Citing a record from the Canadian 1940 National Registration

By Anonymous on Sun, 07/23/2017 - 18:22

Forums

Hello!

I am attempting to cite my grandfather's record from the Canadian 1940 National Registration. I've tried searching this website and have spent all afternoon looking at various examples in Evidence Explained. Unfortunately, I'm not closer to determining the appopriate format for my citation.

It would seem that the format should be similar to something in chapter 11 as these are in fact national government records though they aren't housed by Library and Archives Canada. They are housed by Statistics Canada, a government department. However, they are census-like in nature in that everyone age 16 and older were required to register so perhaps chapter 6 is more applicable.

There are two things that are potential red herrings and that are confusing me. First, the letter I received from Statistics Canada clearly states that the image is a photopy of the microfilmed original. Second, the 'original' is clearly stamped "DUPLICATE" - twice. The image is rather poor but the stamps seem to indicate that the original was lost. One of the stamps has a date of Jan 29, 1942, which is about a year and half after my grandfather registered.

I understand that I am to cite what I have. As a photopy of the microfilm original, this is essentially the equivalent of the original.

So ... following is my first draft. I would appreciate any feedback on it.

Nichola Winowich, card no. 47, electoral district 193 McKenzie, polling division 110 Nixonville, 19 Aug 1940; Dominion of Canada – National Registration; Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Thanks for any and all assistance!

Chris

Submitted byEEon Tue, 07/25/2017 - 10:16

Chris, censuses are explicitly covered in Chapter 6. Canadian censuses are at 6.50. Is there a specific reason why you are not following one of those patterns? 

Submitted byChrisFBon Tue, 07/25/2017 - 20:13

Hi Editor,

I've reviewed section 6.50 again. That section seems to pertain to the general population census of Canada, which is generally taken on years ending in one, i.e., 1921, 1931, 1941, and so on. Additionally, the section only seems to pertain to online records.

The 1940 National Registration to which I refer was instituted as a result of the The National Resources Mobilization Act and the War Measures Act and did not apply to the entire population. It is not available online. While the letter I received indicated the record was a photocopy of a microfilmed original, I have no information whatsoever about the microfilm. That said, the Statistics Canada website here seems to imply a reference of sorts of 93C0006.

Am I to understand that I might still cite this as a census but simply omit any reference to microfilm? Perhaps like the following? Note that I use "Dominion of Canada - National Registration" as that is sthe name of the form that it is completed.

Dominion of Canada - National Registration, electoral district 193 McKenzie, polling division 110 Nixonville, card no. 47, Nichola Winowich; Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario

Thanks again for any feedback you can provide!

Chris

 

 

Submitted byEEon Thu, 07/27/2017 - 20:16

Aha!  Your second paragraph of Message 3 sheds much-needed light on the set of records you are using, Chris. And yes, the acollection number 93C0006 is important. Agency names, record groups, and collection names are all essential parts of a citation to this type of record.

One basic rule of source citation is that we should never attempt to cite a document without studying it. That applies to EE's author as well as its users. Without seeing the document, I'm flying blind, which is never a good position to be in.

Searching the “Library and Archives Canada Blog,” I found a sample questionnaire (https://thediscoverblog.com/2013/08/08/the-1940-national-registration-file/, but it’s not completed, so I cannot see what registration numbers or other citation essentials might be added to a completed form. Can you upload an image of the form you are working with? (If privacy is an issue, you blank out personal data.)

Submitted byChrisFBon Fri, 07/28/2017 - 21:25

Hi again, Editor!

I'm attaching scans of both documents that I've received, i.e., the photocopy of the microfilmed original and the transcript they provided.

As I look at these again, I see something that I missed previously and that speaks to danger of relying on transcriptions. :) The hand-written record clearly indicates the ninth month in the upper left corner but the transcription indicates the eighth month.

Chris

Submitted byEEon Sat, 07/29/2017 - 14:22

Isn't it amazing, ChrisFB, what we discover when we start analyzing a document critically?

As for the citation, you were headed in the right direction to start with—and I should have asked you for a copy of the document before I weighed in. 

Your first draft was this:

Nichola Winowich, card no. 47, electoral district 193 McKenzie, polling division 110 Nixonville, 19 Aug 1940; Dominion of Canada – National Registration; Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

I'd tinker with it just a tad:

Nichola Winowich, card no. 47, electoral district 193 (McKenzie), polling division 110 (Nixonville), 19 Aug. 1940; Dominion of Canada – National Registration; record group 93C0006; Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Reasoning:

  • When I first read your draft, I read the electoral district as a street address—193 McKenzie  and 110 Nixonville being the pattern we typically see for street addresses. By placing "McKenzie" and "Nixonville" in parentheses, you'll clarify the point.
  • The record group number within the agency definitely needs citing when we cite an archived record of this type.

Submitted bytorus51on Sun, 07/30/2017 - 10:38

This is very, very picky and in no way effects the content of the citation, but for the sake of consistency, shouldn't the format chosen in conveying the cited numbers, i.e., "card no. 47", be applied to the others since they are enumerated in the same format?

For example:

"...card no. 47, electoral district no. 193 (McKenzie), polling division no. 110 (Nixonville)..."

Or conversely:

"...card 47, electoral district 193 (McKenzie), polling division 110 (Nixonville)..."

I don't see an advantage of one over the other, only that they are otherwise consistent.