Determining the "source of the source" for citations

By Anonymous on Tue, 11/18/2014 - 10:38

Forums

In EE 9.6, which deals with citing Online Abstracts, Databases & Indexes,  guidance is given to place emphasis on the derivative work, rather than the original creator.  The original creator should only be cited as "the source of your source".

With this in mind, I am crafting a citing to an online index, and working on trying to figure out what exactly the correct "source of the souce" information is that I should use.

FamilySearch.org offers the following "citation"...

"Michigan, Death Certificates, 1921-1952," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/KF7V-84W : accessed 18 Nov 2014), James Hamilton Gawley, 04 May 1932; citing Hartford, Van Buren, Michigan, United States; 00956; Division for Vital Records and Health Statistics, Lansing; FHL microfilm 1973118.

I would suggest a slightly modified version for the first layer of the citation...

"Michigan, Death Certificates, 1921-1952," index, FamilySearch.org (https://familysearch.org : accessed 18 November 2014), James Hamilton Gawley, 4 May 1932;

but I'm confused about the "source of the source" information.  In the FamilySearch offered citation, it seems really lenghty and not entirely necessary.  I clicked on the FHL microlfilm roll number link, and it directed me information about their database, and provides the following information about the "author" of the database...

Author: Michigan. Department of Health. Vital Records Section; Michigan. Department of Community Health. Division for Vital Records and Health Statistics.

Is there any direction on what exactly out of all of this source of the source information their website provides, I should consider using in my citation?

Submitted byrraymondon Tue, 11/18/2014 - 14:06

I hope you don't mind me interjecting some thoughts. Citations produced by the FamilySearch website are automated, so it is entirely proper (and encouraged) for you to modify the citation for your use.

  • The first thought is that because this is an index and because images of the originals are readily available on FHL microfilm, it would be well worth your time to visit your local family history center (FHC), order a copy of the microfilm, and view it at the FHC once it arrives. This eliminates the middle-man. You would then cite the certificate itself, rather than anything on the FamilySearch website.
  • The title of the FamilySearch website, which is indicated in parenthesis, is not the same as the URL. It is simply FamilySearch.
  • FamilySearch.org does not always format dates correctly. It is well that you have expanded the abbreviation of the month.
  • Because FamilySearch.org uses persistent archival links, you may wish to utilize it in your citation rather than using the home page URL. Collection titles and access terms are subject to change. The full URL will work regardless of other changes. I use a home page URL when I don't trust the record link to work long-term. The choice is yours; EE provides many examples of doing it both ways.
  • FamilySearch's citations are generated using automation and don't necessarily reflect the search terms you used to access the record. You may wish to replace "James Hamilton Gawley, 4 May 1932" with the terms you used. Throwing in a verb can also make things clearer. For example, "search for James Hamilton Gawley, died 1932."
  • Terms following "citing" are given to assist others in locating the original at the archive. The catalog notes that "death certificates are arranged alphabetically by county and then chronologically...Cities within each county are found at the end of their respective counties." The automated citation system didn't know if Hartford was a city separate from the county, or not, so it presented both: "Hartford, Van Buren, Michigan, United States." It also included state and nation, which are redundant. You would probably leave them out of your citation.
  • The automated system needlessly included the image number, 00956. I will alert our citation team and have it removed.
  • The citation to the original should end with the name of the archive, not the author. "Division for Vital Records and Health Statistics, Lansing" is the archive currently holding the originals.
  • The automated citation system leaves commas out of film numbers, even though the FamilySearch standard is to include them. We will fix this at some point in the future. Until then, you can add them to your citation.

I hope these thoughts help.

Robert Raymond
FamilySearch
 

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 11/18/2014 - 21:36

Thanks, Robert, for jumping in to help, so that dpslager and other interested users didn't have to wait for me to finish a deadline elsewhere.  Your advice is always valued.

 

Submitted bydpslageron Wed, 11/19/2014 - 22:02

So would the following be an EE appropriate citiation?

"Michigan, Death Certificates, 1921-1952," index, FamilySearch.org (https://familysearch.org : accessed 18 November 2014), James Hamilton Gawley, 4 May 1932; citing Hartford, Van Buren, Michigan; Division for Vital Records and Health Statistics, Lansing.

Robert indicated that, "Terms following 'citing' are given to assist others in locating the original at the archive."

I understand that as researchers, and citationists we are compelled to seek out enough information to lead others to the original records, but when we encounter other websites that aren't so forthcoming as FamilySearch with the information needed for the "source of the source", I'm left wondering what elements are necessary for me to discover and have present in my citation?

The name of the archive?

The location of the archive?

The name of collection in the archive?

and in what order do these elements appears?  Collection Name; Archive Name, Archive City.

~David

Submitted byEEon Thu, 11/20/2014 - 19:40

David,

That works fine, though we might suggest one tweak. What you're citing is actually a database rather than an index--and an abstract rather than an index entry.

I might add, for others who may not click on your link: Normally, if (as you've done) we cite a root URL for a site with many offerings, or for a database that have many subdivisions as FS databases often do, we'll need to include a path that will get us to the exact document. In this case, however, the database is fairly simple, with statewide coverage, and you've given enough data to relocate the record easily.

 

Submitted bydpslageron Thu, 11/20/2014 - 20:54

So when a website doesn't provide easy to find "source of the source" information, what information do I need to seek out in order to build the "source of the source" portion of my citation?

The name of the archive?

The location of the archive?

The name of the collection in the archive?

an in what order do these elements appear in the citation?

e.g. ... ; citing Collection name; archive name, archive city.

These appear to be the elements and order the Richard suggested in his earlier post.  I just want to make sure I've got that right.

Submitted byEEon Fri, 11/21/2014 - 16:06

David,

When you use a source that provides you with any piece of information, what do you do? If it cites its own source, do you just copy down what it cites and go blithely on your way feeling secure because a source is attached? I suspect not. I suspect what you do is to carefully analyze the information, analyze the details that have been given for the source, and then decide for yourself (a) whether the cited details are adequate for you to locate and study the original; or, for that matter (b) whether the type of information you've been given should even be found in the kind of source that was cited.

By extension, if a source doesn't conveniently tell us where its information comes from, we study it just as carefully, looking for clues to the source and looking for links that may provide more information about the source.  A citation model for that kind of source will guide us as to the kind of source information we need to find. If our own source provides, somewhere, some clue to the original, then we copy whatever it says and put those words in quotation marks so that we will thereafter know exactly what it gave us. Then we use those clues to track down the original source and, having used the original, we create an appropriate citation to the original. If our own source does not provide, anywhere, any clue to the original, then our citation to that source would say so--after which we would again proceed to try to find the source of the source elsewhere. 

However, if our source does not cite its own source completely, any effort we might make to find details to fill in the blanks could backfire. We could end up with a citation that partially cites the source of our source and partially cites some other similarly named source that doesn't have the same information.

Bottom line: We cite what we use. Then we cite what our source tells us that it used--or else we  note that it didn't tell us.

 

 

 

 

 

Submitted bydpslageron Fri, 11/21/2014 - 19:08

Thank you.  Being new a citationist, I'm eager to learn and your guidance is ever invauable.