Ancestry & NARA

By wayneson on Sat, 02/25/2023 - 10:49

Forums

Dear EE,

I am making my first draft registration card citation. I have consulted 11.1 and 
https://www.evidenceexplained.com/node/1887. In my case, I'm unable to establish that the record is on microform; and at Ancestry, I find the following alert:

  • Not Yet Digitized. This Series contains records, none of which have been digitized.

My citation draft:

“World War II Draft Registration Cards, Young Men, 1940-1947,” database with images & indexes, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2238/) : accessed 20 Feb 2023) card image, Wayne Knowlton, serial no. 861, order no. 3004, Draft Board 1, Wellsboro, Tioga County, Pennsylvania; citing WWII Draft Registration Cards for Pennsylvania, 10/16/1940-03/31/1947, NARA Record Group 147.

Does "Not Yet DIgitized" explain why I can't get to a microform? Do I err in using italics for the record title?

Wayneson

Submitted byEEon Sat, 02/25/2023 - 19:01

Wayneson, where at Ancestry do you find that alert? Cite you cite us a URL? 

The URL that you cite does take us to the collection's search page. There, using the search box, the only "Wayne Knowlton" that's delivered is from Potter County. I do find a Wayne Ray Knowlton from Tioga County, for whom (two click-throughs later), I see the numbers you cite. The landing page for the database does provide info source-of-the-surce info, but when I query it for the word "digitized" I don't see the detail you have bulleted above. Instead, I get this statement:

  • The draft cards from the state of Maine were destroyed before they could be digitized.

At this same page, Ancestry cites its source as:

  • Ancestry.com. U.S., World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947 [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011.

Without seeing exactly what you're seeing, I'm flying blind here. But I'm puzzled: If the records are not yet digitized, then how is that we're seeing the images online? 

May I ask also why you are expecting microfilm or looking for microfilm, if Ancestry does not say that it has imaged these from microfilm?

I didn't so much expect to find a microform as I wanted to determine if one existed after reading the forum thread.

I misled when I alluded to an Ancestry page... I navigated to the National Archives Catalog from:  https://search.ancestry.com/search/dbextra.aspx?dbid=2238

to:  https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5324575  (The series NAID)  See screenshot.

Apparently, I've strayed afield attempting to learn if Ancestry had the image on microfilm... i.e. what am I looking at? The link under "Original Data" (View Sources) is where I started.

Upload a document
2023-02-25.png

Ah, that explanation helps. You're also teaching us all a couple of valuable lessons. Let's go back to your original draft:

          “World War II Draft Registration Cards, Young Men, 1940-1947,” database with images & indexes, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/2238/) : accessed 20 Feb 2023) card image, Wayne Knowlton, serial no. 861, order no. 3004, Draft Board 1, Wellsboro, Tioga County, Pennsylvania; citing WWII Draft Registration Cards for Pennsylvania, 10/16/1940-03/31/1947, NARA Record Group 147.

In Layer 1 you cite Ancestry's database and the image it delivered. In Layer 2, you say

 citing ...

The entity that is doing the citing is Ancestry.  When we say that Ancestry and its database is "citing ...," then we have to say what Ancestry cites.  We cannot go pull information from elsewhere and say that Ancestry is citing it. Put another way: the "citing ..." layer does not say we are citing because the whole citation is what we are citing. The "citing ..." layer reports what our source is citing.

A second lesson harks back to the basic premise: "We cite what we use."  It is always very good to use something we have found to lead us to something else, as you've done in this case. You've found a record set at Ancestry, and you see Ancestry's report that it took its images from the National Archives. Going to the NARA website to see what else NARA has there—or what more you can find out about this particular record set—is a superb research strategy. 

If our further exploration at NARA results in something more that we want to take notes on, then we can add it to our citation—treating it as a separate source, because that's what it is. The information we find at NARA should not be merged into an Ancestry citation, because Ancestry did not supply that additional information.

Your discovery in this case illustrates why  we don't merge data from two different sites into one citation, treating them as though they all deal with the same thing. NARA (and other archives) have many record sets that have similar names. As with people: similar names don't mean they are one and the same. In your case, the catalog description at the NARA link tells you that the set hasn't been imaged—while the Ancestry set obviously has been imaged or it wouldn't exist there. That's telling us that the two sets of records are not the same.

So, back to our core principles:

  • We cite what we use.  In this case, it's the Ancestry database set.
  • We report, in the "citing ..." layer, what our provider cites for the source of its images.
  • When we do research in catalog records provided by other sites, we put our discussion of that outside material in its own separate sentence(s) because it's a different source.

 

 

Thanks, I really need to nail down my understanding of these 2 lessons. I understand them when I read them... but, applying them "on the job" is problematic.

So, I guess you're telling me that my citation is ok as it stands. However, I continue to struggle to wrap my head around "what am I looking at?"

You have advised:

In your case, the catalog description at the NARA link tells you that the set hasn't been imaged—while the Ancestry set obviously has been imaged or it wouldn't exist there. That's telling us that the two sets of records are not the same.

To be simplistic, when Ancestry provides both a database extraction and an image, I ask myself:

  1. Where is the original record archived?
  2. Who created the image of the record?
  3. Was Ancestry's image obtained from microfilm?

Therefore, if NARA hasn't imaged the records, how does Ancestry possess images (since they have given NARA as their source)?

I am citing Ancestry's database online but get additional information from the image. I decided that inserting the "bridge", card image was an acceptable way to accurately inform my citation of what I was using. 

I understand that Ancestry's ways can be confounding... but in my world, I have to contend with those ways... as do you and others. I just feel there is some piece of perspective I'm missing.

Wayneson, your 1-2-3 is incredibly important. That habit makes for thorough and sound research. But if Ancestry does not tell us exactly where the information came from, then our citation should note (in that "citing ..." layer) that Ancestry does not tell us exactly where the information came from.  We may then add a note—an additional sentence or paragraph or more—to say that we've sought the original record set at NARA and yada yada (i.e., we report what we found or didn't find, why we think that xyz be it, and any "cons" that suggest it might not be the right record set.