Forums
Just when I thought I had a handle on citing Ancestry's military records, I start doubting...
I find a record for New York Guard service and write the citations in two ways. The first emphasizing the image and the second the database. I know I don't have to write them both ways but am always trying to understand the difference.
1. New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs, service card for John L. Knower; imaged in "New York, U.S., New York Guard Service Cards, 1906-1918, 1940-1948," Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : viewed 27 April 2021) > Katen, Floyd S. - LeBeau, Harry S. > Image 2062 of 4819; citing New York, New York Guard Service Cards and Enlistment Records, 1906-1918, 1940-1948, Series B2000, film no. 51; New York State Archives, Albany, New York.
2. "New York, U.S., New York Guard Service Cards, 1906-1918, 1940-1948," database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : viewed 27 April 2021) > Katen, Floyd S. - LeBeau, Harry S. > Image 2062 of 4819, imaged service card for John L. Knower; citing New York, New York Guard Service Cards and Enlistment Records, 1906-1918, 1940-1948, Series B2000, film no. 51; New York State Archives, Albany, New York.
In my second citation I am missing the creator of the record - New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs which is presented in "original data" and am not sure where to put it.
My second inquiry is one that continues to plague me - which is how much can I or should I manipulate Ancestry's citation information for source of source and at which point do I no longer enclose quotation marks? In this case I changed the order of the citation, changed punctuations, and I did not use italics for name of collection since it is not a publication. Perhaps I am thinking incorrectly and should present it as Ancestry does since I am using all those elements. Which is the correct approach?
In other case I might remove pieces of information that is not necessary or combine information from their source citation, source description and information - while still using 3 words in a row in various pieces of it. Do I still enclose in quotation marks in this situation?
One of these years I'm sure this will sink in...
Thank you.
TheCount, your example shows…
TheCount, your example shows why we need the flexibility of featuring the document or featuring the database. In the first example, could a user of that citation take the data from your layer 1 and locate it? No. Your examination of the image did not reveal enough information to create a citation to the document itself. All you know about the origin of that card is what your provider tells you—and any piece of detail could be accurate or not.
You also note that your second citation is "missing the creator of the record ... which is presented in 'original data'." That also underscores why you would not want to create this citation in a way that featured the original document. When you eyeball the card, you have no idea who the creator is. If you go back to the start of that set of images, to image 1, you only see another similar card.
You cannot tell, from your examination of the record, who created the cards. The information you placed in the "creator of record" field in the first example is information you know only because Ancestry told you. Therefore that information should be moved to the layer where you report what Ancestry has cited.
As for how much you should "manipulate Ancestry's citation information for source of source and at which point do [you] no longer enclose [the data] in quotation marks": Ancestry, of course, provides a discussion of its source(s) rather than a citation. After we thoughtfully consider what Ancestry has to say, we decide what are the relevant points. The safest approach then is to enclose in quotation marks any passage that we copy exactly.
Not sure if it makes a…