Forums
I have a citation for an image from Ancestry taken from a series of books. Here's my attempt at a citation:
“Connecticut Town Birth Records, pre-1870 (Barbour Collection),” database and images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : viewed 11 July 2016); imaging Lorraine Cook White, editor, The Barbour Collection of Connecticut Town Vital Records, 55 vols. (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1994-2002), [volume not given] : 216, entry for Celia Hills [Hill], b. 25 January 1816, Burlington.
This citation certainly doesn't point to the original records. None of the images from the books, or the Ancestry pages gives the exact provenance of the information in the books. The information in the book could have come from the Barbour Collection typed slips, bound volumes, or even a microfilm of either.
The Ancestry pages discuss what the Barbour Collection is and additional information can be found via a simple web search. The collection is a public record. Is there any reason to add "source of the source" information to this citation or is it adequate from that standpoint as-is?
Brian
Brian, you have well cited
Brian, you have well cited what you have used, within the limits of the data that Ancestry provides. Many researchers who use one or another version of the Barbour Collection do—in their own research notes and sometimes in their published work—annotate the source list entry or the first citation to BC to explain what the BC is. But that explanation is considerably more complex than a mere source-of-the-source layer within the basic citation.
I had another "source of the
I had another "source of the source" question which you replied to. Unfortunately those postings were lost before I had a chance to look them over carefully.
I wanted to add "source of source" information for a book that contains a records from several different sources. My initial citation had some problems and I believe you suggested a citation like this:
“A. C. B.,” editor, Some Early Records and Documents of and Relating to the Town of Windsor, Connecticut, 1639-1703 (Hartford : Connecticut Historical Society, 1930), 47, citing "The Matthew Grant Record, usually called The Old Church Record, 1639-1681, with additions 1685-1696, 1717-1740," entry for Luke Hill and Mary Hout, m. 06 May 1651; image copy, Internet Archive (https://archive.org/details/someearlyrecords00conn : accessed 27 Jul 2016).
Does this look the correct citation structure?
Brian
Yes, indeed, Brian. You have
Yes, indeed, Brian. You have a good memory. Apologies for the loss of your valuable thread when Amazon Cloud vaporized our website.
I was confused when I first
I was confused when I first saw how this citation was structured.
I'd become too accustomed to using "citing" in the beginning of a citation layer (as in "; citing...") so seeing it used as it is in this citation threw me. A little thinking made me realize "citing" is doing the same job here.
Incidentally, just tonight I found the example in EE 2.74 which is the same basic structure.
Thank you for the suggestion,
Brian