FHL film numbers for online images at FamilySearch

By Anonymous on Sun, 10/11/2015 - 14:26

Forums

I've read EE 2.24 - 2.31, but it didn't seem to answer how to cite film numbers for online images of film at FamilySearch.

Then I saw the first reference note on page 439, EE 9.6, where the film number is part of the quotation in the citing part of the note.

Then I looked at the fourth reference note on page 469, EE 9.42, where no film number is given as part of the quotation in the citing part of the note.  Checking the FamilySearch website, I saw that a film number was given for the image, it being 2,138,819.

Any reason why the film number is in one reference note but not the other?  Is it just personal preference?  The focus of the 9.6 example is the actual document while the focus of the 9.42 example is the database; is that the difference?  If so, why does that lead to the film number being included or not included?

Submitted byEEon Mon, 10/12/2015 - 22:18

Newonash,

Which edition of EE are you using? I'm on the road tilling in other fields this week--with a laptop that has only the 2012 edition. There, under 9.6, p. 439, neither of the first reference notes on that page deal with filmed material.

To answer your question as a general principle: It depends. The providers differ in the data they provide and the manner in which they provide it.  For example:

  • Sometimes, our provider cites its source so concisely that we can quote it, film number and all.
  • At other times, the provider will identify its source in a convoluted way that requires us to pick out parts of it and create our own source-of-the-source citation. In those cases, we would not put quotation marks around what we, ourselves, have pieced together.
  • In other instances, particularly with Ancestry, the source identification may cite, say, a NARA microfilm publication, but then cite an FHL roll number that doesn't exist within the NARA film publication. In such a case, we would either drop the FHL roll number and replace it with the correct NARA roll number--or else write a long citation to explain the mixup that Ancestry created.

If, perhaps, your 9.6 reference intends to refer to the Sebring-Shown database entry from Ancestry on p. 438 (rather than 439) of the 2012 edition, then that is yet another instance in which Ancestry has reworked its collection, given it a new title covering a new time frame, and created a database entry that doesn't identify the original book and page.

 

Submitted bynewonashon Wed, 10/14/2015 - 13:37

I used the third edition for my question.

EE 9.6, page 439:

1. Vigo County, Indiana, Marriage Records, vol. 62:16, Lee Shick - Alice Taylor, 28 March 1923; image, "Indiana, Marriages, 1811-1959," FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1961-31704-3114-65?cc=1410397 : accessed 1 April 2015); citing "Vigo County; FHL microfilm 001905907."

EE 9.42, page 469:

4. "Texas Deaths, 1890-1976," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1951-25172-124198-11?cc=1983324 : accessed 1 April 2015), certificate image, Walter Preston Morse, 31 January 1942, no. 2908, citing "State Registrar Office, Austin."

Dennis, thanks for your patience in waiting until I returned to my office. You have noted that the source-of-the-source portion of the example at 9.6 includes an FHL microfilm number, while the source-of-the-source portion of the example at 9.42 does not. You ask: "Any reason why the film number is in one reference note but not the other?  Is it just personal preference?"

No, it's not just personal preference. The fundamental difference is this

  • 9.6: The FamilySearch offering for this Indiana record links to the catalog entry where the exact film number is identified.
  • 9.42:  The FamilySearch offering for this Texas record does not identify a microfilm number or link to a catalog description. The description that it provides for this record set (https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1983324), leads to a statement that microfilm exists but does not identify it.

Therefore, when we create the source-of-the-source layer and we say that FamilySearch is "citing" thus-and-such, we cite what FamilySearch actually identifies.

Yes, we can go sleuthing in the FHL catalog and find a set of film that appears to be the same, but the film is arranged by volume numbers and FHL's identification of the digitized image does not identify a volume number. If we are at FHL we can do trial-and-error to find the right roll, by which we can confirm that the document on the film is the same as the digitized record we've used that does not identify the film roll. However, if we're logging onto FamilySearch from Kalamazoo, Podunk, or Peoria and we assume that one  record set is the same as another—simply because the title seems to be the same—then many times we will be matching apples with peas and end up creating Mississippi caviar instead of applesauce.

Bottom line:

  • We cite what we use.
  • If we cite the source-of-our source, then we cite the information our source gives us about its own source
  • If we want to add something more from personal knowledge, or from our outside sleuthing, then we put our addition into a separate sentence or separate discussion, rather than say that our source gave that data.