Interesting question, Annie. Technically, this would be an identification issue that follows the rules of writing, rather than citing. In research lingo, a "citation" is the sentence in which we identify a source, rather than a person. By extension, "citing" refers to the source, rather than our general identification of a person.
The general rule we find in writing manuals is this: On the first reference to a person, we should identify that person in full. In your case, your first reference to her might be "Ann Dingman who, upon entering the Catholic Sisters of Mercy, took the name 'Sister Helen'." Thereafter, you would refer to her as Sister Helen.
However, there are both logic and nuances involved, particularly these:
The "general rule" would be appropriate if you were writing a short biography of her, particularly one that focused upon her adult life.
If you were doing a longer biography that included her childhood, the logical approach would be to call her Ann Dingman until your account of her life progresses to the point that she became a novitiate and took her new name. At that point, you'd write a sentence about her new identity and thereafter refer to her as Sister Helen.
If you are maintaining your information on Ann in a database, the most feasible approach would be to enter her by her birth name, and then enter "Sister Helen" as her nickname.
With writing issues (as opposed to citing issues) how we write a name depends upon the context in which we are writing. As a basic rule of writing, we don't use slashes between names. A second basic rule of writing is that what we write should not sound formulaic, as though it were written by a computer or a robot. Therefore, we will vary the ways in which we refer to her.
Let's borrow here from the scenarios that I addressed in the earlier response...
For a bio sketch that focuses on her career, we might begin in one of these ways:
Sister Helen Dingman of the Little Sisters of the Poor was born 25 December 1900 in Kalamazoo, Michigan, as Ann Dingman, the daughter of John B. and Mary (Morris) Dingman …
Sister Helen Dingman (née Ann Dingman) was born in Kalamazoo, Michigan, on 25 December 1900 as the fifth child of John Bates Dingman and his wife Mary Morris ...
For, say, a family history in which she is Person 236, we might write:
236. Ann4 Dingman (John3, James2, Thomas1), was born 25 December 1900, Kalamazoo, Michigan, as the daughter of John Bates and Mary (Morris) Dingman. [etc., for the basic b-m-d data].
At twenty-two, after completing her nursing studies, Ann became a postulate in the Little Sisters of the Poor, where she took the name “Sister Helen.” For fifty years, she would dedicate her life to caring for the elderly and the ill. Her first assignment … [yada, yada, for various and sundry other things]. … Sister Helen also [yada, yada]. …
Ann “Sister Helen” Dingman died on 17 June 1972 while on a visit back to Kalamazoo to see her critically ill brother Augustin. Arriving at his bedside after 36 hours of travel from her order's mission home in Taiwan, she told him that she would see him soon in heaven, and then collapsed beside him. She was buried ...
If, say, we are actually citing her death certificate, then the name we give in that citation would be the exact name that appears on that record.
Interesting question, Annie.
Interesting question, Annie. Technically, this would be an identification issue that follows the rules of writing, rather than citing. In research lingo, a "citation" is the sentence in which we identify a source, rather than a person. By extension, "citing" refers to the source, rather than our general identification of a person.
The general rule we find in writing manuals is this: On the first reference to a person, we should identify that person in full. In your case, your first reference to her might be "Ann Dingman who, upon entering the Catholic Sisters of Mercy, took the name 'Sister Helen'." Thereafter, you would refer to her as Sister Helen.
However, there are both logic and nuances involved, particularly these:
Thank you. -- Annie
Thank you. -- Annie
Still a bit confused about
Still a bit confused about how the full citation should look.
Perhaps:
Dingman, Ann/Sister Helen Dingman
or do should aka before Sister?
Thanks.
Genochemist,
Genochemist,
With writing issues (as opposed to citing issues) how we write a name depends upon the context in which we are writing. As a basic rule of writing, we don't use slashes between names. A second basic rule of writing is that what we write should not sound formulaic, as though it were written by a computer or a robot. Therefore, we will vary the ways in which we refer to her.
Let's borrow here from the scenarios that I addressed in the earlier response...
For a bio sketch that focuses on her career, we might begin in one of these ways:
For, say, a family history in which she is Person 236, we might write:
236. Ann4 Dingman (John3, James2, Thomas1), was born 25 December 1900, Kalamazoo, Michigan, as the daughter of John Bates and Mary (Morris) Dingman. [etc., for the basic b-m-d data].
At twenty-two, after completing her nursing studies, Ann became a postulate in the Little Sisters of the Poor, where she took the name “Sister Helen.” For fifty years, she would dedicate her life to caring for the elderly and the ill. Her first assignment … [yada, yada, for various and sundry other things]. … Sister Helen also [yada, yada]. …
Ann “Sister Helen” Dingman died on 17 June 1972 while on a visit back to Kalamazoo to see her critically ill brother Augustin. Arriving at his bedside after 36 hours of travel from her order's mission home in Taiwan, she told him that she would see him soon in heaven, and then collapsed beside him. She was buried ...
If, say, we are actually citing her death certificate, then the name we give in that citation would be the exact name that appears on that record.
Hi,
Hi,
Thanks for your comments. I'll say a "Hail Mary" and punt for now.
You must be watching football
You must be watching football while you do your research online. :)