NF How to cite sources?

[Mike Serpa]

I'm reading Civil War Curiosities (1994) by Webb Garrison. It has hundreds of anecdotes. Each a paragraph or two long. A Selected Bibliography is at the back of the book. No source is listed after each anecdote.

On page 193, "... Lincoln died on a hastily commandeered bed once occupied by John Wilkes Booth when a friend of his was renting from Petersen." Is Garrison the first person to write about this? How does one find the source for this without reading the several dozen books in the bibliography? What is the proper way to cite the original source material?

When does a source need to mentioned? It might be common knowledge that the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in July 1863 so maybe a source isn't need when writing this? What about writing something more specific about Gettysburg like 'Dan Sickles lost his leg at Gettysburg when it was shattered by a cannonball.' Would that statement need a citation?

I hope this makes sense. And I'm hoping some of our authors will have answers. Thanks.

 

[Patrick H]

Mike, I don't have a good answer to your question. I've noticed that older books tend to use the footnote system, referring to the various sources referenced on that page or on that spread of the book. More recently, books tend to use the chapter note system. This varies a bit, too. I recently read one where the chapter notes started over with number one for each new chapter. This works fine as long as you're sure you are referring to the correct chapter when you check the notes. Last night I finished a newly republished and annotated book where the "notes to chapters" simply started at number 1 and ran straight through to about number 70. In other words, they didn't restart with each new chapter. This was very easy to follow, and I checked most of the notes as I read along.

I've often mentioned that one of my favorite examples of footnotes was in Connelley's QUANTRILL AND THE BORDER WARS. It's a bit unorthodox. Connelley's footnotes were every bit a voluminous as his main text, and every bit as interesting. The first time I read the book, I realized upon finishing that I had lapsed into reading only the bottom half of each page, because his footnotes occupied that much space and they were that interesting! For that reason, I always recommend to people that they download the book in PDF form, so they can see and enjoy the footnotes as originally formatted. I don't believe that is possible in the Kindle version.

 

[JOHN42768]

I believe the foot note should be exactly that, at the bottom of the referenced page. They also should be more informative instead of "National Archives" for example. I dislike flipping back and forth .

 

[FarawayFriend]

When does a source need to mentioned? It might be common knowledge that the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in July 1863 so maybe a source isn't need when writing this? What about writing something more specific about Gettysburg like 'Dan Sickles lost his leg at Gettysburg when it was shattered by a cannonball.' Would that statement need a citation?

I hope this makes sense. And I'm hoping some of our authors will have answers. Thanks.

I'm no author, but I'm frequently helping authors with their bibliographies, so I know a bit of that also.

There are certain rules what to do when sources are used in a text. They vary a bit from institution to institution but basically they are as Princeton University describes them in the quoted text below. Now your book is probably not too "scientific" (but probably very interesting!) so a reduced version might apply. But simply name a bunch of book titles and let the reader struggle with them is bad behaviour and the editor should have protested against it. Here comes how it should be made (more or less):

"An important general rule is this: if you are unsure whether or not to acknowledge a source, always err on the side of caution and completeness by citing rather than not citing.

Quotations
Any quotations, however small, must be placed in quotation marks or clearly indented beyond the regular margin. Any quotation must be accompanied (either within the text or in a footnote) by a precise indication of the source—identifying the author, title, place and date of publication (where relevant), and page numbers. Any sentence or phrase which is not the original work of the student must be acknowledged.


Paraphrasing

Any material which is paraphrased or summarized must also be specifically acknowledged in a footnote or in the text. A thorough rewording or rearrangement of an author's text does not relieve one of this responsibility. Occasionally, students maintain that they have read a source long before they wrote their papers and have unwittingly duplicated some of its phrases or ideas. This is not a valid excuse. The student is responsible for taking adequate notes so that debts of phrasing may be acknowledged where they are due.


Ideas and Facts

Any ideas or facts which are borrowed should be specifically acknowledged in a footnote or in the text, even if the idea or fact has been further elaborated by the student. Some ideas, facts, formulas, and other kinds of information which are widely known and considered to be in the "public domain" of common knowledge do not always require citation. The criteria for common knowledge vary among disciplines; students in doubt should consult a member of the faculty.
Occasionally, a student in preparing an essay has consulted an essay or body of notes on a similar subject by another student. If the student has done so, the student must state that fact and indicate clearly the nature and extent of their indebtedness to the other source. The name and class of the author of an essay or notes which are consulted should be given, and the student should be prepared to show the work consulted to the instructor, if requested to do so.


Footnotes and Bibliography

All the sources that have been consulted in the preparation of an essay or report should be listed in a bibliography, unless specific guidelines (from the academic department or instructor) request that only works cited be so included. However, the mere listing of a source in a bibliography shall not be considered a "proper acknowledgment" for specific use of that source within the essay or report; a footnote or endnote must also appear after the information or quotation from that source. Neither shall the use of a footnote at the end of a sentence or paragraph in which only minor word changes have been made from the original source be considered "proper acknowledgment." The extent of indebtedness to the author must be made clear.
http://www.princeton.edu/pub/rrr/part2/index.xml#comp24

 

[Mike Serpa]

Mike, I don't have a good answer to your question. I've noticed that older books tend to use the footnote system, referring to the various sources referenced on that page or on that spread of the book. More recently, books tend to use the chapter note system. This varies a bit, too. I recently read one where the chapter notes started over with number one for each new chapter. This works fine as long as you're sure you are referring to the correct chapter when you check the notes. Last night I finished a newly republished and annotated book where the "notes to chapters" simply started at number 1 and ran straight through to about number 70. In other words, they didn't restart with each new chapter. This was very easy to follow, and I checked most of the notes as I read along.

I've read books where 25% of the pages cited sources.

I believe the foot note should be exactly that, at the bottom of the referenced page. They also should be more informative instead of "National Archives" for example. I dislike flipping back and forth .

I agree.

I'm no author, but I'm frequently helping authors with their bibliographies, so I know a bit of that also.

There are certain rules what to do when sources are used in a text. They vary a bit from institution to institution but basically they are as Princeton University describes them in the quoted text below. Now your book is probably not too "scientific" (but probably very interesting!) so a reduced version might apply. But simply name a bunch of book titles and let the reader struggle with them is bad behaviour and the editor should have protested against it. Here comes how it should be made (more or less):

Wow! That covers just about everything! Thanks.

 

[DaveBrt]

Rule of Thumb: If my average reader will know this information and its not a quotation, no attribution; if the information is not commonly known by the anticipated readers, use a footnote.

You may like FOOTnotes, but many readers prefer to not have to deal with them. Even the "check every footnote" guy will not be doing so if he reads the page a second time. I think ENDnotes, with the page numbers covered listed at the top of the page, is the most user friendly for the reading public.

 

[USS ALASKA]

I think ENDnotes, with the page numbers covered listed at the top of the page, is the most user friendly for the reading public.

My preference sir!

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[chucksr]

Your two Gettysburg examples would not need footnoting, however, the "Lincoln died in a bed once occupied by J.W. Booth most certainly would since I don't believe that is common knowledge--as a matter of fact, after all these years and all the books and articles I have read about the assassination, I do not recall ever seeing that "irony" reported.

 

[Pat Young]

My blog posts for The Immigrants' Civil War follow the rule that every fact asserted, beyond those that are common knowledge, has at least one source. I asked my readers about this and the response was not focused on making sure I wasn't making things up, it was out of a desire to do further research on their own.

Some publishers like History Press don't allow extensive footnoting. I think authors should place footnotes for these books online.

 

[AndyHall]

On page 193, "... Lincoln died on a hastily commandeered bed once occupied by John Wilkes Booth when a friend of his was renting from Petersen." Is Garrison the first person to write about this? How does one find the source for this without reading the several dozen books in the bibliography? What is the proper way to cite the original source material?

Sorry about that, Mike. I can only suppose that Garrison and/or the publisher figured that for a general-interest audience, detailed citations weren't necessary. They are.

When does a source need to mentioned? It might be common knowledge that the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in July 1863 so maybe a source isn't need when writing this? What about writing something more specific about Gettysburg like 'Dan Sickles lost his leg at Gettysburg when it was shattered by a cannonball.' Would that statement need a citation?

Others may disagree, but I wouldn't offer a cite for either of those, as I consider them to be (unlike the Booth anecdote) common knowledge. Now if you gave a more detailed description of Sickles' wounding, or that event was of some particular importance in what you're writing, then yes.

 

[AndyHall]

Some publishers like History Press don't allow extensive footnoting. I think authors should place footnotes for these books online.

Back in the old days (2014), History Press was fine with endnotes, and I don't recall any limitations on them, so long as they fit within the (fairly rigid) restrictions for the overall length of the work. Not sure what their policy is since they sold their souls to Beelzebub merged with Arcadia.

 

[Mike Serpa]

Thanks for all y'alls input! (It's a good thing I have no plans to be an author.)

 

[gary]

I'm old fashioned and like footnotes at the bottom of the page (immediate access).
The more modern way to to have endnotes at the end of the chapter (less distracting) or collected at the conclusion of the book. While it is less distracting, if you want to find the endnote, you have to work for it (and sometimes I use two bookmarks).

In my opinion the worst way is when endnotes for a paragraph are lumped into one note. Now you have to figure out which one is the one you want to research.

For endnotes/footnotes, refer to the Chicago Manual of Style.

 

[DaveGberg]

As a side note, this thread reminds me of a high school lesson where my English teacher handed us a single sheet of text, replete with footnotes and general sources and we were assigned to locate all the original material (most of which were located at a university library) and then write the footnotes using the precise editorial standards for each. At first I thought the assignment was lame because it didn't involve any original work on my part but by the end I came to appreciate the extent of research and exacting detail that was required. It's one of the few specific high school assignments that I still remember to this day.

 

[huskerblitz]

I hate Chicago citations. Uhg...

 

[István.AT]

A little late answer, but I wanted to clear for myself how things are on our site of the borders.
It depends on how scientific your work is. If it is strictly scientific analysis of events, whose audience are other scientists and researchers, almost every fact and statement would need a citation. I'd go as far as even giving a citation for your Gettysburg examples. The author here aims not to narrate the events in a readable way, but to prove some point or give solution to some scientific question.

The more popular your work become, less citations there will be, since lots and lots of citations would just distract the reader from a narrative. No "Golden Standard" here, it comes down how the author sees his audiences and what he thinks as a common knowledge for his audience. CK needs no citations, statements that are far outside of CK boundaries (or even contradict the CK) definitely need.

I'm not sure, but I think it's very similar in US.

 

[Mike Serpa]

A little late answer, but I wanted to clear for myself how things are on our site of the borders.
It depends on how scientific your work is. If it is strictly scientific analysis of events, whose audience are other scientists and researchers, almost every fact and statement would need a citation. I'd go as far as even giving a citation for your Gettysburg examples. The author here aims not to narrate the events in a readable way, but to prove some point or give solution to some scientific question.

The more popular your work become, less citations there will be, since lots and lots of citations would just distract the reader from a narrative. No "Golden Standard" here, it comes down how the author sees his audiences and what he thinks as a common knowledge for his audience. CK needs no citations, statements that are far outside of CK boundaries (or even contradict the CK) definitely need.

I'm not sure, but I think it's very similar in US.

CK?

 

[István.AT]

Common knowledge. I mentioned that in the previous sentence and thought the abbreviation would be clear enough.
Sorry.

 

[GS]

I'm reading Civil War Curiosities (1994) by Webb Garrison. It has hundreds of anecdotes. Each a paragraph or two long. A Selected Bibliography is at the back of the book. No source is listed after each anecdote.

On page 193, "... Lincoln died on a hastily commandeered bed once occupied by John Wilkes Booth when a friend of his was renting from Petersen." Is Garrison the first person to write about this? How does one find the source for this without reading the several dozen books in the bibliography? What is the proper way to cite the original source material?

When does a source need to mentioned? It might be common knowledge that the Battle of Gettysburg was fought in July 1863 so maybe a source isn't need when writing this? What about writing something more specific about Gettysburg like 'Dan Sickles lost his leg at Gettysburg when it was shattered by a cannonball.' Would that statement need a citation?

I hope this makes sense. And I'm hoping some of our authors will have answers. Thanks.

A book sold as nonfiction typically has sources for potentially controversial (or new reveals) footnoted at bottom of each page, and pointing to a bibliography or appendix.
If the book is historical fiction, a true life story based on as many facts as the author can glean, a bibliography is not always provided, though my book Trapped in the Crossfire has one. Additionally, the author of this book should have an Afterword, and explain what is fictionalized.
That said, even in nonfiction works, an author may miss a footnote here and there, meaning the reader may find this a startling new reveal, but the author did not deem the tidbit noteworthy.

 

[Mike Serpa]

Common knowledge. I mentioned that in the previous sentence and thought the abbreviation would be clear enough.
Sorry.

Maybe clear to others but not to me. Thanks.