California census locations

By History-Hunter on Thu, 09/29/2022 - 15:32

Forums

My apologies for a rather strange question...

I'm attempting a citation for a 1940 U.S. census of Glendale, California. However; I'm unfamiliar with the way the census area is broken down, so I'm not sure how much location info is actually required. I understand from some of the EE example citations I've seen that some areas, like New York City, require quite a bit of detail.

What I have, in the following trial citation, was taken from the information on the imaged census page. Is it sufficient? 

Footnote: 
1940 United States federal census, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, population census, Glendale Judicial Township, Enumeration District (ED) 19-211, Sub-District (SD) 11, sheet 81–A, line 20, Francis Brophy (61); image(s), FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9MT-DK4 : downloaded 8 May 2022); citing NARA digital publication T627 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 2012).

(If you have any suggestions on where to look for how the U.S. electoral districts are broken down, it would be appreciated and may help me with future issues.)

Submitted byEEon Fri, 09/30/2022 - 07:50

History-Hunter, as a general rule,

  • the location data at the top of the page is essential. EE would include "Block Nos.33-36-45."
  • It is not essential for U.S. censuses to cite both the ED and the SD. The ED suffices, according to NARA.
  • Once we say "1940 U.S. census," the word "federal" is superflous.
  • Ditto for the location. Once we say "1940 U.S. census," to say that Los Angeles, California, is in the United States of America might be considered superflous and redundant repetition.

1940 United States federal census, Los Angeles, California, United States of America, population census, Glendale Judicial Township, Enumeration District (ED) 19-211, Sub-District (SD) 11, sheet 81–A, line 20, Francis Brophy (61); image(s), FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9MT-DK4 : downloaded 8 May 2022); citing NARA digital publication T627 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 2012).

All things considered, EE's unabbreviated version would be this:

1940 United States census, Los Angeles, California, Glendale Judicial Township, Blocks 33-36-45, ED 19-211, sheet 81-A, line 20, Francis Brophy, age 61 (in Gateway Hotel); imaged, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-L9MT-DK4 : downloaded 8 May 2022); citing National Archives digital publication T627 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 2012).

Miscellany:

  • For clarity, EE would add "age" before "61," given the variety of other numbers in this census citation.
  • EE would also include the fact that the person of interest is enumerated within a hotel.

This citation does differ from the one FamilySearch suggests in its fly-out "Information" menu. There, FS uses a path > waypoint style citation. That approach is perfectly fine; but it does create a longer citation because it requires specifying the waypoints in FS's organizational scheme.

Submitted byHistory-Hunteron Fri, 09/30/2022 - 10:05

Thank you for your suggestions and especially those intended to reduce "...redundant repetition.". :>)

I chose not to use the trail-of-breadcrumbs method, because I felt that the FamilySearch path reflected their chosen organization of the records and not the organization of the census. This could confuse a reader. It certainly did confuse me, when initially locating the record. And; as you note, their descriptive path is rather long.

I do still have a few questions...

There appears to be a copy/paste error in the suggested citation. The access date information "downloaded 8 May 2022);" portion is missing, but I understand that it should have been there. :>)

In the suggested citation, the block numbers are separated by what appears to be a hyphen. While faithful to the record, this could be misinterpreted. I remember your caution about the hyphen "joining" and certain dash-types "separating". The author's intent doesn't really seem like a case of either "joining" or "separating", but may be that of representing a list of blocks within the township. Might it be better to use "..., Glendale Judicial Township (blocks 33, 36 & 45),..." instead, or place the original representation in double-quotes?

With respect to the use of "ED"; I was under the impression that one should initially show a term in full, before using the shortened form. I note that your unabbreviated version does not do this. Is there a reason that I'm missing?

How would one correctly include the name of the hotel within the hierarchy that defines the location of Francis Brophy on the page? The hotel name refers to a set of line numbers of which line 20 is one member. Would one use, "...sheet 81-A, Gateway Hotel (line 20), Francis Brophy (age 61)...", in order to maintain the correct hierarchy? (Note: the page shows line 20 as being under the "Gateway" hotel, not the "Everett").

Submitted byEEon Fri, 09/30/2022 - 14:06

H-H, yes, I did make a copy-paste error. (Clearly, I should not have attempted to critique a citation before I had my morning coffee. :) Thanks for catching it. I've fixed it, so it will not mislead others.

Re the block nos. with hyphens between:  that is copied exactly as it appears on the census. Not knowing the intent of the enumerator or the manner in which the set of blocks are numbered, EE would not alter the punctuation. Quotation marks would not be inappropriate.

ED = Enumeration District.

As to where in the hierarchy the hotel name should be placed, I debated that also. If we use "sheet 81-A, Gateway Hotel (line 20), then we'd muddy the waters because it's actually line 20 on sheet 81-A but the 5th line under Gateway. For situations such as this, there is no rigid formula. It's a matter of studying what's at hand and trying to report that information as clearly as possible.