How do I find the correct citation for a reported obituary?
A FamilySearch query located an obituary for a person of interest and provided the reference source as the GenealogyBank Historical Newspaper Obituaries, 1815-2011. The copy of the obituary could not be provided because of contract considerations with GenealogyBank. A search of the GenealogyBank database could not locate the obituary. Would appreciate your help in locating the source of the obit and a copy of it. Peter Fuengerlings died Mar 13, 1926 in San Antonio, Texas. The FamilySearch citation indicates the obituary appeared in the San Antonio Express on March 16, 1926. Thanks for your help! Ron Thren
Best Answers
-
GenealogyBank's list of newspapers indicates that it does not have the "San Antonio Express" from 1926.
0 -
I found the 1926 "San Antonio Express" on Newspaperarchive.com. The obituary is on page 15, column 2, very top of the column. https://newspaperarchive.com/san-antonio-express-mar-16-1926-p-15/
0
Answers
-
So a couple of strange things. Despite GenealogyBank's index saying they don't have the newspaper and your search not finding it, it is on GenealogyBank according to the FamilySearch database. And the FamilySearch entry states it is viewable to anyone signed into FamilySearch:
So you should b able to see it:
I can only see a low-resolution image of the Newspaper Archive. Here is the image on FamilySearch
0 -
Thank you both very much for your help. I can't say that I understand why I was unable to view the obit from my record search on FamilySearch. I was logged into my account as usual. I also don't understand the cited reference on the FamilySearch record. But I do have the obit now thanks to your efforts. Thanks again for your quick response. - Ron Thren
1 -
There are some GenealogyBank records that are only viewable by church members and/or at the FHC/affiliate. I have an active sub to GenealogyBank, to which I am signed in, and I am signed in on FamilySearch. I cannot see that obituary from home.
0 -
So is the on screen notice wrong?
0 -
No - however, The access is restricted if not logged in under a member of The Church of Jesus Christ account. So it's probably best not to share the image. If logged in under a public account - Image access returns:
Idea: What I would like to see different in this message is a referral link to the partner/record custodian or even better a search result (using the previous entered criteria) at that partner site (that's down the road a ways I suspect). Yep those are Ideas and I/others have already suggested them.
As far as why the GenealogyBank collection did not return the result when searching...
If you Find by Collection you will see several GenealogyBank collections. The obituary is only found in collection: United States, GenealogyBank Historical Newspaper Obituaries, 1815-2011
And as to why the access restriction didn't specifically refer to GenealogyBank ... It appears as though GenealogyBank shared the collection with FamilySearch when it was initially computer indexed - but the current license is with newspaperarchive.com (as Aine mentioned). Yes that is a little confusing - however, if my idea above were followed the current partner/record custodian would be properly identified and that would ease finding of the record image (oh well it will probably get there eventually - just not now).
1 -
FYI - my access to the NewspaperArchive is through my library. I know quite a few libraries offer access, including some from home.
1 -
So the comment I see is still incomplete. It should say "The image is visible to you because of the kind of FamilySearch account you have."
These messages have been a confusing issue for some time, I know.
I posted the image to show that as far as I was told by the message, anyone with a FamilySearch account should be able to see the image. And the image to prove that it really was there.
1 -
I agree.
OR
Idea: For ease of those helping in Community it would be best if the message received were posted on all 'image access/restriction' posts. That way anyone helping can know whether it is an account type access issue when attempting to duplicate.
1 -
There was a message a few years ago that contained that information. It was changed.
1 -
Ah - that would be much more clear (though of course the FHC/FAL restriction may be separate too). Though I still like the future idea that they could just include the link to the partner/record custodian.
1 -
Yes, that was much clearer. My date on that snip is 2017 - I don't know exactly when that one went away.
0