<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18813"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Sorry Rondina & Harold - here I will have to
disagree with you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Michael</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=rondina.muncy@gmail.com
href="mailto:rondina.muncy@gmail.com">Rondina Muncy</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:03 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=apgpubliclist@apgen.org
href="mailto:apgpubliclist@apgen.org">apgpubliclist@apgen.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [APG Public List] 1840 Census - Citation
Question</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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,
printed or penned on the page 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.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><What do y'all think?><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM, <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:hhsh@earthlink.net">hhsh@earthlink.net</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV class=im> </DIV>Far be it from me to advocate imprecision! But in
this case it's not all that<BR>clear how to be precise -- i.e., how best to
communicate the location, given<BR>the kind of numbering used on these census
forms. Add to the folks who don't<BR>understand "folio" those who think the
stamped number refers to the spread-out<BR>facing pair of bound pages, rather
than to the individual sheet, front and<BR>back. (Told the number "217," I
will turn to the page that has "217" stamped on<BR>it, and I'll probably look
to the page facing that one before I turn 217 over.)<BR>No matter how we
choose to cite, a lot of folks will look first in the wrong<BR>place;
fortunately they'll still be only one page away. I'll follow EE,
which<BR>allows Arne's choice "page 217 (back)" if you want to avoid the
Latin.<BR><BR>Rondina and I are as one on the issue of correcting erroneous
page numbers<BR>introduced by compilers or online providers. I'm inclined to
note the erroneous<BR>number given (just as I note erroneous dates given for
city directories) just<BR>so it's all out there. If EE deals with this issue I
can't find it. What do<BR>y'all think?</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>