Forums
I'm having trouble deciding on the correct citation formats for New Hampshire vital records found in several databases, indexes, and image collections on FamilySearch and Ancestry. For a specific example, I have death records for my great-grandmother from the following collections/databases:
- "New Hampshire, Death Records, 1654-1947." This is an index (database) and images from state-level records hand-written or typed on index cards (unnumbered), on FamilySearch. The images are from a microfilm series listed as "Death certificates, 1901-1937", but they aren't exactly what I would consider "certificates".
- "New Hampshire, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1636-1947." These are browsable images (not indexed) of original town record books, on FamilySearch. In the case of the Berlin, New Hampshire volumes I consulted, they have numbered pages with six pre-printed areas on each page that are filled in by hand or typed (they appear to be loose pages that are fastened into a hard book cover with three fasteners).
- "New Hampshire, Death and Burial Records Index, 1654-1949." This is a database, no images, on Ancestry.com. The data is derived from two FamilySearch index/databases, one of which is the "New Hampshire, Death Records, 1654-1947" index above.
Here are the possible citations I have put together:
1. I treated these as unnumbered certificates (similar to note 1 in EE 9.33 - County-Level Certificates) since they aren't a bound register. Should I cite this record as an original record from the NH Bureau of Vital Records (consulted as a digital image on FamilySearch):
- New Hampshire Bureau of Vital Records, New Hampshire death records, unnumbered certificates arranged by first and third letters of surname, Mrs. Rose Ann Murphy, 15 Feb 1937; digital images, "New Hampshire, Death Records, 1654-1947," FamilySearch, (https://familysearch.org/search/ : accessed 11 Nov 2012).
OR Should I cite it similar to note 4 in EE 9.42 State-level Registers, Online Images:
- "New Hampshire, Death Records, 1654-1947," FamilySearch, (https://familysearch.org/search/ : accessed 11 Nov 2012), death certificate image, Mrs. Rose Ann Murphy, 15 Feb 1937, unnumbered certificates arranged by first and third letters of surname, New Hampshire Bureau of Vital Records; digital image from FHL microfilm 2,111,158.
Is a reference to the FHL film number necessary in either case? It's given in the database entry, but is it needed for a citation?
2. This register has "Deaths, Vol. 5, 1935-1945, Berlin, N.H." (without the commas) stamped on the spine. Is this considered a numbered volume (as shown below) or a named volume (replacing series, volume:page with "Deaths, Vol. 5, 1935-1945, Berlin, N.H.," p. 75")? I think the best way to cite it would be as images of an original manuscript register:
- City of Berlin, New Hampshire, Deaths, Vol. 5 (1935-1945): 75, entry for Mrs. Rose Ann Murphy, 15 Feb 1937; digital images, "New Hampshire, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1636-1947," FamilySearch, (https://familysearch.org/search/ : accessed 11 Nov 2012).
OR should it be cited under the collection title on FamilySearch:
- "New Hampshire, Town Clerk, Vital and Town Records, 1636-1947," FamilySearch, (https://familysearch.org/search/ : accessed 11 Nov 2012), death certificate image, Mrs. Rose Ann Murphy, 15 Feb 1937; from City of Berlin, New Hampshire, Deaths, Vol. 5 (1935-1945): 75.
3. This one is relatively straightforward, as it is a database and not original records. The only issue was what to cite as the "source of the source". Is it simply the FamilySearch databases:
- "New Hampshire, Death and Burial Records Index, 1654-1949," database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com/search/ : accessed 11 Nov 2012), entry for "Rose Ann Mrs Murphy", 15 Feb 1937; citing "New Hampshire Death Records, 1654–1947" and "New Hampshire Deaths and Burials, 1784–1949," indexes, FamilySearch, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2010.
OR would you pass through to FamilySearch's sources?
- "New Hampshire, Death and Burial Records Index, 1654-1949," database, Ancestry.com (http://www.ancestry.com/search/ : accessed 11 Nov 2012), entry for "Rose Ann Mrs Murphy", 15 Feb 1937; citing New Hampshire Bureau of Vital Records, "Death Records, 1654–1947," Bureau of Vital Records, Concord, New Hampshire, and "Index entries derived from digital copies of original and compiled records".
Kmckracken1951:
Kmckracken1951:
You are wise to carefully analyze exactly what it is you are using at these websites. Life might seem simpler just to use a stripped-down basic model to cover everything; but analyzing exactly what we have—at the point of data capture—is the best way to ensure that the sources we rely upon are indeed reliable.
This response will separately address the questions you raise for each database.
(1)
You write:
"1. I treated these as unnumbered certificates (similar to note 1 in EE 9.33 - County-Level Certificates) since they aren't a bound register. Should I cite this record as . . ."
Either approach would be technically correct. Your decision here might well be governed by whether you are using a relational database in which source citations are partially reusable. With most such programs, your second option would allow you to automatically reuse the first half of the citation for all the information you take from this source, with tailoring for the specific in the second half of the citation.
"Is a reference to the FHL film number necessary in either case? It's given in the database entry, but is it needed for a citation?"
EE always considers it wise to record the source-of-the-source, whenever our source provides it.
Given a choice, I prefer the
Given a choice, I prefer the second option, for the reason you cited; I will be citing a large number of entries from this particular record set and can reuse the "master source". Thanks.
Kathy
(2)
(2)
Kmccracken writes:
2. This register has "Deaths, Vol. 5, 1935-1945, Berlin, N.H." (without the commas) stamped on the spine. Is this considered a numbered volume (as shown below) or a named volume (replacing series, volume:page with "Deaths, Vol. 5, 1935-1945, Berlin, N.H.," p. 75")?
As a basic rule of thumb: named volumes carry a distinctive name rather than being part of a standard series. Numbered volumes are part of a series in which we first cite the series name, then the volume number, and (sometimes) associated dates, etc. In this chapter, the differences are illustrated in the QuickModels at pp. 423–24. They are also illustrated more often in the earlier "Church Records" chapter—say, 7.20 (p. 336), examples 1 and 2.
Practically speaking, if you prefer to copy the exact "title" that appears on the spine of a courthouse register, using quotes around it, it doesn't really matter how you technically classify it. The main difference would be how it effects the clarity of the page number you present. With numbered volumes, the data is clear enough if we cite
New Hampshire, Deaths 5:75 ...
or
New Hampshire, Deaths 5 (1935-1945): 75.
For named volumes such as the one at 7.21, convention would not use a colon to separate volume:page, as below:
"Book of Records for Epistles, Certificates, Testimonies of Denial and Acknowledgements": 24
When actual titles are quoted, the standard convetion would be to present the page number this way:
"Book of Records for Epistles, Certificates, Testimonies of Denial and Acknowledgements," 24.
Actually, the question of
Actually, the question of named volume vs. numbered volume was a subsidiary question; the main question on #2 was whether to lead the citation with the identification of the original volume, or with FamilySearch's collection title. On the surface this appears to be the same question as #1 (to which your answer was that both are technically correct), but the difference I see here is that this is only images of the volumes, not a searchable database like #1. Does that matter? In the end, the citation is for an image that is very similar to that for the record in #1, except that it's an image of one of six forms printed on a page rather than of a single free-standing index card.
Kathy
Kathy,
Kathy,
Given your response to Issue 1, the pros and cons of data entry would be relevant for you to consider here, as well.
(3)
(3)
Kmccracken wrote:
3. This one is relatively straightforward, as it is a database and not original records. The only issue was what to cite as the "source of the source". Is it simply the FamilySearch databases . . .OR would you pass through to FamilySearch's sources?
This question feeds back to a basic rule: we cite what we use. If we use a database from Provider A and it cites its source as something from Provider B., then when we say that Provider A is citing [thus-and-such], we cite exactly what Provider A cites. If we are a duly cautious soul who then goes to Provider B to ensure the accuracy of what Provider A asserts, then we have used Provider B. Therefore, we would cite Provider B and the source-of-the-source would be what Provider B cites.
As another general rule: If we use A, and A cites B while saying that B used C, then bypassing B to just say that A's data came from C is taking a great leap of faith that can land us in the middle of pickle vat. All too often, A's discussion of "what B took from C" will have problems that may create research problems for us down the line or, at the least, leave us saddled with the blame for B's erroneous interpretation of C.
That was what I thought,
That was what I thought, thanks for the confirmation. Though in all honesty, I can't really see why anyone would use the Ancestry database at all, when you can get the same information from FamilySearch, and, for the most part, with images attached!
Kathy