Citation of loose page, source unknown, but one repository for the original known

Nancy, for something in your files that was sent to you by someone else, you would normally follow Template 7.  See also EE4 §2.18 "Citing Privately Held Materials."  

Note especially the last line of 2.18. "We do not attempt to cite the archive where we think the original may be held."  Just because someone sent you something and says it is from a certain archive does not mean that it is. Even if it is, you have no way of knowing that it is an exact copy that has not been tampered with.

The first part of 2.18 applies to the other situation you inquired about yesterday.

Nancy, you were wise to track the loose sheet back to the archives. Having done so, you would follow the pattern used at template 8.  The first layer of your citation begins to do so, but stopped short.

A citation to a manuscript in an archive or library needs to specifically say where that manuscript resides--both the repository name and its locale. Your second layer says you received an image by email from the New Glasgow Regional Library on 21 February 2025. That is not the same as telling us that the document is held by the New Glasgow Regional Library. Many libraries supply copies of material from their microfilm or duplicate holdings of collections that reside elsewhere.  Nor does the citation tell us where in this world, the New Glasgow Regional Library is to be found.  That needs to be part of the citation before you add a layer saying that  you had received a copy of that page only, by email from the library. 

In short: first you identify the material, then you identify its location. After that, if there's something special about the means by which you access it, then you can add another layer to explain your access.

The image itself (thanks for supplying!) raises two other issues:

1. Your citation describes the Ritchie Records as "genealogies." Most of your readers will interpret that as "compiled genealogies." But the image you have shared is just a set of cryptic research notes saying that certain names appear in certain published sources, with no relationships at all between the nine names in that image. While the creator of the "papers" may have been a genealogist, it will mislead readers (and yourself down the road after your recollection of this source has gone cold) if your citation calls these "genealogies." 

2. Genealogical standards require us to question the librarian's statement that the Ritchie Records are a "primary source."  That one image has information ranging from 1790 to 1961. The compiler of those notes cannot possibly be a primary source for events that happened across 171 years.

Nancy, let's back up to the email that you got from the library. There it gives you a link to their online catalog where they describe a collection called the "Henry C. Ritchie Records (1956)." It is a two-page catalog discussion. Below is a screen grab.

Note what appears on the first line of the catalog entry. That is the title of the collection.  Below that, the description has three subheads that identify three "sub-groups" or three types of materials within this collection: The Genealogies, The Cemetery Records, and Miscellaneous Materials.

Your latest draft of the citation offers this:

Henry C. Ritchie, “The Genealogies,” pages alphabetic by surname, entry for Andrew, line 8, Hogg page, vol. 26 Hepburn to Hooymans; The Henry Ritchie Collection (1956), New Glasgow Regional Library, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. Brief handwritten notes by Mr. Ritchie on ledger style binder pages, mainly from gravestone information, sometimes correlated with other sources such as the 1938 Pictou census.

Your added description is very helpful.

Using Template 8, you have filled in the fields as shown in black below.

Note EE4 §3.4

​

Note that last line. Also EE4 §3.18 repeats this:

​

In these two sections and throughout the templates as well as subsequent chapters that focus on specific types of records, you’ll find these phrases “if needed” and “as needed.”  Not every building block must (or can) be filled in for every citation because historical materials vary widely. 

Against this foundation, I’m pasting in again your template entries and adding comments in red:

Addressing the issues in red above, we’d have this

The resulting citation would be this:

     1. Henry C. Ritchie, “Henry C. Ritchie Records (1956),” cemetery records arranged by family and by cemetery, vol. 26, “Hepburn to Hooymans,” unnumbered page 87 (family “Hogg"), line 8, entry for Andrew; New Glasgow Regional Library, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, Canada. [Then add your freeform discussion.]

You’ve given us an excellent example of three things: 

• Historical materials are bumfuzzling. Unlike books and articles, historical materials are not organized in one simple way. Each creator had his/her own schemes. Each library or archive has its own scheme. We can start with a template or basic format, but then we have to adapt.
• Citations are bumfuzzling because, before we can cite anything, we have to understand it—and that’s not easy to do when someone circulates one page isolated from some collection somewhere.
• All this is why citations need to be created at the time the researcher accesses the document. That’s the point at which all information needed to identify the source is right there in front of us.

Glad it helps, Nancy.