Layered Citation Question

By Anonymous on Thu, 04/23/2015 - 01:13

Forums

I find myself getting lost in the details trying to construct layered citations.

I'm trying to develop a layerd citation for a death certificate image from Ancestry.com that originally came from an original in the Pennsylvania State Archives.  Here's what I've come up with:

Westmoreland Co., Pa., Certificate of Death, no. 18589, So. Huntingdon Twp., Charlotte Espey [Charlotte Aspey], 18 Feb 1924; consulted through “Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1924” digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : viewed 8 May 2014); citing Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Health Statistics and Research, Death Certificates 1906-1963, Record Group 11, Series 11.90, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission – Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg

I'm not certain my use of capitals, quotes and italics are correct.  Also, the record group and series are from the Pennsylvania Archives, not the Pennsylvania Department of Health - I'm concerned that the distinction isn't clear in my citation.  Also, the record group applies to many records from the department of health, while the series applies only to the death certificates.  Should the record group and series be positiond to make that clear?  Something like this:

"...; citing Record Group 11, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Health Statistics and Research, Series 11.90, Death Certificates 1906-1963, ..."

Finally should there be a qualifier on the date to make it clear that it's the date of death and not some other date (like the date the certiicate was filed, etc.)?

Brian

Submitted byEEon Thu, 04/23/2015 - 12:45

Brian,

For someone who thinks he's lost, you've done a great job of working your way through three different thickets. There's little left to tweak. 

Layer 1: The original document.  You propose this:

Westmoreland Co., Pa., Certificate of Death, no. 18589, So. Huntingdon Twp., Charlotte Espey [Charlotte Aspey], 18 Feb 1924;

Given that this certificate is a state-level certificate rather than a county-level document, it is the state that should be identified in the first field as the creator.  Westmoreland County would then be identified as Charlotte's place of residence. (EE also would follow standard rules of punctuation and put a period after the abbreviated month name.)

Pennsylvania Department of Health, Certificate of Death no. 18589, Charlotte Espey [Aspey], 18 Feb. 1924, Westmoreland County;

Layer 2: The provider. You propose this:

...; consulted through "Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1924" digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : viewed 8 May 2014);

All the essentials are in the right place, with italics and quotation marks used properly for the two publication titles (database and website). For perfection, you might insert a comma after 1924, to separate that element from the one that follows it.  The result would be this:

...; consulted through "Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1924," digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : viewed 8 May 2014);

Layer 3: The source-of-the-source data. You propose two options:

...; citing Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Health Statistics and Research, Death Certificates 1906-1963, Record Group 11, Series 11.90, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission – Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg

or

...; citing Record Group 11, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Health Statistics and Research, Series 11.90, Death Certificates 1906-1963, ...

Your concern about clarity is understandable given that the source of the source is a set of  records from one agency that have been moved offsite to another agency.

The situation here parallels all those instances in which we cite federal records from the War Department or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, etc., that are now held as a record group by the National Archives.  Your second proposal follows that concept, but it needs tweaking in one way. 

Way back in Chapter 3 of EE, at 3.1, we outline the hierarchy used by archives to arrange records: record groups, series, collections, files, and individual items. At 3.3 we point out that internationally the custom is typically to start with the largest element and go down to the smallest—while the U.S. custom is to start with the smallest and go to the largest.  To invoke this principle with the record set you are using, the third layer of your citation would be this:

...; citing Series 11.90: Death Certificates 1906–1963, Record Group 11: Pennsylvania Department of Health, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg.

Invoking the name of the agency that governs the archives (The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission) is fine in your working notes, if you feel it helpful. At publication time, an editor would likely strip it away and just cite the archives. Again, the corrollary would be our citation of federal records. We cite the National Archives. Rarely would we cite (to follow your pattern) "National Archives and Records Commission – National Archives."

 

 

 

 

Submitted bynewonashon Fri, 04/24/2015 - 11:38

I have two follow-up questions, if I may.

When you say that "this certificate is a state-level certificate" and that therefore the state should appear in the first field, are you assuming that the state actually issued the certificate rather than a county issuing the certificate? Or are you saying that it is a state-level document because it is in the possession of the state?  If, in fact, it was issued by a county, would that change the citation?

Secondly, I am not totally clear about the use of quotation marks.  Why or why not should the words after the word "citing" appear in quotation marks?

Thank you.

Dennis

Dennis, no. We can't just assume!  In this case, the provider's source-of-the-source data tells us that it's a state-issued certificate—a point confirmed by examining the cited cimage.

If this were a county-issued certificate, we would indeed credit the county rather than the state.  In many cases, there are differences in the documents we get at the county level versus what the state issues, so the distinction matters.

Re the use of quotation marks after the word citing:  Remember that quotation marks means we are quoting something. For source of the source data, it means that when we say our source is "citing [whatever]," if we copy our source's citation word for word, we are quoting it; therefore we use quotation marks. If we take parts of what our source gives us and we assemble our own citation, then we aren't quoting and would not use quotation marks. 

On this subject of when to use quotation marks, do also check out EE2.6, "When copying a string of three or more words from another source ... ."

Submitted byBrian Gon Mon, 04/27/2015 - 14:22

Thank you for your help!  I'd obviously been stumbling over how best to cite the source-of-the-source.

I also have a follow-up question...

This citation had three layers.  I often encounter digitized images of microfilm of an original document.

Without getting into much detail, would a reasonable structure look like this?

Layer 1 : The original document

Layer 2 : The provider.  "consulted as..."

Layer 3 : The source-of-the-source.  This is the film.  Would I use "imaged from.."?

Layer 4 : The source-of-the source-of-the source?  :-)  This is information about the original document.  I assume I'd use "citing..." here.  (Assume an appropriate citation exists on the film.)

I realize that citation is an art, but what are the pro's and con's of including only Layer 1 and 2 or Layer 1, 2 and 3?  When would a choice be made not to include source-of-the-source etc. (even if that information were available)?

Of course, it's unfortunately often the case that information that would be Layer 3 or 4 is inaccurate, vague or completely missing from online sources.

Thanks again,

Brian

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 04/28/2015 - 12:05

Brian,

Technology has definitely complicated historical research, but we can handle that pro-and-con in two sentences:

1. If we're willing to believe anything we find, we could just cite the URL and move on—which is, indeed, what some citation styles recommend.

2. If we care about the reliability of what we report and want to avoid brickwalls created by unreliable information, then we'll take the trouble to identify the source of our source—and we might, indeed, end up with that layer 4.

Submitted byRobyn_62on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 03:56

I am totally new to the forum and also to EE. After quite a few FTM tree sync errors with ancestry, I decided to relook at my tree, and clean it up ! So I bought the current EE e-book plus one of the cheet sheets (the one relating to citations for records found on ancesty) and one by one, I am going through all my records, now realising that 'many' do not have any 'validated' citations. It's a huge task. However Brian's post and subsequent EE editor replies, I think have sorted my issues at least with the Penn. Vital records. Going on the recommendations as per previous posts, would I be correct in thinking that the following citation would be correct ?

United States, Pennsylvania Department of Health, Certificate of Death no. 003806, William G [Gunnis] Rowe, 28 Jan. 1961, Delaware County; consulted through "Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1924," digital images, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com : viewed 8 September 2015); citing Series 11.90: Death Certificates 1906-1963, Record Group 11: Pennsylvania Department of Health, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg.

Thanks for your assistance and opinon.

Robyn

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 09/08/2015 - 10:02

Robyn, you have an excellent grasp of principles. I see just a couple of nits to pick. 

  1. Author/creator: The U.S. government did not create this record. It's a product of the Pennsylvania Department of Health. It would be best not to put "United States" at the start of the author/creator field.

  2. Database title: When I copied your title directly into Ancestry's search box, it told me it had no database by that title. I'm assuming that when you first consulted this database, it was entitled "Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1924" and that you reconsulted it today, hence the current date in the citation. However, in the interim Ancestry changed the title of the database. It's now "Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1963."

  3. Archive identification in your source-of-the-source layer: The name given by Ancestry in its current citation (the one we're finding today, as opposed to a past descriptor), is "Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission" rather than "Pennsylvania State Archives."

Submitted byRobyn_62on Tue, 09/08/2015 - 22:57

Dear Editor

Many thanks for your reply !

The United States ref came from the way I name my sources, i.e. by the name of the country they come from, as it makes them easier for me to find a source in FTM2014. I will now delete that from my citations. I did pick up the database title error this morning before I saw your reply and have now changed all my citations to match the 'correct' ancestry database :-) I do appreciate you pointing it out, as I need to be careful to make sure I cite the correct database. Lastly I looked at the website for the Pennsylvania State Archives and they 'appear' to be a some kind of a division??? of The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, but are still known as the Pennsylvania State Archives. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/state_archives/2887

The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC) is the official history agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Created in 1945, we are responsible for the collection, conservation, and interpretation of Pennsylvania's historic heritage, which we accomplish through the Pennsylvania State Archives, the State Museum of Pennsylvania, the Bureau of Historic Sites and Museums, the Pennsylvania Trails of History, the Bureau for Historic Preservation, and the Bureau of Management Services.

So perhaps the citation needs a further layer, ie "The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission"

Thank you again.

Regards, Robyn

  

Submitted byEEon Wed, 09/09/2015 - 09:15

Robyn, the bureaucratic complexities of government agencies are frustrating, for sure; but it rarely is necessary for us to add yet another layer to discuss those. As you've noted, the agency in question here is formally and informally known in multiple ways, but any user of this material can sort those out by consulting the agency's website or by simply Googling.

The primary issue here is this: When we report that an online provider cites thus-and-such, we should faithfully report what it cites. If the provider says it took the material from "The Pennsylvania Hisotrical and Museum Commission," then that's what we report when we say that it cites thus-and-such. If it says that it took the material from "Pennsylvania State Archives," then that is what we report when we say that it cites thus-and-such.

Re the addition of "United States" at the start of the citation: Geographic additions of that sort are often done in source lists, where we have a critical need to devise some sort of organizational scheme. But, in reference note citations, an addition in that position becomes part of the author/creator's identification; and so, the organizational additions are not made there.