication M1509, imaged from Family History Library film roll 1877834.
The 2nd draft of 24 August 1918
"World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918", digital image, The National Archives (www.ancestry.com : accessed 05 November 2014), registration card [b] for Jesse W[istar] Reeve, serial no. 29, Kansas, Stevens County: citing World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918, National Archives microfilm publication M1509, imaged from Family History Library film roll 1643854.
And the 3rd draft of 12 September 1918
"World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918", digital image, The National Archives (www.ancestry.com : accessed 04 November 2014), registration card [c] for Charles Augustus Heiss, serial number 1024, order number A432, New Jersey, Essex County, Draft Board 1: citing World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918, National Archives microfilm publication M1509, imaged from Family History Library film roll 1712095.
What I wanted to remind myself, is that there were 3 different forms I was looking at and that they contained different information, including how the identification of the forms were numbered.
I used the editorial brackets, [a], [b]. and [c] to remind me.
Is this an acceptable way to handle this specific case. That is one collection from Ancestry, but three different forms used at 3 different time periods in the life of that Draft Registration time?
Thank you,
Russ
Russ, you have good instincts
Russ, you have good instincts.
In a situation such as the World War I database, when and where a man registered under multiple drafts, you do need a method of distinguishing between the registration forms. Certainly, in our personal notes, we can designate them as a, b, c, within editorial brackets to remind ourself that we added those particular designations. Another way would be to add the date of the draft, if we know it—again, putting the date in brackets considering that the draft date is not actually specified on the card, i.e.:
[draft date: 12 September 1918]
Another way to make the distinction would be to add the actual date the man appeared to register, if those appear on your particular card. In that case, of course, you would simply state the date after his registration number. You would not put the date in editorial brackets because you aren't adding something that isn't actually there.
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Actually, for the fact or event entry, I do have the DATE, but I can't change "Date: do [draft date: ]. For each piece of information that I pull from that draft registration card, I include the date for the fact or event that I captured.
For these records, from Ancestry.com, I address the Citation FIRST, before I go to capture the information.
There is also a side benefit to this [a]. [b]. [c]. in that I can easily review my data entry, or to make sure I captured everything I wanted from that record. The SORTING of the citations are in the [a] order. I created a spreadsheet page so that I can see what information I wanted to capture. When the [a] goes to [b] I do to the next column in my spreadsheet.
This may have been a little time consuming, but all worthwhile. As the spreadsheet reminded me that I missed some data.
An example is attached:
Thank you,
Russ
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
If you have a couple of minutes, I did a blog post on how I use that EXCEL spreadsheet and how I review my Citations.
http://ftmuser.blogspot.com/2014/11/citation-review-did-i-capture-everything.html
Russ
I have a couple of questions
I have a couple of questions about citing the WW I draft cards.
I’ll start with an example of my citation:
"U.S., World War I Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918,” digital images, Ancestry,com (http://www.ancestry,com : accessed 5 November 2014), registration card - C [cited as draft card - B] for Joseph Octave Beauchesne, 12 September 1912 (penned), serial no. 2471, order no. A-1486, Local Draft Board for Division 1, Fall River, Bristol County, Massachusetts; citing World War I Selective Service System Draft Registration Cards, 1917-1918, NARA microfilm publication M1509; roll 1685173.
1. I have Ancestry.com because that’s where I got the information from, but Russ you have The National Archives did I miss something?
2. I’ve added registration card - C [cited as draft card - B] – Ancestry has it listed as “draft card – B” but in this case it is clearly Draft card B – first because he was 41 years old and the date written on the card is Sept. 12, 1912. Should I handle this another way?
3. I’ve added the city, county, and state which I got from EE 11.33. Ancestry has a suggested citation as State, county with no city listed. Is one more correct than the other?
http://search.ancestry.com//cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=WW1draft&h=19625468&indiv=try&gss=pt&ssrc=gr_t69548882_p34196421424_ktidz0q3d69548882z0q26pidz0q3d34196421424z0q26hidz0q3d63239913574z0q26dbidz0q3d6482z0q26rpidz0q3d19625468z0q26ssrcz0q3dgrz0q26pgz0q3d32768z0q252c32782z0q26pgplz0q3dpidz0q252ctidz0q257cpidz0q257chidz0q257cdbidz0q257crpidz0q257cssrcz0q26pgpsz0q3d34196421424_h63239913574&indivrecord=1
As always the advice of both EE and Russ will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Debbie
Debbie,
Debbie,
Point 1: As you'll note from EE and its accompanying Ancestry.com QuickSheet, EE does agree with you that the title of the website you are consulting is Ancestry.com, not National Archives.
Point 2 (which you raised again in your message of 11/20/2014 at 19:43): When our source mistates or misidentifies something that we feel needs correcting, all we have to do is add a semicolon at the end of the citation and add our explanation of what's wrong and what's right. If our explanation requires multiple sentences, then it would be best to put a period at the end of the formal citation and then launch the explanation in however many separate sentences it requires.
Point 3: In everyday usage, most people cite a place from smallest to largest. Reference notes, which follow everyday "sentence style" structure, typically cite the elements of a place name from smallest to largest. Bibliographies, as an organizational strategy, will typically cite place names from largest element to smallest.
However, I would not consider the data that Ancestry includes under either of its "about the source" headers ("Source Citation" and "Source Information") to be a "suggested citation." Neither cluster of information contains all data that is needed for a citation, neither follows any recognized citation format, and each of them omits details that are essential to a citation. Both are just a "data dump" in which they tell us about the source and then we, using our expertise as researchers, pick out the essentials and rearrange them as needed.
And, yes, it would be wonderful if Ancestry scrapped this source-data "format"—which it adoped in its online infancy before its IT experts realized what users actually need—and replaced it with standard citations users could simply import into their own database or cut-paste into whatever they are writing.
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
I am fighting a loosing battle here. I am fighting my software. I already have to Rewrite ALL of my citations from Ancestry, with I willingly do. That is to move the Ancestry Free Form source information using the Web Merge feature in Family Tree Maker. But when I move that free form source into the Template Feature, I can't control some of the data provided.
The National Archives issue being one of them. It's hard coded.
Then, the use the Largest to Smallest, in the Templates in what the provide in the Reference Note, not the Smallest to Largest.
I have raised these issues a number of times to Ancestry.com. I have spent the past week re-doing over 100 Reference Notes, just to get them to look close to what they should.
<end of rant />
Thank you,
Russ
Russ, you are not at all
Russ, you are not at all alone in that frustration.
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
I have been thinking about Largest to Smallest and Smallest to Largest, then I went to THE BOOK (Evidence Explained) to figure out why this concept was giving me such a hard time.
My issue is how the data is presented to me in my genealogy database. Oh, and the same would happen in a spreadsheet for sorting.
If I have my U.S. Federal Census format to be by Year and Location, it is presented to me the way a spreadsheet would Largest to Smallest.
It's sorted by Year, Grouped by State, then listed by County. I may not remember what specific location the famly was in, but I could drill down, to the state, to the County, then see who is listed by Location. That really works for me.
So, when I came to this location sequence in the Reference Note, I continues that format, from State, to County, to Town, to Local Board.
I think I now know how I got into trouble in the formatting.
I guess my follow up question is, IF I have the details in the Largest to Smallest, AND am consistant throughout, is that acceptable?
I relooked at the laminated QuickSheet and realized that the example just said New Orleans then local board number. But if I were to look at the actual card, I would see the county and state, which is how I crafted my reference note, does that mean I don't need the County and State in the Reference Note? I am thinking of someone who might not be US based, looking at my research, would the state and county information be helpful?
Sorry for all of the questions, trying to craft some user requirements for the feature that I am fighting with in my genealogy database program.
Thank you,
Russ
Russ,
Russ,
Question 1:
If you decide to consistently arrange the census place elements in your reference notes from largest to smallest, no one will take away your license to do research. The largest-to-smallest arrangement is the one commonly used for bibliographies, as you say. By the same token, bibliographies arrange names from largest element to smallest, as Surname, Given Names.
Reference notes, on the other hand, are written "sentence style" with elements typically arranged in the "natural order" we use in all kinds of writing. That's why the typical arrangement in a sentence would be 1900 Essex County, Massachusetts and Samuel Driveshaft rather than 1900 Massachusetts, Essex County and Driveshaft, Samuel.
If or when you submit your work to a journal or press, you will follow their housestyle—whatever it is. But in the meanwhile, if you choose to consistently use the largest-to-smallest arrangement of placenames in your reference notes, the worst thing that will happen to you will be having to explain yourself to umpteen people with whom you share your research.
Question 2:
Re, whether a citation can identify only the city or whether it needs to cite both city and state: See EE 221–22 (5.6) for "Full Identification of Place." The issue boils down to how well-known a city is. New Orleans is one whose location is known around the world. If we were to say "Opelousas District Office," virtually no one outside of Louisiana would know where Opelousas was.
Dear Editor,
Dear Editor,
Thank you.
I am fighting my software, but trying to use the standards that you provide. "They" decided to give us the Largest to Smallest. I realize that I have a choice in Software, have the others on my computer, but the "logic" of my program works for me. I can explain the Consistent issue easily and at the same time note that it is not in compliance with Evidence Explained. And I do. Not dreading "being published" thought, only Peer Review. That is why I am here. I am only trying to live up to the Evidence Explain standards.
I am only hoping that the software developers listen to some of what I am whining about and help us out.
I have gone back to my Military Records and taken the information on the Card, Smallest to Largest, and reworked them. In doing so, since Ancestry is now providing (ancestry.com : accessed) in their hand over of citation information, I updated my entries to include that.
I deeply appreciate your responses and guidance in this effort.
Thank you.
Russ
And your efforts are
And your efforts are appreciated also, Russ. By many.
OOPS
OOPS
# 2 should have read it is clearly draft card C.
Debbie
Debbie,
Debbie,
My Citations are using the Template feature of my genealogy program. If you look at the data, the data is coming from The National Archives, but I accessed it from Ancestry. I have brought this issue up with the software folks.
The order of the information, in my case, goes from State to Local Boards, yours if reverse, as I see it. I think the important issue is that the information is there. That is one of the reasons that I started this thread of messages.
Since my ID of the Form, is more for me and not someone looking at my research, I have minized the about of information presented in the Reference Note. It tired a number of versions and "[a]" worked best for me.
I move ALL Citation information from ancestry, into the Template format for my program.
Hope that helps,
Russ
Russ,
Russ,
I assume at the Guru of FTM, you're doing a merge from Ancestry to FTM. I haven't been doing that for a while as I'm not happy with the results, but more importantly where it places the downloaded media.
But for the question I'm most concerned with on EE, how do I handle the incorrectly cited Card B, when it should be Card C.
Debbie
P.S. I actually debated spliting this between EE and your FTM User Blog. But decided I might be able to get all questions answered here.
Debbie
Debbie
I do ALL of my merging with FTM and Ancestry.
Not sure what the Card B vs Card C means. I look at the image and can tell by the information at the top of the image. I don't look at what Ancestry calls it. I look at the images on the Collection Description page, which clearly tells the difference. Then, look at the Image that comes from Ancestry and I know which of the 3 it is.
I put ALL of my Media files in the "default" media folder for that file. I have my Citation format and my Filename format defined before I do any merging. AND FTM allows you to sort by Filename or by Caption. AND I put each of the media images into a Category. Each Category had a Caption Format and Filename Format.
Russ
Dear Editor and Russ,
Dear Editor and Russ,
I’ll take this step by step.
Point 1: Shame on me for not consulting the QuickSheet.
Point 2: Thank you for the insight.
Point 3: I’m still a little confused, am I to assume that my ‘reference note’ above, because it is a reference note and not a bibliography, is correct with the place name going from smallest to largest.
Russ, I’ve given up using the Template Feature and therefore no longer use the record/web merge feature. It feels to me like more work than free forming the citation and downloading images directly to my computer. Also, my main tree has around 6,000 images, I don’t want them in 1 huge default media folder. Keep up the fight.
Thanks to both,
Debbie
Debbie,
Debbie,
In answer to your question at "Point 3," see my answer to Russ, above, at Message 13.