NF How to cite sources?

[FarawayFriend]

Maybe clear to others but not to me. Thanks.

To me neither! Thanks for daring to ask, @Mike Serpa!

 

[István.AT]

A relevant fragment of a post "Why do we need [foot]notes?" by historian N.A. Vlasov (translation to English - mine):

"...
So why do we need citing a source? To show, where the information comes from. Loosely speaking, to show that the information isn't made up. A note with citation can confirm this if needed. Of course, it is no "truth warrant" and it cannot be such thing.
An average reader usually ignores the notes, in the best case acknowledging their presence. But there is a lot of useful information that can be extracted from citations:

1) To look, what other papers on the topic exist. Especially useful for students. The rule "follow the citations" is one of the major principles of work with literature when writing yearly or final thesis. Can also be useful for a mere reader.

2) To critically appraise the information from the text. Sometimes, author cites openly dubious, biased or even nonexistent sources, or his own works. ... This, of course, requires some background, but most obvious problems will be clear even for an unsophisticated reader.

3) To determine real (and not stated) foundation, on which author created his work. Reviewing bibliography doesn't always give a real picture, because it can be "inflated" in a completely honest and lawful way. Sometimes, bibliography includes lots of archive collections that are very impressive by themselves. But then we start analyzing citations and find out that author cited archives only three times in the entire work and quite large chapter was written only with reference to two monographies.

Of course, dishonest authors have developed lots of tricks to deceive even a sophisticated reader. For example, so-called "borrowed citations". It means a situation when, for example, an author hasn't been to the archive himself, but takes citations to the archive collections from the monography of his more diligent colleague. But nevertheless, attention to citations can do a lot of good."

original (Russian) - https://navlasov.livejournal.com/91153.html
This is reader's view on citations (and one of an informed and sophisticated reader, I might say), but this can be also useful for authors - to know, what this type of reader would want from their work and their citations.

PS: curious: in the comments to the post, author says that often it is the policy of the publishing house that imposes requirements on a quantity of citations. Some require more to look more scientific. Other require the bare minimum.

 

[Jimklag]

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.

Good question Mike. I've always thought that exclusivity or rarity is the rule for the citation of sources. The Dan Sickles wounding can be found in literally dozens of sources and the story is not controversial, so it probably doesn't need a footnote, or whatever system the author uses to cite sources. If, however, an adecdote can only be found in one or two sources, a letter or a report say, and is previously unknown or is controversial, then to me this requires proper citation. Unpublished sources should always be cited even if just in the form, "In a letter that Fred Jones wrote to his father on June 14, 1863 . . ." You can footnote the repository of the letter, but I'm not sure that's necessary. I need to add that 100% of my writing experience is in technical reports for business, so the rules I learned may be all wet.

 

[DaveBrt]

While researching for my book, I followed hundreds of footnotes to their sources. Unfortunately, a meaningful number were false citations -- don't know if they were just made up or if the author attached the wrong info to the note number. Either way, don't trust the fact just because it has a footnote.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

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

Agreed. This is often shorthand learned in college history courses. There are times when this is appropriate because the citations overlap, but when there is a specific claim from a specific source in a specific sentence it needs a specific citation.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

My thoughts on citations:
1. Quotations.
2. Paraphrased from a specific source.
3. Statistics.
4. Controversial claims or contradictions of common knowledge.
5. Anything you believe to be a "new discovery."
6. Anything with a definite single source.

I'm struggling with a citation question in my current work. The book consists of short biographies of almost 200 individuals, all relatively obscure to the average reader. How in depth should my citations be for things like birth, marriage, death, children, etc?

The compromise I'm currently making is if basic vital records (birth, marriage, death, census) all agree on basic facts I don't cite it. If there are disagreements on a date or location I note the discrepancies. For less common sources, more obscure facts, or anything controversial I'm giving specific sources. It might be less than a diehard genealogist would want, but I'm trying to keep the number of citations manageable. (There are plenty of citations not involving vital records.)

 

[Mike Serpa]

My thoughts on citations:
1. Quotations.
2. Paraphrased from a specific source.
3. Statistics.
4. Controversial claims or contradictions of common knowledge.
5. Anything you believe to be a "new discovery."
6. Anything with a definite single source.

I'm struggling with a citation question in my current work. The book consists of short biographies of almost 200 individuals, all relatively obscure to the average reader. How in depth should my citations be for things like birth, marriage, death, children, etc?

The compromise I'm currently making is if basic vital records (birth, marriage, death, census) all agree on basic facts I don't cite it. If there are disagreements on a date or location I note the discrepancies. For less common sources, more obscure facts, or anything controversial I'm giving specific sources. It might be less than a diehard genealogist would want, but I'm trying to keep the number of citations manageable. (There are plenty of citations not involving vital records.)

Good luck with your book. You know who not to ask with questions about citing sources!

 

[DixieRifles]

. 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.

It is really easy to get lost if the chapter notes at the end runs for several pages but the chapter number is only on one page. You have to flip around to find the first page for Chapter 9 and then find the Note number.

 

[johnsneed]

The post by FarawayFriend is very, very good. I just finished my thesis about 6 weeks ago and she covered things in pretty good detail.

John Sneed