- Greetings Joseph:
At 11:23 PM +0000 1/3/05, email@example.com wrote:
>Dr. Schiller:That is precisely my point.
>Off the top of my head, I would submit that a secondary source, such
>as Mr. Foote's trilogy, should not generally be cited in support of
>an author's factual assertion (although Herodotus and others of such
>a time and place would probably be more appropriate exceptions), but
>that Foote should be cited if his views on a particular issue are
>being used by the author
>. One caveat, however, is that there shouldOf course.
>be sufficient reason to accept his views on that issue and it is not
>merely an appeal to authority.
>True - but now you are entering different territory. I'm talking
>Even citations of primary sources can be problematic when that
>source is unreliable.
about when to cite, not WHAT to cite. As we all know, just because
something is a primary source doesn't mean it is particularly
trustworthy - Ol Jube's post war writings come to mind =-). What you
use as a source is your decision - but it you use it, you should cite
> Byers' account of Sherman at ChattanoogaNo doubt.
>indicated that the Confederates charged out of the railroad tunnel
>to outflank the Federals, as well as including the incorrect
>description of heavy fighting on the 24th. This latter
>misconception was picked up by other writers including Catton (who
>seems to have picked it up secondhand). Other primary accounts have
>been misread, so that the citation is correct, but the author's
>statement is still wrong; Grant's supposed questioning of Granger on
>Orchard Knob on the afternoon of 11/25/63 is a fine example of this
>(also misused by Catton). Some errors, such as this last, get
>handed down from author to author until it appears as part of
>No hard and fast rules - clarity is the issue and you can note where
>Placement of citations is usually either done at the end of the
>sentence or saved for the end of the paragraph. I can see where the
>latter can be useful when the citation applies to the whole
>paragraph, although the former method is more helpful. Are there
>any hard and fast rules on this, and can the two types by used in
>the same work?
you think appropriate. Again, the rule I go by is 'am I making what I
am doing clear?'
>If I really needed to cite that many examples, I would cite a few
>I can also see where it would be unreasonable to use a citation in
>places where a very large number of sources would be necessary to
>back up a particular assertion, such as the feelings of soldiers
>after a battle; one source wouldn't prove anything and fifty
>accounts might be needed to provide a decent sampling of opinion.
>Would you cite all or none of these sources, or let the footnote
>give a summary of what the sources show? No footnote at all may
>mislead the reader to believe that the original assertion is
specific good ones and say these are representative of many others.
Depending on what you were trying to do here - you might be better
off constructing a graph/chart of the sample thus showing the 'sample
of opinion'. There are many ways to approach these depending what you
are writing about and trying to argue.
Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller Civil War First Person Impressions
Maitre d'Armes William Bradshaw, Co. F 2nd WI
Head Fencing Coach George Hammitt, Co. H 104th Ill
Department of History
Commissioner, Midwest Fencing Conference
Midwest VP, US Fencing Coaches' Association
Vice-Chair USFA Illinois Division
Official Sports site: http://nusports.ocsn.com/
Student web site: http://groups.northwestern.edu/fencing/