TMG-L ArchivesArchiver > TMG > 2004-10 > 1096902109
From: "Carol Hall" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Census citation (was: "Systems" in general (was: Betty's census ...))
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:01:52 -0700
Since I posted last night, I've been thinking more about this and I've come to some different conclusions about the way I'd like to source the census.
Also, I want to apologize to Terry Reigel. I was a bit testy last night and it may have come across in my post to the list.
On 10/4/2004 at 9:33 AM Lee Hoffman wrote:
>On the other hand, you could use the [SERIES] Source Group to enter the
>series of a census although the [FILM] Source Group would ordinarily be
>used since the enter would be something like:
> "Micropublication Series T9, Roll 23"
> "Micropublication Series T9, Rolls 23-50, 65-75"
I think it makes sense to enter it using both the [SERIES] label and the [FILM] label, as in:
... Microfilm Publication [SERIES]-[FILM] (Full footnote)
... Microfilm Publication [SERIES] (bibliography)
That way there can be a separate source entry for each household, but there is just one bibliographic entry for each year. If you have both the series number and the film number in the bibliography, there will be a separate bibliographic entry for each roll of film. Right? (Just making sure I understand all this. :-)
>A lot depend on how you see the census. Do you see the entires census as
>a single unit of publication? Or is the single unit of publication a county
>or group of counties (e.g. a film roll)?
Actually, I see all the censuses together, from 1790 through 2000, as one entity. They are, collectively, the census. Each enumeration is an edition of the census. Each roll of microfilm is a portion of that edition.(This was all part of the epiphany I had last night. :-) I suppose, technically, that would mean that I could have just one entry in the bibliography for all census information. However, if I consulted several editions of a book and used information from all of them, I would include entries for all of editions in my bibilography, so having an entry for each enumeration of the census is consistent with that idea.
>A lot of the problem with the standard Census Source Types is related to
>the Wholly Genes interpretation of both Lackey and Mills models and
I have the Mills book on my desk at all times. (Good thing it's a hardbound book, or it would have fallen apart years ago.) I have never been able to figure out how the TMG format coincides with the Mills format, even a little bit. I tried it last night. I typed out the Mills example and then tried to put the data into the TMG source template. It just plain didn't work.
Couple this with the fact that I don't particularly like the Mills census format either, and -- voila! -- a whole new Census template. :-)
>>It's not that I adopted Betty's whole system because she had just one
>>source for each census.
>And the problem with that is -- no problem at all _if_ that is the way one
>looks at the census. On the other hand, one may look at the census as 48
>or 50 (for more recent censuses) separate sources or even each of the
>thousands of counties (and similar) as separate Sources. In some cases,
>it may even be that a county would be broken into multiple Sources.
It may very well be. I just really liked the way Betty worded her justification for having only one bibliographic entry for each census year. I think that folks having separate bibliographic entries for every household is fine, if that's what they want to do. I'm a little concerned about paper usage, though. I know that Betty's system isn't the only way of achieving the "one bibliographic entry per census year." But Betty got me to thinking about it.
>The reason I like her citation design is that it follows most closely the
>examples given by the NARA and the Bureau of the Census. That is not to
>say that Mills or Lackey (or anyone else) are wrong, they just don't agree
>with the NARA recommendation. On the other hand, looking at Mills and
>Lackey's designs, I would guess that their reasoning has a lot to do with
>the wordiness of the NARA recommendation. <g> With any of the suggested
>designs, a reader could easily find the desired source document and that
>is the main reason for the citation anyway.
The problem I have with Betty's system now, after my epiphany, is that the whole CD, with roll #, family #, dwelling #, is in every source footnote, while I would rather it only be in the full footnote, with the short footnote being, well, shorter. :-) The only way to achieve that is to have a separate source entry within TMG for each household.
This is what I came up with:
[HOUSEHOLD] household, [EDITION]: [TITLE], [LOCATION], page [PAGE], [RECORD INFO], Microfilm Publication [SERIES]-[FILM]<, [CD]>. (Full footnote)
[HOUSEHOLD] household, [SHORT TITLE], [LOCATION]<, [CD]>. (short footnote)
[AGENCY], [COMPILER]. [EDITION]. Microfilm Publication [SERIES]. [PUBLISHER], [PUBLISHER ADDRESS]. (bibliography)
HOUSEHOLD = The name of the head of the household as it is given in the census
EDITION = "Seventh Census of the U.S., 1870" (or whatever is appropriate)
TITLE = "Population Schedule" (or "Free Population Schedule" or "Slave Schedule" or ... )
LOCATION = City, County, State (including Ward or Township or Post Office or Institution )
RECORD INFO = Family #, Dwelling # (could also include Sheet #, Enumeration District #, Line Numbers -- whatever you feel is necessary, as long as you're consistent)
SERIES = (whatever the series number for that year's microfilm is)
FILM = (the particular roll of microfilm that holds this particular household's census information)
SHORT TITLE = "1870 US Census" (or whatever the year is)
AGENCY = "US Dept of Commerce"
COMPILER = "Bureau of the Census"
PUBLISHER = "National Archives"
PUBLISHER ADDRESS = "Washington DC"
I like to put the definitions in the Supplemental area of the Source definition so I don't forget what something like [RECORD INFO] is supposed to contain.
To me, this is the best of all possible worlds. I had first put the [TITLE] variable in the bibliography as well, but then I remembered that there are different schedules for some years. Both the "Free Population Schedule" and the "Slave Schedule" are part of the census, but if the [TITLE] is in the bibliography and both are included as sources, there will be two bibliographic entries. I don't think its removal from the bibliographic entry detracts at all.
Carol Thatcher Hall
|RE: [TMG] Census citation (was: "Systems" in general (was: Betty's census ...)) by "Carol Hall" <>|