Newspaper Articles

By Anonymous on Tue, 09/11/2012 - 11:44

Forums

In Evidence Explained! I see how to Cite a newspaper article in the Print form and the Online form. I have run across an issue where the Newspaper in question is on Microfilm. I understand that there are Microfilm templates and that is an option, but am wondering which would be the best to use. I like the Newspaper Name format, for either the Printed or the Online form of article.

Thank you,

Russ

Submitted byEEon Tue, 09/11/2012 - 16:58

Russ, you are right. EE's several citation formats for newspapers and newspaper articles do include one for online images of newspapers but not one for microfilmed images. (Considering that EE is 885 pages, if it carried every type of source in every type of format, we would likely have ended up with a publication the size of the OED!) However, because these are multilayered citations, we can mix-and-match the layers from various models to create what we need.

When we use a print publication that has been imaged and reproduced in a different format, there's a basic rule that kicks in regardless of the kind of format:

  • Part 1 of our citation identifies the original (i.e., newspaper, book, article, etc.);
  • Part 2 of our citation identifies the new format in which we used it. (We include this layer for the same reason that we specify which edition of a book we are using. From one edition or version to the next, there may be changes in content, legibility, etc.)

EE 14.22 (as well as the QuickCheck Model on p. 785) gives a basic form for citing newspapers. As shown in the "Online Images" example at 14.22 (top of p. 809), once we've cited the essential elements for the newspaper item, we just add a semicolon and start with Part 2 of the citation (identifying the third party that created the images). Exactly how you handle Part 2 will depend upon whether your microfilm is a publication or a preservation copy. EE has numerous examples for both throughout the chapters that deal with various kinds of records. I'll just mention two:

  • Preservation film: The QuickCheck Model on p. 104 demonstrates how to cite film created by an archive for preservation purposes, rather than for sale. In this example's format for "Reference Note," just start at the semicolon and follow the example to the end of the sentence. 
  • Microfilm publication: The QuickCheck Model on p. 660 demonstrates how to cite published film that reimages an earlier print publication. Again, in the format for "Reference Note," just start at the semicolon and follow the example to the end of the sentence.

All this aside, you've puzzled us with one statement: "I like the Newspaper Name format, for either the Printed or the Online form of article."  EE doesn't have a "Newspaper Name format." Was that a reference to a template in your particular software?

 

 

The Editor,

Thank you so much for your reply. I'll play around with the Family Tree Maker template and see what I can do.

There are enough templates in both Evidence Explained! and the FTM2012 implementation of them. I have learning how to make them work to creating the appropriate Reference Note (FTM2012 term).

 

Again, Thank you.

 

Russ

Submitted byrworthingtonon Tue, 09/11/2012 - 19:41

The Editor,

I'm OK with the number. I think the "more than enough" are for folk who don't take the time to study and understand them. AND I also know that I am not a student nor an acedemic and don't know how the are to be written. That is why I have Evidence Explained!, in the book format and the Electronic Versoin AND that my genealogy software does the formatting for me.

 

Thank you,

 

Rss

Submitted byrworthingtonon Wed, 09/12/2012 - 17:33

Editor,

 

"working on it" as they say.

 

Thank you,

 

Russ

Submitted bymcarsonon Sat, 09/15/2012 - 21:26

To follow onto Russ' question, I'd like to get your comment on the citation format for an obiturary taken from a microfilmed (perservation) Newspaper where there is no numbering of the microfilm - only a date range.

I suppose there are a number of ways to identify the microfilm, but am not sure which is most acceptable.  Since the only identification of the microfilm is a range of dates, is this a reasonable approach:  "unnumbered microfilm (dd Mmm YYYY - dd Mmm YYYY)"?

Submitted byEEon Sun, 09/16/2012 - 19:32

Mcarson:

You say the microfilm is unnumbered. Would we be correct in extrapolating from this that the archive or library that made the preservation film created a series called, say: City, State, Weekly Gazette. Within this series, they did not assign roll numbers—as in

  • City, State, Weekly Gazette, roll 1
  • City, State, Weekly Gazette, roll 2
  • etc.

Instead, they are using, say,

  • City, State, Weekly Gazette, 1 January 1850–31 December 1855
  • City, State, Weekly Gazette, 1 January 1856–31 December 1860
  • etc.

If so, your interpretation is correct. The latter would be the proper way to identify the exact roll, following the model for preservation-filmed newspapers.

 

Submitted bymcarsonon Mon, 09/17/2012 - 08:46

As I look at the microfilm, which is held by the local library, I do see that they are using (given your example),

  • Weekly Gazette, 1 January 1850-31 December 1855

No City, State is stated; however since all newspaper series held by the library were published in this city.

I guess I a little more confused as to what the citation would look like.  (e.g.   "...; microfilm Weekly Gazette, 1 January 1850-31 December 1855; Washingon County Free Library, City, State.")

Guess I'm a little dense this morning.

Mike

 

Submitted byEEon Mon, 09/17/2012 - 12:34

Mike wrote:

> I guess I a[m] a little more confused as to what the citation would look like:

Mike, let's look back at Message # 2 in this thread: When we use a print publication that has been imaged and reproduced in a different format, there's a basic rule that kicks in regardless of the kind of material:

  • Part 1 of our citation identifies the original (i.e., newspaper, book, article, etc.);
  • Part 2 of our citation identifies the new format in which we used it.

At 14.22, you find a basic citation for an obituary. That's Part 1 of your citation.

At p. 104, you'll find a QuickCheck model for preservation film. In that citation, Part 1 is a manuscript; ignore it. Part 2 of that citation, the details that comes after the semi-colon, demonstrates how to identify preservation film.

Plugging the two together is very easy. Just cite your obituary, add a semicolon, then follow the pattern for the preservation film—using your specific data which, instead of film name and roll number, would be film name and dates.

 

 

 

Submitted bychmcgeeon Thu, 08/01/2013 - 11:00

This is a dated topic, but I'd like your opinion on my citation after considering this forum subject.

Source List Entry:
Wisconsin. Pierce County Herald. 29 March 1876. RF-ARC microfilm RF-108. Chalmer Davee Library, University Archives and Research Center, River Falls, Wisconsin.

First Reference Note:
"Local Intelligence," Pierce County (Wisconsin) Herald, 29 March 1876, p. 3, col. 1, Amos Magee death; RF-ARC microfilm RF-108, reel 7a; Chalmer Davee Library, University Archives and Research Center, River Falls, Wisconsin.

Subsequent Note:
"Local Intelligence," Pierce County (Wis.) Herald, 29 Mar. 1876.

The newspaper is actually published in Ellsworth, Wisconsin. Should I put that in the source list; e.g., Wisconsin. Ellsworth. Pierce County Herald. . .?

My citation is to a specific issue to the newspaper. If I were citing a span of years, I would enter that span in the source list instead of the exact date (right?).

This is an old citation, and I have not visited the ARC in a while, but I'm pretty sure RF-108 is the entire collection for the Pierce County Herald. It may have a collection name, which I would enter just before the library name, but I don't remember. I'll have to visit it again. I should have taken better notes!

I did not put "(Wisconsin)" in italics--like EE 14.22 does--in favor of the citation on the back cover of Ancestry.com Quicksheet, since it's newer (right?).

Finally, I'm a little confused about the subsequent note. Sometimes the page and column numbers are included, and sometimes there not. Any reason for this? And, should it sometimes include some commentary; e.g., Amos Magee death?

Thanks for your time,
Chuck

Submitted byEEon Thu, 08/01/2013 - 19:31

Chuck:

Your grasp of all the issues is quite good. I'll intersperse comments:

>The newspaper is actually published in Ellsworth, Wisconsin. Should I put that in the source list; e.g., Wisconsin. Ellsworth. Pierce County Herald. . .?

Yes. That's recommended. As with the Alexandria, Louisiana, example at 14.22.

>My citation is to a specific issue to the newspaper. If I were citing a span of years, I would enter that span in the source list instead of the exact date (right?).

Yes. In the source list, you'd give the span of years you consulted. In the reference note that's tied to a specific assertion, you would cite the specific issue that gave you that information.

>This is an old citation, and I have not visited the ARC in a while, but I'm pretty sure RF-108 is the entire collection for the Pierce County Herald. It may have a collection name, which I would enter just before the library name, but I don't remember. I'll have to visit it again. I should have taken better notes!

We all understand that problem!

>I did not put "(Wisconsin)" in italics--like EE 14.22 does--in favor of the citation on the back cover of Ancestry.com Quicksheet, since it's newer (right?).

Either is acceptable. Some editors prefer one, some prefer another. In our working notes, whether we italicize just the formal title of the paper but not the parenthetical place in the middle of the title will depend upon whether our software allows us to use a mixed font in that title field.

>Finally, I'm a little confused about the subsequent note. Sometimes the page and column numbers are included, and sometimes there not. Any reason for this? And, should it sometimes include some commentary; e.g., Amos Magee death?

The amount of detail we include in a subsequent citation—whether for newspapers or any other source—will depend upon the level of detail necessary to make our intent clear. If our narrative cites only one item from a particular newspaper and it's an item that carries a title or author/title (similar to the three examples at EE 14.22), then there would be no need to repeat the page and column. It would not hurt to do so, but it would not be essential.  If we have multiple citations to an item that extends across multiple pages or columns and one citation refers to one page and column while the subsequent citation refers to a different page or column—or if other complications exist—then we'd thoughtfully appraise the need to be more specific.

Given that you asked for an "opinion" about the citations you proffered, I'll pick one nit:

"Local Intelligence," Pierce County (Wisconsin) Herald, 29 March 1876, p. 3, col. 1, Amos Magee death; RF-ARC microfilm RF-108, reel 7a; Chalmer Davee Library, University Archives and Research Center, River Falls, Wisconsin.

The semi-colon I've flagged really should be a comma. When we have a multi-level citation, in which one level represents the original and the second level represents the media form in which we consulted the digital image, a semi-colon separates those two parts. You correctly put that separator after your identification of the p. 3, col. 1 item. Before that separator, you have separated each and all elements with a comma. Similarly, after that separator, all elements would also be separated by commas.

Submitted byPaul Harrison Sun, 01/24/2016 - 10:12

This is a follow up to Russ' original post. I get the Part 1 and Part 2 concept, but I am have a bit of difficulty determining if the microfilm is strictly a preservation copy or a publication. The following information applies:

Film viewed at the Bridgeport History Center, a room within the Burroughs-Saden Library, Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Title on film box: Bridgeport Evening Farmer, Bridgeport, Connecticut, Jan 2–Apr 30 1868, roll 016.

Information on leader of film roll:

     FROM THE ORIGINAL NEWSPAPERS OWNED BY:

     BRIDGEPORT PUBLIC LIBRARY
                       AND
     CONNECTICUT STATE LIBRARY

     FILMED AS PART OF THE CONNECTICUT NEWSPAPER PROJECT,
     A PARTICIPANT IN THE UNITED STATES NEWSPAPER PROGRAM

     FUNDED IN PART BY:
     NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES
                              AND
     CONNECTICUT STATE LIBRARY

The citation is to a listing of death notices, containing the only documentation for my great grandmother's death. My initial stab at the citation is:

"Died," The Bridgeport (Connecticut) Evening Farmer, 17 February 1868, p. 3, col. 3; BHC microfilm 016; Bridgeport History Center, Bridgeport, Connecticut.

But now the doubts are creeping in and I am seeking guidance. Thank you in advance.

Paul

Submitted byEEon Sun, 01/24/2016 - 20:08

Paul, typically when an item is published—book or film—there is a "title page" at the beginning that identifies the publisher. (As a comparison, see any of the rolls of film published by the National Archives.) The data that you wisely copied from the film's leader is couched in typical language for unpublished film made for preservation purposes, but not offered for sale commercially.

Thank you for that wisdom. As a preservation copy, which may exist in multiple repositories, am I 'assuming' too much if I call it 'BHC microfilm 016; Bridgeport History Center, Bridgeport, Connecticut,' or is that appropriate. IOW, is the citation I had created adequate and appropriate?

Submitted byEEon Mon, 01/25/2016 - 09:22

Paul, if BHC assigns it the number 016, then that would seem to be the best descriptor to use. While the Connecticut State Library may have been the producer of the film (under grant from NEH), CSL likely identifies it by a different film number. If the leader to the film carries no series name and number, then citing it to the local library's identifier is appopriate.