Citing Ireland deeds from FamilySearch digital microfilm

Kevin. EE3r at 10.6 has an example of citing a deed that FamilySearch first microfilmed and then put online. See, specifically, "First Reference Note."

Would you try reworking your citation draft following this pattern? You should have only one sentence, with two layers—the first for the original register; the second for FS. In a reference note, all the details for one source go in one sentence. The layers are separated by a semicolon.

Incidentally, your URL goes to a FamilySearch cataloging page, not to a specific roll of film. To find your film 563435 (or 8137411), your reader has to go through 27 pages for that cataloging entry, reading line by line. It would help tremendously if you'd cite the URL for that specific roll of film where you used "image 425."

Kevin, learning to cite history resources can indeed be "overwhelming." Unlike the standard citations to books and articles that we learned in school, history sources vary one from the other in endless ways. EE, since it was released in 2007, has carried two fundamental chapters for the analysis and citation of evidence. They're lengthy, but they need to be absorbed. Many of the issues that have bumfuzzled you are covered there. In the discussion that follows, I'll point you to specific sections.

Your first draft of the citation offers this:

Ireland, Registry of Deeds, "Ireland Transcripts of memorials of deeds, conveyances and wills, 1708-1929",    Volume 100, No 161 and 162.  No 161 Certification of Registration of Title, Memorial.  11 July 1912.  Andrew John Crawford of Magherashanvally Castlefin Co Donegal farmer.  Folio # 6651.  29 acres and 3 roods and 0 perches.  No 162 Certification of Registration of Title, Memorial.  11 July 1912.  David Alexander Crawford of Magherashanvally Castlefin Co Donegal farmer.  Folio # 6652.  58 acres and 0 roods and 10 perches; FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/185720 : accessed 4 Feb 2019), "Deeds, etc., v. 96-101 1912".  FHL Digitized Film 563435, DGS 8137411, Image 425.

Your second draft fixes the problem of using 11 sentences to cite one source.  As noted last night: all the citation elements for one source should appear in the same sentence. Below, I've added color added to separate the layers of your citation sentence:

Ireland, Registry of Deeds, "Ireland Transcripts of memorials of deeds, conveyances and wills, 1708-1929",    Volume 100, No 162 Certification of Registration of Title, Memorial, 11 July 1912, David Alexander Crawford of Magherashanvally Castlefin Co Donegal farmer, Folio # 6652, 58 acres and 0 roods and 10 perches; consulted as "???" , browsable images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK3-SSTN-J?mode=g&cat=185720) : accessed 4 Feb 2019), "Deeds, etc., v. 96-101 1912", FHL Film 563435, DGS 8137411, Image 425 of 542.

An Evidence Style citation would be this:

Ireland, Registry of Deeds, Transcripts of Memorials of Deeds, Conveyances, and Wills, “Liber 100, 1912,” entry nos. 161–62, citing folio 6652–53; imaged, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSK3-SSTN-J : accessed 4 February 2019) > Image Group Number (IGN) 8137411 > image 425 of 542.

EXPLANATIONS

Separation of layers:

Layer 1 of your citation is intended to cite the original volume and page. Layer 2 is intended to cite the website that provides the images. The fundamental rule for layers (common sense, actually) is that details that describe each entity are kept within the layer for that entity.  (QuickLesson 19: Layered Citations … (https://www.evidenceexplained.com/content/quicklesson-19-layered-citations-work-layered-clothing) provides a more-extensive discussion.)  This basic principle comes into play in the next issue below.

Title of record used:

The label you have given to this volume, “Ireland transcripts of memorials of deeds, conveyances and wills, 1708-1929,” is not the identity of the one volume you have used. The cover of the volume has been filmed. Nowhere on that cover do we find those words.

Those words are taken from FHL’s catalog data that describes an entire series, with hundreds of rolls. (See  EE 2.22 Citing Titles >  Titled, but Unpublished Manuscript and EE 2.27. The latter explicitly states:

2.27 FHL [now FamilySearch] Film of Unpublished Records

Records of local, state, and federal agencies, when filmed by GSU and consulted at FHL, are cited the same way we would cite those records if we used them in their original depositories—after which we add the FHL film number. To create our citation, we should copy precisely the label from each filmed book or file. If a register or file is not labeled, we should look for the target that the GSU images placed at the start of the material. … Be aware, however, that the FHL catalog description frequently uses a generic label to describe the contents of an entire roll. The actual title of a specific register or file may not appear in the cataloging entry.

The actual label on the volume is “Liber 100, 1912.”    Given that “Liber 100” is not self explanatory—it raises the question: Liber 100 of what series?—we add generic words to identify the series we are using.  FHL target for that specific book provides us with a generic description for that specific book:  Registry of Deeds, Transcripts of Memorials of Deeds, Conveyances, and Wills ... 1912 ... volume 100.  We may use those words as a descriptive label, in lieu of an exact title. But, we do not place those words in quotation marks because we are not quoting the actual title on the book. (EE 2.22)

Nonessential elements:

After its identification of the book and entry number, your draft states:

Certification of Registration of Title, Memorial, 11 July 1912, David Alexander Crawford of Magherashanvally Castlefin Co Donegal farmer, Folio # 6652, 58 acres and 0 roods and 10 perches;

All of these are details that belong in our research notes, not our citation. Our research notes are where we transcribe or abstract our records. Remember the two purposes of a citation, as stated in EE's preface: (a) to relocate the record; and (b) to provide details that affect our analysis of this record.  As examples:

• If this were a 1832 document recorded in a 1912 register, then we would note the date of the original document.
• If the nature of the records we are citing requires an identity of the people involved, then we would identify them; but that is not the situation with this record.
• The number of acres, roods, and perches does not affect our ability to relocate the record; and it does not affect our evaluation of the credibility of the record.

EE 10.5–10.8 (basic formats for deeds) discuss these issues in greater detail.

You also question whether multiple deeds can be cited in the same citation. Absolutely. (See EE 10.12 Multiple Deeds Cited Together.) The reason you are wrestling with this is because your citation to each deed includes those nonessentials.  Citing multiple deeds in a citation, if you put your abstracts of the deeds into the citations, would be unwieldy and confusing.

Citing folio numbers

These should be included in the citation to the source. The folio number cited by the registration itself is an internal cross-reference that refers to another record within that agency’s series of records. This piece of information tells us that there should be another register, somewhere, with perhaps more information.  ( See EE 10.16 > Citing Cross-Reference).

Capitalization

Capitalizing many words in a citation affects our readers ability to comprehend that citation. By rules that govern English, only proper nouns and words within titles are capitalized. We do not capitalize common words such as volume, number, memorial, folio, etc. (EE 2.59 –2.62). Observing this rule helps the readers of our citation quickly locate, amid the dense text of a citation, the title of what we’re citing.

“consulted as "???"

I’m not sure why you included this or what it represents.

Citing URLs

The URL you give in your second draft leads us directly to the specific image group. From there, using your cited image number, we can go instantly to the exact document. Readers appreciate this.

You might (in the interest of saving space) drop the question mark and everything after it.  In saying this, I should also add a caution. This practice works for FS URLs and many URLs at other sites.  However, at some sites, it does not work.  Anytime we shorten a URL we should test the shorter version in a separate browser where that page is not already in our cache.

You’ve questioned the permanence of ARKs, PALs, and URLs.  Realistically, we cannot assume that any of these are permanent. That's why we take care to identify the original register or file as precisely as possible so it can be relocated, even without the URL, at its archive or at another provider’s site.

FHL Film 563435, DGS 8137411

Here, we have a can of worms, as things are in transition. FHL (Family History Library) is, of course, now FamilySearch Library (FSL). In our citations to material at its website, we generally use just FS. 

FS’s cataloging entries currently carry two identifiers for most film. (This fairly new issue has been discussed in several recent threads here in the Citation Issues Forum.) On each cataloging page, the header for each column of numbers is as follows:

• "Film": This represents the library’s original cataloging number for the film roll and that number appears at the start of each roll.  It is an essential identifier only if we must use the original roll of microfilm. If we want to include it in our “working citations,” that’s fine; we can include anything in our working citations that we think will help us use that source. In a finished citation for publication, it would not be used.
• Image Group Number (DGS): As written, this header suggests that we should use DGS as its acronym, which is illogical on its face. (DGS was the acronym for the shortlived “Digital Genealogical Society” that replaced the old “Genealogical Society of Utah.”) 

Last May, amid preparing the 4^th edition of EE, which was released this week, I queried the Chief Genealogical Officer of FamilySearch on this point and was told that FS is ‘in transition’ from one set of terms to another and that the appropriate term to use as an acronym for Image Group Number is IGN. Thus, that acronhm is used in the Evidence Style citation above and in the newly released 4th edition.

 

Kevin, you wrote at Point 2:

It is helpful to have that clarification about what goes in the research note instead, and I'm happy the citation is now smaller.  To make sure I understand, for my more traditional land deeds where person X sells to person Y, you are saying it's appropriate then to have that detail in the citation, right?

The bottom line here is that every time we cite a source, we ask ourselves: what details do I need to include to ensure that (a) the source is relocatable; and (b) I and others can understand why I'm citing this source for the piece of information to which is attached—and why I feel the information is reliable.

There are times when we may need to cite the parties in the deed—and times we may not. Let's say that in our narrative we state that Jack Whozit owned land on Watermelon Creek in 1852; to support that, we cite the Deed Book 23, p. 237.  Then the user goes to Deed Book 23 and sees a longggggg deed from John Jones to Sam Smith. The first reaction of most users of our citation (who, all too often, don't want to plow through, line by line, all the metes-and-bounds "rigmarole" for 27 calls) will be Hunh? Is the wrong source cited here? This is a Jones-Smith deed, not a Jack Whozit deed."  And sometimes, when we come back to our own citation, after we've gone cold on that issue, we'll wonder that ourselves. Then we have to relocate the deed and check ourselves.) We can forestall questions by simply stating in the citation that it's a Smith-Jones deed.

Point 3: You are totally right.

Point 4: The "bridge words" we use to connect Layer 1 (the original record) with Layer 2 (the online image provider) are not formulaic words that cannot be changed. We choose the best wording to reflect what we've done or what the situation is.  (Back to EE 2.1: Citation is an art, not a science.)

Point 5: I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly here. "Liber 100" is the same thing as "volume 100" or "book 100." If we're quoting a register's cover, we use the exact wording.  We do that because, in some locales, the first clerk began a series with the Latin phrase "Liber."  Many years later, another clerk may start a new series of that same record type and label that series "volume ....".

Sell EE3r?  I'm sitting here with five past volumes of Chicago Manual of Style on my shelf.  As with EE, each new edition addresses new things and, for space reasons, drops older things. As history researchers, we still use materials and media that may not be obsolete, no?