Colonial Census at State Archive

Hello, smmatteson. Your revised draft, following EE3 6.46, is much improved. We have just three wrinkles to iron out:

Wrinkle 1

In a layered citation, elements that describe one layer should not be placed in the other layer. Your second draft has two layers

• 1774 census, Kent County, Rhode Island, “Colony of Rhode Island census, 1774,” p. 7, line 17, Abraham Matteson household;
• Digital image, Rhode Island Digital Archives (https://sosri.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_2228b998-893a-4430-a961-86c14b0c1387 : accessed 26 Dec 2023) > 1774_148.

The title “Colony of Rhode Island census, 1774” is not the title of the original census. That is a label that the website has given to one waypoint on its path to your page of interest. That archive/website label should not be cited in the layer in which you identify the original census.

Image 1 for this census shows the actual title that is on the volume: Census of the Colony of Rhode Island, 1774.

If you wish, your citation might use this exact title, in quotes, at the point where you quoted the website waypoint. However, the convention for citing state and federal censuses in the U.S. is to cite the year and the state generically so that all citations to that jurisdiction will be uniform.  The convention is also to cite the year and the authorizing agency (either U.S. or state name), followed by the county, town, etc. In this case, it was not Kent County that authorized and conducted this census. It was the State of Rhode Island that authorized it and conducted it. 

Issue 2

The page you cite as “p. 7” is not page 7 for Kent County. It is page 7 for the town of West Greenwich.  If you use the browse feature to examine the whole census and how it is arranged, you’ll see other counties and other towns, for which each starts numbering at page 1. The specific town needs to be cited before the page number

Both points considered for Layer 1 would give us this:

1774 Rhode Island census, Kent County, West Greenwich, p. 7, line 17, Abraham Matteson household;

Issues 3–4

The title of the website is missing one word. Also, after the URL in Layer 2, you cite the image number as a waypoint, but do not say what that number represents. That’s needed for clarity. Given that the URL is long and that an oh-so-easy accidental omission of one character or the addition of a space could invalidate it, it would be wise to include all waypoints in the path (information we find toward the top of the page).  Addressing both issues would give us this

digital image, Rhode Island State Digital Archives (https://sosri.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_2228b998-893a-4430-a961-86c14b0c1387 : accessed 26 Dec 2023) > Browse Archive > … > Colony of Rhode Island census > Colony Census, 1774  > image  1774_148.

The two layers would combine to create this:

1774 Rhode Island census, Kent County, West Greenwich, p. 7, line 17, Abraham Matteson household; digital image, Rhode Island State Digital Archives (https://sosri.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_2228b998-893a-4430-a961-86c14b0c1387 : accessed 26 Dec 2023) > Browse Archive > … > Colony of Rhode Island census > Colony Census, 1774  > image  1774_148.

Hello, smmatteson. You write:

>You talk about both Source list and Working source list. The working version can contain “essential details about those materials”. I assume these are details about the source and not about the *information* contained within, right? The details would only be stripped out for publication.

My response to your first posting speaks of the difference between a “Full Reference Note” and a “Source List Entry.” You speak of the difference between “Source List” and “Working source list.” To make sure our thoughts are aligning, I'll address both notes and source list entries here.  

In the Fundamentals of Citation chapter, EE3 2.10 (or EE4 2.4) presents and defines the “five basic terms”:

• First Reference Note
• Subsequent Note
• Source List
• Source List Entry
• Master Source

Reference Notes—both the first full reference and the subsequent notes—are significantly different in style and content from Source List Entries. The differences are essential, not whimsical.   

• Source List Entries provide generic details about the source. If we cite a book, for example, we do not cite the exact page number in the book. If we’re citing a census of a certain county in a certain year, we do not cite the specific page or household identity. 
• Reference Notes provide everything that appears in the Source List Entry, and adds specific details that are necessary to locate the exact information we are attributing to that source.

Searching my Kindle version for the words you place in quotes, I find them at EE3 2.4 under "Citations, Types of."  There the full passage is this:

"While our research is ongoing, our working source list helps us keep track of the materials we have examined, along with essential details about those materials. When we publish our findings, the source list is commonly called a bibliography. There, it typically omits descriptive data, because its function is to provide readers with a convenient list of key materials."

On this foundation, the answer to your question "I assume these are details about the source and not about the *information* contained within, right?" would be this:  Source lists and reference notes should focus on the source, not the information within the source. Information contained within a source should go in our transcript or abstract (in the working stage) and in our narrative (in the publication or distribution stage). 

In answer to your follow-up statement: The details would only be stripped out for publication:  In the course of research, we may include in our working source list all sorts of things that we think may help us--for example, the identity of a library that carries a certain publication and the library's call numbers for that publication. Details of that type would be omitted from the published citation.

Also note that formatting is also significantly different between Reference Notes and Source List Entries. Those differences matter, which is why I asked why you drafted a citation that was a hybrid between the two.

• Source List Entries are written paragraph-style, with periods between each piece of identifying information. Each Source List Entry identifies only one source. Multiple sources are never included in one entry.
• Reference Notes are written sentence-style. All pieces of information that identify a source are contained within the same sentence—with one period at the end of all essential details for that source. If multiple sources need to be cited in the same reference note (as when a statement in the text is supported by multiple sources), then each source is placed in its own sentence.

In your first draft above, your Full Reference Note cited only one source but divided those details into three different sentences—implying that the details identify three separate sources.

You also write:

>In Reference notes you say to cite “the specific part that provides the information we are using”. If that means page, line, etc. but *nothing else* then where do we record the info (using my last post) about Abraham’s household?

This is addressed at

• EE3 6.6 (or EE4 7.5) Citing Household Heads or Others of Interest
• EE3 6.7 (or EE4 7.6) Citing Line Numbers
• EE3 6.8 (or EE4 7.7) Citing Page, Folio, or Sheet Numbers

I'm not sure why you say “page, line, etc. but nothing else.

smmatteson, there absolutely is no rule saying "no genealogical data is included in a citation."  The issue is not "genealogical data" at all.  Any information used for our genealogical research is genealogically useful and  researchers who try to bifurcate source material into "genealogical" and "non-genealogical" are building their own brick wall.

We include in a citation (a) details needed to relocate the source and the specific data therein; (b) details needed to analyze the source's validity or credibility; or (c) details needed to understand why that source is cited for a certain fact or opinion asserted in the text, when the connection is not obvious.

Regarding your statement:

"Abraham Matteson entry" replaced by "Abraham Matteson entry 2M> 16, 0M<16, 1F> 16, 4F<16".

Recording how many males and females a census assigns to this-or-that age group is part of the document's internal data that should be recorded, analyzed, and/or discussed within in your research notes. That information is not needed to relocate the record. It's not needed to analyze the record's validity. It's not needed to understand why Abraham Matteson's entry is cited for a narrative's statement about Abraham Matteson.