Multiple or single use of (census) citations

By Anonymous on Sun, 10/07/2012 - 00:40

Forums

I don't know if this question is in the right forum or not.

 

Let’s say that you have a family of four, the Joneses, in the 1920 census (Really it could be any census year). You create a citation for Mr. Jones. Now what? Do YOU reuse the citation that you created for Mr. Jones for Mrs. Jones and the two children? Or do you create a unique citation for the remaining three members of the family?

 

I have asked a few others and the answers varies. Some make unique citations for the individuals in this case and others, what I would call “lumpers”, would “lump” all four individuals with the same citation.

 

 

Submitted byEEon Sun, 10/07/2012 - 10:59

Cormac,

The longstanding and eternal convention for research is that a citation is keyed to a "fact," not a person. Exactly what and how you support any "fact" you assert depends upon the research or writing task you are doing:

  • When you abstract or transcribe a census entry, or make a digital image from a census, you need only one citation for the household.
  • When you are writing a narrative, you follow the standard rule of placing a citation at the end of the assertions based upon that  source, regardless of how many people from the household is mentioned in your text.
  • If you are cherrypicking data from a census to enter into a genealogical database, then you're back to the point that a citation is keyed to the fact you are asserting, not to a person. 

EE suspects you are asking the question from the third perspective. EE does not give advice on how to use specific software; but basic research, analysis, and citation principles apply regardless of whether we are using database software, word-processing software, or pen and paper. 

If you were to attach a citation to just one fact for one person in that census household, then many assertions in your database would have no citation attached. When you created reports from your database, many assertions would have no citation attached.

Among database users, the catchall phrases "lumpers" and "splitters" are used in various ways. How much you choose to "lump" into your master source for the census and how much you prefer to "split off" into your citation for the specific household  is up to you. EE's census chapter, especially 6.3, presents various options.

The one point that is not variable for researchers is the fundamental principle of citation: Each and every "fact" we assert that is not "public knowledge" must be supported by an identification of its source. 

 

Submitted byCormacon Sun, 10/07/2012 - 22:10

My reason for asking is that in making the initial citation, you usually list the head of the household as the person of interest. That is fine as long as there is just one person in the household. If you attached that citation to another person in that household, it would seem to me that your citation is wrong because it is referring to the wrong person. That is, the citation was made for person A but attached to person B or C or so on. I guess my question only really deals with the census. For other “items” such as birth or death certificates that only deal with one specific person, of course you wouldn't reuse a citation.

 

Thank you for your time and especially, patience.

Cormac,

As a matter of custom, census entries are identified by the dwelling no., family number, and head-of-household. (Or, in 1940, the household number and head-of-household.) That data serves as a locator that brings researchers to the right location. Researchers are always urged to consider individuals in the context of their associates rather than treat them as isolates.

That said, there are also reasons why a citation would want to focus on a specific person in the household. Consider these two options:

  • If our narrative is discussing Jeremiah Sullivan, a teenaged woolen mill worker in Andover, and we cite the census to support our assertion about his age and occupation, then citing his household number and the household head is sufficient to locate him and it places him in the context of his family.
  • If the census taker had also erred in his identification and this person presented as a 19-year-old male named Jeremiah was actually a 19-year-old female named Jemimah, then--logically--the citation would focus on the person and make the necessary correction of identity.

All of this is why EE 2.1 says "Citation is an art, not a science. As budding artists, we learn the principles. ... [Then] we have both an artistic license and a researcher's responsibility to adapt those principles to fit materials that do not match any standard model."

In my mind there isn't a difference between what you are calling other "items" and census records. Birth and death certificate citations are used for numerous facts where you would reuse it. For example the name of the primary individual, the parents, the date of birth or death. In the case of a death certificate, the cause of death, the informant, the date of burial and the place of burial. All of these facts would be cited with the same citation.  

Ann