Citation of loose page, source unknown, but one repository for the original known

I have photocopy of a loose page, handwritten, which I know from the description is from the records of Henry Ritchie who recorded cemetery information in Pictou County in the 1950s. I don't know where I got it from, probably a record searcher in the 1990s. I know that the Pictou Antigonish Regional Library (and other archives) has a copy of the original. I don't want to imply that I have seen the original but would like readers to know how to access it. Here is my attempt:

“The Henry C. Ritchie Records (1956),” photocopy of unpaginated handwritten page labelled [surname] Hogg, privately held by author, provenance unknown. A copy of the records is held by the Pictou-Antigonish Regional Library, (https://parl.ns.ca/resources/historians.php).

Submitted byEEon Thu, 02/20/2025 - 09:14

Nancy, for something in your files that was sent to you by someone else, you would normally follow Template 7.  See also EE4 §2.18 "Citing Privately Held Materials."  

Note especially the last line of 2.18. "We do not attempt to cite the archive where we think the original may be held."  Just because someone sent you something and says it is from a certain archive does not mean that it is. Even if it is, you have no way of knowing that it is an exact copy that has not been tampered with.

The first part of 2.18 applies to the other situation you inquired about yesterday.

 

Submitted bynancyfraseron Fri, 02/21/2025 - 09:53

Thank you. I determined the repository for my page and have received a digital image of the original, in colour, from them with the following information from the librarian:

That page was copied from the Ritchie genealogy binders in our collection. These are all unpublished primary source works that Henry C. Ritchie did in 1956, and more can be read about them on our website here: https://parl.ns.ca/resources/pdf/ritchie.pdf. The binder that the Hogg information is from is labelled "vol. 26 Hepburn to Hooymans," and while the pages are unnumbered, it is technically page 87. Because they are unpublished, there is no title or cover page available.If you're citing it as an archival document, then the title of the collection is the Henry C. Ritchie Records, and the depository would be the New Glasgow Regional Library. 

My citation for the newly received page:

“The Henry C. Ritchie Records,” 1956, the genealogies, vol. 26 Hepburn to Hooymans, unnumbered page labelled [surname] Hogg, line 8, entry for Andrew; image emailed to author from the New Glasgow Regional Library, 21 Feb 2025.

Comments?

 

Submitted byEEon Fri, 02/21/2025 - 13:34

Nancy, you were wise to track the loose sheet back to the archives. Having done so, you would follow the pattern used at template 8.  The first layer of your citation begins to do so, but stopped short.

A citation to a manuscript in an archive or library needs to specifically say where that manuscript resides--both the repository name and its locale. Your second layer says you received an image by email from the New Glasgow Regional Library on 21 February 2025. That is not the same as telling us that the document is held by the New Glasgow Regional Library. Many libraries supply copies of material from their microfilm or duplicate holdings of collections that reside elsewhere.  Nor does the citation tell us where in this world, the New Glasgow Regional Library is to be found.  That needs to be part of the citation before you add a layer saying that  you had received a copy of that page only, by email from the library. 

In short: first you identify the material, then you identify its location. After that, if there's something special about the means by which you access it, then you can add another layer to explain your access.

The image itself (thanks for supplying!) raises two other issues:

1. Your citation describes the Ritchie Records as "genealogies." Most of your readers will interpret that as "compiled genealogies." But the image you have shared is just a set of cryptic research notes saying that certain names appear in certain published sources, with no relationships at all between the nine names in that image. While the creator of the "papers" may have been a genealogist, it will mislead readers (and yourself down the road after your recollection of this source has gone cold) if your citation calls these "genealogies." 

2. Genealogical standards require us to question the librarian's statement that the Ritchie Records are a "primary source."  That one image has information ranging from 1790 to 1961. The compiler of those notes cannot possibly be a primary source for events that happened across 171 years.