- This topic has 4 voices and 14 replies.
-
Posts
-
Since I can't find a new appropriate thread, I'll make a new one.How would you cite, if one even would, something like this. Say you just read a chapter or a bunch of pages on the 5 points of something. If you briefly summarize it in a paper, without using any direct quotes, should you cite the whole chapter or pages or is it good enough to just include it in a bibliography?
Funny, I just recently had a talk with a professor about citing. Seems like the rules are not cut-and-dry, but could differ from person to person.In your paper, I would cite the whole chapter. You're summarizing someone else's points, and if your reader wants to go beyond your summary he would want to go to your source, so it's important to include that in there. If there are certain pages in the chapter that are particularly helpful or central to what you are presenting, you may want to cite the chapter, and then include a note like, “see especially pages 252-253” or something like that.
That's kind of what I thought. I assumed I would only only need to make one in-text citation, even if it goes a few pages in my paper.So if I could go something like this:Historian A.T. Mahan mentions six principle conditions affecting sea power of a nation. (cite) Then when I write my own summary of those conditions should I still cite any direct quotes? Or would that already be considered covered in the first citation?
Actually, I'm a bit confused now about what you're asking. If I understand correctly, I would do something like this:”Historian A.T. Mahan
mentions[“discusses” might be a better word which reflects more in-depth treatment]] six principle conditions affecting sea power of a nation.” [cite the chapter if it is dedicated to those six principles, or else just to the range of pages in which they are discussed]In the next paragraph:Mahan's discussion of “geographical position” [cite specific page(s) at which he makes reference to this, and of course cite it if you take direct quotes.Mahan's discussion of “physical conformation”. Ditto above.You will basically be doing one broad citation at the beginning and then more specific citations for those subsequent ones. The key is to direct the reader in a way so he can find the underlying material if he so desires. What I am giving you is not the only way to do it, but the way I think works best.That's basically what I'm saying. So I make a general citation at first (let's just say all 6 conditions are pages 1-20 and the political conditions are on pages 4-7), then if I write about political conditions, I just cite the pages where the author wrote it?Example: Mahan discusses six conditions of sea power (cite pages 1-20). When examining the political conditions…(cite pages 4-7)Is this what you are suggesting? In a way, this kind of seems redundant unless I use direct quotes.
When you're first introducing it, I would put in a footnote something like “For Mahan's general discussion on the six conditions, see (cite), pgs. 1-20.”Later on, you may want to refer to specific pages so that your reader isn't combing through 20 pages trying to find where you got something from.CAVEAT: I can understand that this seems kind of redundant. The reason may be because I am assuming you are stretching this analysis out over a few pages, and perhaps even inserting other citations from other sources in here. If this is not the case, and if you are really just condensing all of this, then I would omit the first general citation and just use specific citations. I do not think that a statement like “Mahan discusses six conditions of sea power…” needs to be cited given your subsequent citations, but it can potentially help.
I would simply cite the whole chapter in a footnote. Don't overthink it. This is a process thing and not substantive. If you cite the whole chapter then your back is covered. Unless your prof is a jerk of course.
Three different people, three different ways of tackling the problem. Ergo, there is no single way that it has to be done.
It's a bad idea to do summaries in the body of the paper. At most use long quotes and cite individually from the pages the quotes come from. You're just wasting space in your paper that should be dedicated to your individual argument. I'm pretty sure the professor would frown on this practice anyway so I wouldn't do it to be safe.
It's a bad idea to do summaries in the body of the paper. At most use long quotes and cite individually from the pages the quotes come from. You're just wasting space in your paper that should be dedicated to your individual argument. I'm pretty sure the professor would frown on this practice anyway so I wouldn't do it to be safe.
I would have to disagree. If my argument is based on the application of someone else's principles, I think it can be entirely suitable to make a summary of the other's work before I analyze it. I would not stretch out the summary too long, though. In footnotes I would put information which does not work well in the main argument because it is periphery.I think some of these issues have to do with style, and style can differ from person to person.
I would have to disagree. If my argument is based on the application of someone else's principles, I think it can be entirely suitable to make a summary of the other's work before I analyze it. I would not stretch out the summary too long, though. In footnotes I would put information which does not work well in the main argument because it is periphery.I think some of these issues have to do with style, and style can differ from person to person.
There may be certain rare instances where you might need to, but if there is a way around it, you should structure the paper differently. Most of the summation can be done in a footnote. We're talking about small papers here (under 20 pages) so what ski is talking about would really take up too much valuable typing space. Any summary over two pages would kill the effectiveness of the paper (by effectiveness I mean showing the professor one can build one's own argument rather than regurgitating someone else's). I would have to see what ski plans to do, but I will say this, if there is any part of the summary that is common knowledge, that doesn't need to be cited. Anything specific, however, must be cited.
