Multiple sources and records

Mriley,

The bottom line is to cite what you use. In your discussion above, you mention "indexes" but do not indicate whether you saw the certificates you are citing. Does this FamilySearch or Ancestry database provide image copies of those certificates, whereby you might confirm the accuracy of the dates and glean other data? If you are using an online derivative such as a database or index, rather than viewing an image of the original, then your citation has to make that clear. The typical way to do that is to cite what we actually use, then add that our derivative source cites thus-and-such.

Have you had the opportunity to study EE 2.11, which addresses the critical elements we need to consider and identify for sources such as this?  If you do not have EE itself, 2.11 is one of the sections that is available under the "Sample Text Pages" tab.  Many other sections of EE provide citation models, as does the Ancestry.com QuickSheet.

Mriley, your dilemma at Question 1 really does hinge upon whether you are citing originals or derivatives—specifically images or databases. We were all trained to think in terms such as "Okay, I've used three sources. Now I'll be expected to cite three things. But, good golly, creating all that rigamarole for three sources that all say the same thing sure seems ridiculous!”

Yes, it would be ridiculous—if we have three derivative sources that all offer the same thing. That’s the point at which we then have to analyze exactly what we’re getting from each site.

When we compare the details, if every detail is exactly the same, then we do what you did. We consider the background info that each of those derivatives provide to see if one copied from another. If two of them copied from the third one, then we want to use the one that is closest to the original because it went through the least amount of processing and, thus, has the least potential for error.

In this case, the Minnesota Historical Society appears to be the originator of the database. Thus, that website would be the appropriate one to cite. Your citation should fully identify that database and website, identify the specific entry in which you are interested, and then note whatever source information the MHS database provides.

If, in your working notes, you want to add a comment saying that Ancestry and Family Search also carry this database, offering essentially the same information, then that’s your choice.

Regarding your Questions 2 and 3, yes, you do need to restructure your citation. Let's address that separately.

Mriley, the format in your first message above appears to be a cross between two separate source-citation functions or needs. As a consequence, it doesn't fully satisfy either need. There are basically two types of citations:

SOURCE LIST (aka BIBLIOGRAPHY) ENTRIES are generalized entries. If the source is a published one, then the source list entry will give the basic publication data, but it will not reference a specific page or item. If the source is a manuscript collection, then the source list entry will identify the collection in broad terms, but it will not itemize individual things within the collection.

At Question 2, you broach the idea of creating an artificial collection called Ryberg Deaths. That's something we might do in a source list or bibliography for, say, a family collection that otherwise does not have a name. But if we do so, that source list entry would not individually cite all the different documents within that artificial collection. If you did so in a software program that repeats citations automatically, then every time you need to cite one document from that group, it would automatically cite all of them.

REFERENCE NOTES (aka FOOTNOTES or ENDNOTES) are the basic formats that history researchers use day in and day out. Here, we take the generalized source list entry and tailor it to the exact document or page that provides the evidence for the assertion we have made in our text.

The reference notes are where you would cite the individual entries from the database you are using. You would not create an artificial collection for a published source that has a specific identity. You would cite the published database you are using, by its exact title. You would need to cite the creator of that database, the website that publishes the database, and the publication data (the URL : date) for that database and website. (All of these details would be part of your basic source list entry.) Your reference note would then add the specific entry that your text discusses. Because you are using a derivative source, your reference note would also need to provide whatever information the database gives about its source—i.e., the original.

Chapter 2 in EE, "Fundamentals of Citations" covers core issues of this type, in much better detail than we can do here. Most of the issues that perplex us, where citations are concerned, don't exist once we absorb those fundamentals. If we use nothing but Plain Jane books and articles, citations are rather simple. But history researchers use an endless variety of original documents and derivatives in all sorts of media types. The citations can and will get complicated. If we use a software program that generates citations for us, that can be an aid. But we still have to input the data. How well we are grounded in those fundamentals will affect how we input the data and whether the results are effective.

Glad to  help, Mriley. Anytime that citation or analysis principles perplex us, discussion is a good way to work get past the confusion—particularly if we have multiple voices participating in the discussion.