Newpaper images from microfilm roll in a collection.

By cwhermann28 on Sun, 02/05/2023 - 22:30

Forums

I am attempting to develop a reference not for images I obtained from newspapers preserved on microfilm held within a collection at a state library.

According to the Library's website:

"Washington State Library holds over 40,000 rolls of 35mm microfilm for Washington newspapers from the territorial period in the 1850s to the present.
This collection is available for in-library use . . . ."

The library also offers to copy the rolls for sale, but I was able to view films via inter-library loan to my local library so I determined I am dealing with a preservation copy. 

Here is a link to the catalog for the filmed newspapers. 

https://stlow.iii.com/search/?searcharg=&searchscope=2&SORT=D&searchtype=Y&searcharg=walla+walla+union&criteria=2

The roll I am initially trying to cite is the last entry for Item No. 5.  Looking at EE 14.22 Newspapers and EE 3.19 Filmed or Fiched Manuscripts, Preservation Copies I came up with the following structure:

  • Layer 1 – the newspaper
  • Layer 2 – the collection (what they call the Location)
  • Layer 3 – film and roll information (what they call the Call No.)
  • Layer 4 – the repository

"Died," Walla Walla (Washington) Union, 18 April 1895, p. 2, col. 3; WSL Newspapers Microfilm Collection; roll titled Newspaper 22/210 1895 Jan 3-Dec 31; Washington State Library, Tumwater, Washington.

I am struggling with the reference by the library to the WSL Newspaper microfilm as a collection and the reference by the library to WSL Newspapers Microfilm as a location.

If I consider it as a collection, should it not be in it's own layer, but if I consider it as a location, I think layers 2 and 3 should be combined into,

WSL Newspapers Microfilm, roll titled Newspaper 22/2210 1895 Jan 3-Dec 31;

There was no label on the film and the box the film came in was marked with the call number Newspaper 22/2210 1895 Jan 3-Dec 31.

Thanks in advance for your insight.

Curt

Submitted byEEon Mon, 02/06/2023 - 08:44

Hello, Curt.  Your instincts are good.  You’re citing two things:

  • The newspaper
  • The microfilm on which the State Library imaged the newspaper file that it owns

Those two things can be cited in just two layers. 

"Died," Walla Walla (Washington) Union, 18 April 1895, p. 2, col. 3, [person’s name]; WSL Newspapers Microfilm Collection; roll titled Newspaper 22/210 1895 Jan 3-Dec 31, Washington State Library, Tumwater, Washington.

The “clean copy” would be this:

"Died," Walla Walla (Washington) Union, 18 April 1895, p. 2, col. 3, [person’s name]; WSL Newspapers Microfilm Collection no. 22/210 1895 Jan 3–Dec 31, Washington State Library, Tumwater.

Explanations:

  1. If there were an outside third party – if the State Library’s microfilm cited some other outside archive that held the papers—then a full citation for your working notes would call for adding a third “citing” layer to say where the originals are.  While I cannot access the film itself and read its prefatory matter, the catalog entry to which you link does not identify an outside source.
  2. Because the “Died” column of most newspapers have multiple entries, your reference note would be more helpful if it cited the one of specific interest.
  3. The other omissions address redundancy.

Submitted bycwhermann28on Mon, 02/06/2023 - 21:30

Thank you,

I noticed in the "clean copy," you replace the semi colon before the repository with a comma, making it part of the layer identifying the microfilm.

 In looking at the examples in EE Chapter 3, specifically the QuickCheck Models, the repository and repository locations are included in their own layer.

Was this a typo or am I misunderstanding that in this case it should be handled differently?

Submitted byEEon Tue, 02/07/2023 - 08:33

Curt, the comma should replace the semicolon in both the marked-up example and the clean-copy example.The guiding principles are these:

  • For an archived record (those in chapter 3), a record we view in the archive that holds it, the longstanding convention is to place a semicolon between major divisions of the citation. The reason is that archived records typically have complex titles and are filed in collections, that are within series, that are within record groups—with all of them having complex titles. Therefore, citing them follows the same comma vs. semicolon rules that apply to narrative writing: items in a series that have internal commas are separated by semicolons. Semicolons are the major division points; commas are minor division points.
  • In the case at hand, we are citing two different things--the original newspaper and the microfilm copy. The semicolon marks the division between those two major things. The internal commas. and the parentheses used for the newspaper's locale constitute the minor-level punctuation separating the elements that identify each major item.