Multi-layered Birth Certificate?

By Anonymous on Sun, 04/17/2016 - 19:38

Forums

I have a digital scan (2016) of a Certified Copy (1977, now in my fathers possession) of a Delayed Birth Certificate (issued 1942) for the birth of my grandmother (1920).

The certified copy also contains some additional information, as it still has the perforated mailer attached with address it was sent to, and is addressed to my grandmother as Mrs. Husbands Name. (residence and spousal evidence). This info wouldn't be on any other copies of this.

Any suggestions on how to cite that, and how to treat the information within (Primary, etc)? It was filled out by my great-grandmother, but 20 years later, requested by my grandmother 35 years after that.

This one just stumped me.

Submitted byEEon Sun, 04/17/2016 - 20:55

Taliecyn, how about this?  Start with EE's model for a delayed birth certificate (QuickCheck Model p. 428); then add the relevant data for the certified copy; then add the relevant details for the digital scan (a layer that many people would not include).  If you'll post the draft you develop, then we will have concrete details to discuss.

Submitted bytaliecynon Mon, 04/18/2016 - 15:02

Is it not recommened to include the digitizing layer in the citation?  I would eventually like to publish some of this, and not having to include when/where/by whom the image was digitized for print would make things much cleaner and possibley less confusing (at least in my mind, but since I know the provence of the scans, I may be wrong).

So, I started as you suggested with the delayed birth certificate (QuickCheck Model p. 428), and then layered the reference note with the private holding legal document unrecorded copy (QuickCheck Model p. 111).

(Please excuse the clumsy redaction.  Anything struck through is data I have, but have removed.)

Texas. Milam, delayed birth certificate no. 406XXX (Day Month 1942), First Middle Last; Texas Department of Health, Austin, Texas; State registrar to Mrs. Husbands Name, delayed birth record, 01 Sept 1977, certified copy, Last Name Family Archives; privately held by First Middle Last, [address for private use] CITY, Texas, 2016.

My concern with this model is both the lack of location information for the registrar and the Last Name Family Archives.   That sounds much more formal than the shoebox under my father's bed that this is currently stuffed in.   So with that in mind, my second option is to layer it with the historic letter note (QuickCheck Model p. 109):

Texas. Milam, delayed birth certificate no. 406XXX (Day Month 1942), First Middle Last; Texas Department of Health, Austin, Texas; State registrar (Travis, Texas) to Mrs. Husbands Name, delayed birth record, 01 Sept 1977; privately held by First Middle Last, [address for private use] CITY, Texas, 2016.

My concern with this model is the use of Item Type instead of Record Id and Item format, I think it lacks clarity. 

I've attached a anonomized copy of the certificate that I am working from.  Thanks for your help!

 

Submitted byEEon Tue, 04/19/2016 - 09:39

Taliecyn, yes, we could improve the clarity a bit.

The QuickCheck Model on p. 428 offers this:

      1. Cass County, Illinois, delayed birth certificate no. 4071 (1942), Mary Rose Hunt; County Clerk’s Office, Virginia, Illinois.

Your equivalent would be this:

     1. Milam County, Texas, delayed birth certificate no. 406--- (1942), First Middle LastName; Bureau of Vital Statistics, Austin.

When you add the second layer for the certified copy you need to add a couple of words to introduce it so that readers (and you at a later date) understand what the second layer represents. Some repetition can also be eliminated. Also,  “Family Archives” isn’t part of the description of the agency that supplied the copy, so it should not be in that layer. “Family Archives” (if used) would be part of the “privately held by …” layer.

certified copy, Texas state registrar to Mrs. Husband’s LastName, 01 Sept 1977; privately held by Gene Whoever  [address for private use] Whatever City, Texas, 2016.

To combine these, we would insert a semicolon between the layers. In the first layer, which has an internal semicolon to separate its parts, we would replace that internal semicolon with a comma.

     1. Milam County, Texas, delayed birth certificate no. 406--- (1942), First Middle LastName, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Austin; certified copy, Texas state registrar to Mrs. Husband’s LastName, 01 Sept 1977, preserved in envelope identifying the recipient; privately held by Gene Whoever  [address for private use] Whatever City, Texas, 2016.

As you noticed, I also altered a few things:

  • Pulling from the QuickCheck Model at p. 111, you included “Family Archives.” However, in the example at p. 111, we are citing an ancient document for which we have no knowledge of where a recorded copy might be found. It’s a handed-down document in private hands.  In your case, you know the agency that issues the birth certificates. Therefore we would cite agency. Normally, we would not even need to cite the person who holds the copy; but, as you say, the copy you're holding has other identifying data.
  • You began your citation with “Texas. Milam, delayed birth certificate no. 406 …” The rest of your citation is in reference note style and ref notes do not use internal periods within a citation to a single source. A period is a “full stop.”  It means “the end.”  We’re saying that any source named after that is a different source. Obviously, the word “Texas” by itself is not a source and not a citation (For an explanation of why Source List Entries use internal periods but Reference Notes do not, use the query box at the top right of this page to query for “full stop.” We've already gone into detail on that a few times)
  • Also, when we  cite “Milam” we need to indicate that it is a county and not a city. Any state can have both a city and a county with the same name.  "Milam County" is the official name of the jurisdiction that created the record.

As for whether you need to cite the digitization: If you made a photocopy, would you cite the photocopy? EE would cite the private digitization only  if there were some issue involved—as, for example, digital enhancement so darkened or dim text could be read. That doesn't seem to be the case with the image you posted.