[APG Public List] 1840 Census - Citation Question

[hhsh at earthlink.net]

Michael --

Thank you for *looking* at the censuses we were talking about! No wonder I 
found the recommended method of citation confusing and thought others would.

Harold

> 
> Sorry Rondina & Harold - here I will have to disagree with you.
> 
> Entries in the 1830 & 1840 census stretch across the left and right sides. To 
> cite the left side as say 215 (back) or 215 (verso), and the right side as 216 
> (front), etc., would then split the single entry across two pages.
> 
> But take this back to the very first stamped page. The right hand side under 
> your system would be cited as page 1 (front), and the left side would be cited 
> as... what? Page zero (back)? Not likely.
> 
> The stamped numbers were specifically intended to cover the left and right hand 
> sides of these pages, in the sense of folios, not the front and back of the 
> sheet of paper. So why cite them otherwise?
> 
> Michael
> 
> From: Rondina Muncy 
> Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:03 PM
> To: apgpubliclist at apgen.org 
> Subject: Re: [APG Public List] 1840 Census - Citation Question
> 
> 
> 
> I think the use of *back* and *front* communicates more easily, but I just 
> can't bring myself to use those terms. The only reason I don't use folio is 
> because the concept, although very simple, is not easily communicated (as 
> Arne's question indicates). If someone looks up *recto* or *verso* the 
> definitions are straight-forward.
> 
> I cite the page number as if I were looking at the microfilm myself. NOTE: I 
> also cite the source of the digital image. The same thing happens with, say, 
> GoogleBooks. The *page* number that is assigned is not the actual page number 
> in the book. I never cite the assigned page number from the provider. The 
> assigned number may not be the same in the future, the actual number stamped, 
> printedor penned on thepage remains the same. Besides, Lord knows, my 
> citations are long enough. (Please note that this rule does not always apply. 
> If I am looking at an image on the Texas State Library and Archives web site 
> that has been assigned a number (PDF, TIFF, JPEG) that image number is 
> connected to that image and must be included in the web address for that image. 
> Just to confuse matters.)
> 
> <What do y'all think?>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM, <hhsh at earthlink.net> wrote:
>     
> Far be it from me to advocate imprecision! But in this case it's not all that
> clear how to be precise -- i.e., how best to communicate the location, given
> the kind of numbering used on these census forms. Add to the folks who don't
> understand "folio" those who think the stamped number refers to the spread-out
> facing pair of bound pages, rather than to the individual sheet, front and
> back. (Told the number "217," I will turn to the page that has "217" stamped on
> it, and I'll probably look to the page facing that one before I turn 217 over.)
> No matter how we choose to cite, a lot of folks will look first in the wrong
> place; fortunately they'll still be only one page away. I'll follow EE, which
> allows Arne's choice "page 217 (back)" if you want to avoid the Latin.
> 
> Rondina and I are as one on the issue of correcting erroneous page numbers
> introduced by compilers or online providers. I'm inclined to note the erroneous
> number given (just as I note erroneous dates given for city directories) just
> so it's all out there. If EE deals with this issue I can't find it. What do
> y'all think?
> 



Harold Henderson
Research and Writing from Northwest Indiana
hhsh at earthlink.net
home office 219/324-2620
http://www.midwestroots.net
http://midwesternmicrohistory.blogspot.com