Recently I asked a question regarding citing sources the correct way, and got great advice, I have the basics understood more, but in a situation like this it seems more complex on how I would go about citing something like this in RM9, the image is a photograph I took of a Archdiocese record, which was a Certificate of Baptism from another church, what would be the best source type, and how would I go about citing this, would I include the Archdiocese in the title or the Church, or neither or both?
Starting with the repository, its name could be āArchdiocese of Saint Louis Archivesā with its address as recorded on the document; ā20 Archbishop May Drive, Saint Louis, MO 63119ā.
The RootsMagic baptism master source allows for a source name, church and location. The source name could be āCertified copy of baptism certificateā, the church is āSt. Joseph Lithuanianā and āSaint Louis, MOā as its location. The church details and its location are stored in separate fields in the source master.
I am not sure what the number (314.792.7020) is at footer of document and I assume the ledger number 22-11 is the internal document number for this template as used by the Archives of Archdiocese of Saint Louis.
I would probably have a citation as āArchdiocese of Saint Louis Archives; St. Joseph Lithuanian Baptism Register; Seal Date: 5/14/2012; Rev. M.A. Vitkusā but up to you. This style of citation is similar to my London Archive baptism records from Ancestry so I would mimic their style (but they add a reference number). If you have other baptism records, I would suggest to use a similar style to them.
As an aside, the Evidence Explained book previously mentioned covers āChurch Books: Named/Numbered Volume Archived Off-siteā page 312-3 maybe also be useful. In essence, this covers your scenario of the baptism register of St. Joseph Lithuanian being archived at the Archdiocese of Saint Louis Archives.
teddy that is the phone number
Thanks! I got EE (latest edition) on Kindel today, but I donāt quite understand how to translate the format the book provides into RM9, it doesnāt show an exact title, how would I āconvertā Evidences Explainedās format into RM9?
Thanks Nancy, I am not from America but that makes so much sense.
It shows the components of a source, e.g. what should my source contain.
The source list entry shows the source with its components, as well as its repository.
For this example, it showed the Archdiocese as the repository as well as indicated the source to contain church, its location and record series. Plus, it shows the citation details.
RM baptism source allows for sourced name (record series), church, location, and also book number and record book title.
Evidence Explained is not written for RootsMagic, rather RootsMagic and other software would based their source templates on it and other books. The citation quality in RM uses Evidence Explained quality criteria.
If you want to know the best way to document and cite sources, how to determine the quality of evidence they provide, the EE book is brilliant.
I didnāt know if was available on Kindle. Mine is an older copy.
So the source name, did you say that would be what shows up as the record series in EE? Or what fields should I look at in EE for my RM source titles?
The record series should be in the source name. I havenāt checked every source entry in EE to RM source master templates.
In the highly unlikely event, RM misses a field that EE says should be included, I would add that with the record series.
So match EE to RM source master to what you have available to record.
In your baptism case; you donāt know the name of the church book showing the baptism record nor the page number in the parish register, so leave those blank.
Ok thankyou so much, Teddy!
Wait, I just thought of one more question regarding what you said here- So even though the other fields allow for church information, wouldnāt the source name you suggested being something like āCertified Copy of Baptism Certificateā be too generic and leave me with duplicate named sources? I feel like (even though separate fields exist for this) including the church in the actual source name would be more descriptive and not leave me with multiple sources with the same name, because the name was too generic, what do you think- whats the positive of keeping a genric name and is there any negatives to reusing the information in the given fields in the source name aswell?
That is fine to do this.
Ok perfect, i suppose my biggest point of contention is simply with the source names, in summary, do you happen to have a general āruleā for creating source names? Especially ones without an exact title on the document? That should be my last question (hopefully) on this topic!
I tend to have fairly generic source names but you really donāt want duplicate source names as you indicated.
There is a merge duplicate source feature in RM9 but backup and read help before using in future - I havenāt used it since I donāt have duplicates, but I intend to use the merge duplicate citations once I tidy up missing citations from TreeShare.
So I would start generic and add more details as the need arises. You can always edit a source name in RootsMagic if the need arises, and conversely, reuse sources as appropriate (e.g. other baptisms at the same church).
Also, donāt worry about trying to get things perfect straight away. Read the EE book about researching and as your experience grows, you will find a style and approach that works for your research.
If a document doesnāt have a title, the source name should provide a description of what it is.
For you specifically, how do you cite your census records? If you take the āgenericā approach, do you just include āU.S Censusā in the source name or something more specific like āU.S Census 1950ā , for me I tried āU.S Federal Census, 1950, Missouri, Scott County, Enumration District 101-18ā which includes all the details, but that feels like an overlap between whats in the fields provided and the source name, I know its down to personal preference, but given I am trying to adopt alot of the ways you cite your sources, what source name do you include for Census records?
I would probably use* ā1950 United States Federal Censusā which is the same on Ancestry.
- I am not from the United States so other than one distant ancestor whose records got lost in a fire, I donāt have any sources from America. That said, I do have English census sources which use āYYYY England Censusā as their source name.
Ok, thanks again Teddy!
Ah ok, so would anything belonging to the 1950 Census be a citation if it was from the same place in the census, or would each separate place be another source. For example, if you had a 1950 U.S Fed. Census that was taken in Johnson County, KY and another 1950 U.S Fed. Census that was taken in Bell County, Iowa, would both those places be ānestedā under the master source ā1950 U.S Censusā or would they be separate sources since they are from two different places (even though they are from the same year/time) I feel like the option to have separate master sources for each different place āfeelsā correct because the master source template on RM for the U.S Fed. Census asks you to put in a jurisdiction, which would change depending on the place the census is taken, meaning that the only way to see which census is from which place, you would have to have separate sources for separate places/jurisdictions, even if its the census from the same year.
My question is --would the certified copy be considered a derivative / secondary source-- I think the original Baptismal record would be considered an original/ primary source for the Baptism and a derivative/ secondary source for the Birthābut not sure abt a certified copy
Thank you, this is a brilliant question that I have pondered on myself (certified copies).
I would treat it as a derivative, but we need to be careful since p.26 of EE - āSome derivatives might be considered equivalent to originals under certain circumstances. (See Duplicate Originals, 1.25; Image Copies, 1.26; and Recorded Copies, 1.27.)ā and 1.28 covers transcripts at length.
And I would probably treat it as secondary since the archivist writing this baptism certificate was not at the event so maybe that is all that needs to be considered.
The seal reflects the accuracy of the transcription being true to the original but it isnāt the original. It is tricky though as as I type this, I am doubting myself.
1 Like
This is the phone number.
1 Like