Forums
Dear Editor,
I have a manuscript fully cited and a source list, partially prepared. An issue I am struggling with is that I've cited many census records for several persons, many in different locations. Sometimes I used Ancestry, sometimes FamilySearch, sometimes I found them in a library. These span from 1790 through 1850.
In another example, I've cited many (more than 40) records from the Pennsylvania Archives. These range from Septennial Census, tax records, and land records to the Revolutionary War, as well as the various Series/Volumes, etc. These pertain to several different persons.
My citations are detailed and I've tried to follow EE as best as I can. So my question is this: With so many different citations from the same archives and general records collections, would it be logical and correct to cite such records fairly generically to avoid the redundancy? For example,
1790 U. S. Federal Census.
1800 U. S. Federal Census.
Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg.
etc.
Thank you very much in advance for your assistance.
Dear Editor:
Dear Editor:
In my original post, I meant to say that my question is not about the citations (those are done), but the bibliography.
How should I handle the bibliography when there is such potential for redundancy. I can create a separate entry for each person; not an issue, but I would then be listing, say, ten entries for the 1830 U.S. Federal Census.
I hope this makes sense.
Pbaum, congratulations on
Pbaum, congratulations on getting your book to this point!
Yes, indeed, bibliographic or source-list citations are much more generic than reference notes. And no, you definitely don't want your bibliography to carry a separate census listing for each person.
Have you discovered yet the following section of chapter 2?
The census chapter at 6.3 "Arrangement of Elements in Source List (Bibliography)" also provides patterns for listing census records, specifically—either chronological or geographical.