Jokos files

Hello, Cryptoref. Three thoughts here:

• For the benefit of those who use your citation and don't know what or where the Jokos Foundation is, the archive and the location do need to be cited in layer 1.
• "JMW" needs to be identified in layer 2. Typically, a website whose title consists of initials will have something, somewhere, to say what the initialism represents. The full name could be presented in the author/creator field for the website, with the title of the website (the initialism) in italics. If the organization no longer uses a full name, only the acronym, then you might put the website in italics and add a bracketed explanation of what it represents.
• As a nit, you might remove the extraneous comma between the title of the website and the open parentheses.

Cryptoref, it would help if we were to back up and examine the issue of sequence of elements in an archival citation. Chapter 3 is the chapter that deals with materials in formal archives whose records are organized via an hierarchical structure.

• EE 3.1 explains that structure. This is the basis for citing all formally archived materials.
• EE 3.3 notes international differences. U.S. citations to archives traditionally begin with the smallest element in the structure (the document) and work up to the largest (the Archive’s name and city/state/country of location). Internationally, many countries start with the largest and work down to the smallest. When our research crosses international bounds, it’s best to choose one sequence and use that consistently throughout our research notes, so as not to confuse users of our work.

Within that framework:

• EE 3.7 illustrates using the Author as Lead Element in the citation. In your case, since you’re citing the file as a whole, it’s not clear what kind of documents are in that file or whether there is an “author” for any one document. If so, the author will need to be identified.
• EE 3.8 illustrates using the Collection as Lead Element. Jokos Foundation Files appears (from your initial discussion) to be the name of the collection that is held by the Amsterdam Municipal Archives.
• EE 3.9 illustrates using the Document as Lead Element.
• EE 3.12 illustrates using foreign-language titles that need translation

The first layer of your rewrite is this:

Jokos Foundation (Amsterdam), files archived at Gemeente Amsterdam Stadsarchief, no. 825, Herman de Metz;

This arrangement begins in the middle of hierarchy, moves to the largest entity, then drops the smallest entity. So let’s rethink things …

You are using a file which, typically, would include multiple documents. In your Source List, you would normally cite to the collection, not the document. In a reference note, we typically cite the document (and author, if there is one), that provides the specific bit of detail we are asserting in our narrative. However, there are occasions when we want to simply say that a collection or file exists rather than cite one individual document. In that case, your first layer (going from smallest to largest) would be this:

Herman de Metz file, no. 8525, Jokos Foundation Files, Gemeentearchief Amsterdam Stadarchief (Amsterdam Municipal Archives, The Netherlands; ...

International Style (going from largest to smallest) would be this:

Gemeentearchief Amsterdam Stadarchief, Jokos Foundation Files, no. 8525, Herman de Metz; ...

However, this leaves us wondering about something else. Rarely would a full citation say “XYZ Files, Such-and-Such Archives.”  A file collection is normally within some series or record group, which often carries a number as well as a name by which to identify it.

LAYER 2

We still need clarifying data here. The reader has no idea what “administered by JMW” means. The reader still does not know what “JMW” represents. Given that you are citing a website, then a website title should be in italics to tell readers “this is the full and official name of the website.” When we use your URL, we are sent to one particular page at the website—not the home page. That page needs to be cited also for clarity. EE’s second layer would be this:

… ; ordered through “Jokos Files and Liro Cards,” JMW [Jewish social welfare group] JMW (https://www.joodswelzijn.nl/ik-heb-hulp-ondersteuning-nodig-themas/jokosdossiers-en-lirokaarten); …

And now, if we're lucky, Yvette Hoitink may weigh in on this subject.

Happy to weigh in.

For the first layer, I would cite JOKOS as the record creator, since it was the JOKOS foundation that created the file you're looking at. In the second layer, I would describe where the file is held, which is in the record group of the Stichting Joods Maatschappelijk Werk kept at the Amsterdam City Archives. I personally would not mix that in with the first layer as the Amsterdam City Archives is just the place where this foundation happens to have an agreement with to keep their records. I like to keep my first layer as close to the original as possible and not mix it with the place where it happens to be kept, but that's a matter of personal style. In the third layer, I would explain how I obtained the file.

In total, my citation would be:

JOKOS foundation, file no. 8525, Herman de Metz; "Archief van de Stichting Joods Maatschappelijk Werk" [Archives of the Foundation Jewish Social Work], Record Group 1168, Amsterdam City Archives, Amsterdam; scans ordered via "Jokosdossiers en Lirokaarten," JMW (https://www.joodswelzijn.nl/ik-heb-hulp-ondersteuning-nodig-themas/jokosdossiers-en-lirokaarten).

In my main text or in an additional sentence in the footnote, I would explain what JOKOS is and how their records are now administered by the JMW and kept at the Amsterdam Archives. 

Forgot to add: I would personally not cite the email that they then used to send it to me. I might do that in my working notes to easily find that email again, but not otherwise. The third layer already explains how I obtained the file. It doesn't matter which employee sent it to me.

I add things in a citation if they do one or both:

• Help the reader understand the quality of the evidence I used.
• Help the reader find the source again.

If I already included in my citation how to order the record, adding the email does nothing for either of these points. The cited website has instructions for other people to duplicate the process (although they won't be able to access the file unless they're next-of-kin). But they won't be able to access the email either.

Cryptoref, 'what we are seeing' (from the broader perspective) is something many researchers hate to: citation is not just a formula we can follow to say we've identified our source. With every source, past the simple book and article we learned to use in our secondary school essays, there are a variety of issues to consider—any of which could affect the reliability of our data as well as someone's ability to find it again.

What we are seeing is that these variables cannot be (or need not be) reduced to one rigid formula. Yvette's concept of layering splits into two layers the details known for the record and its archive, then drops the layer for provenance. She gives logical reasons. EE would put those details into one layer and (like you) include the provenance layer. EE also lays out logical reasons. In either case, a solid citation has been created by understanding basic patterns, analyzing the record set and its essential identifiers, and then making an effort to "keep together what goes together" to ensure clarity.

And, of course, Yvette also added the name and number of the record group—something that archivists, alas, often do not supply when they gather documents in response to a request. Her knowledge of Dutch records never fails us.

That's what we're here for, cryptoref. Glad to help.