Stoopid question on writing papers.

[leanings]

Somehow I've managed to make it to my third year of college with no real clear understanding of when a source needs to be cited in a paper. I took my initial freshman level comp courses at a community college years ago and flushed the information. I understand the concept of plagiarism, and know better than to use someone else's words or ideas as my own. I know how to appy MLA documentation and the mechanics of all this crap. But I'm not real clear on whether or not I have to cite my source every time I bring a fact into evidence to support my argument. For example, I'm currently writing a paper on the Eastern Front in WWII. Here's a portion...


The Soviet triumph over Nazi Germany in World War Two was the hardest-earned victory in military history. The actions on the Eastern Front constituted the largest and probably the most savage land battle in which mankind has ever been engaged. The numbers alone are staggering: 3.3 million Axis troops crossed the Soviet border in Operation Barbarossa to confront 2.9 million Soviet defenders. Over 2,000 Red Air Force aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the first hours of the attack. 650,000 Red Army soldiers were captured after the fall of Kiev, the largest number of prisoners ever taken in war. The Battle of Kursk was the largest tank engagement ever. Eventually, between 20 and 29 million Soviet citizens would die, along with 3.6 million German and Axis troops. 80% of Soviet males born in 1923 did not survive the war. The very enormity of these figures is difficult to absorb. It is even more difficult to understand the enormity of the mistakes, brutality, sacrifice and determination which led to an eventual Soviet victory in the face of these figures.

Do all of these facts need a source cited? They're all pretty commonly known and are available in a number of sources I've read. Any help here? I'd greatly appreciate it and thank you in advance...

On edit: Crap. I wasted my 1000th post on an admission that I don't have a 12th grade grasp of English composition. Ah well...

[LiberalTechie1337]

1. The General Rule (according to my Freshman comp prof)

is if you can find the information in 3 different sounces uncited, it is considered "common knowledge" and does not need citations.

[poliguru]

2. Assuming, of course

that it's found uncited in decent sources and not books by Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity :)

[leanings]

5. I'm sure Ann Coulter's

history of WWII would have a decidely pro-German tilt.

[LiberalTechie1337]

12. Sorry

I thought it was a given that we were dealing with reputable sources

[Maddy McCall]

14. Doesn't matter if it's reputable or not...

For instance, if you say that "George Washington was the first president of the United States," you are safe not to cite. It's "common knowledge," at least in a freshman-level US history course.

Otherwise, it should be cited.

[Maddy McCall]

4. Not necessarily...

It is best to consult each professor and have him or her inform you of what you should cite and what you should not.

It is much better to be safe.

(I teach at a university--I give almost a whole lecture on citations.)

[Ediacara]

3. I am not sure how it is in history or English

But in the sciences, sources are cited constantly. For instance:

The Soviet triumph over Nazi Germany in World War Two was the hardest-earned victory in military history. The actions on the Eastern Front constituted the largest and probably the most savage land battle in which mankind has ever been engaged (Source, Year). The numbers alone are staggering: 3.3 million Axis troops crossed the Soviet border in Operation Barbarossa to confront 2.9 million Soviet defenders (Source, Year). Over 2,000 Red Air Force aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the first hours of the attack (Source, Year). 650,000 Red Army soldiers were captured after the fall of Kiev, the largest number of prisoners ever taken in war (Source, Year). The Battle of Kursk was the largest tank engagement ever (Source, Year). Eventually, between 20 and 29 million Soviet citizens would die, along with 3.6 million German and Axis troops. 80% of Soviet males born in 1923 did not survive the war (Source, Year). The very enormity of these figures is difficult to absorb. It is even more difficult to understand the enormity of the mistakes, brutality, sacrifice and determination which led to an eventual Soviet victory in the face of these figures.

It may be a little excessive, but every statement of fact should have a source IMHO.

[Maddy McCall]

6. Yep.

Except in MLA or Turabian (or other formats) for other disciplines.

[poliguru]

7. I agree with ask the prof

or your advisor. You have one, right? I assume you're using footnotes or endnotes. Often a lot of the information you have in one paragraph comes from one or two sources - if that's the case, you can put the note at the end of the last fact in the paragraph. It's assumed that it covers everything after the last note.

But when in doubt, overcite. If the prof doesn't like it, he/she will tell you. Or you can ask after the paper if it was an appropriate amount.

[lolly]

8. Backup Plan

If all this info is really available in several sources, and the words are entirely your own--no really good phrases from anybody else, use an informational footnote (not the same thing as a citation)to point your reader to the main sources you used and how you used them.

For example--

1 See Smith, Joe, "The Eastern Front" (etc) and Alvarez, Mary, "Russia and WWI." (etc) for complete documentation of the Russian casualties. FOr an analysis of the Soviet psyche during these decisive battles, see Chang, Mark, "Soviet Reactions to the War" (etc).

[murielm99]

9. Yes. Every one of them needs to be cited.

You should have a footnote or citation for each of those sentences, even if you have to put it as "ibid." Take no chances. Some teachers will flunk you for plagiarism.

And don't feel too badly about this. In my first grad school course, the teacher took the time to review the rules with everyone in our seminar. He gave us numerous examples of plagiarism in a handout that he went over in class. He also referred us to the student handbook rules on plagiarism. Each and every one of us was grateful for the review.

It is not worth it to get this far in your education to flunk on something as seemingly simple as this.

You could also ask your teacher to look at your rough draft, to see if you have done things properly.

Good luck.

[lolly]

20. No Ibid's

Ibids went out several years ago--along with "op. cit" and "loc. cit."

I disagree with the "cite everything under the sun" advice. Clutters up the paper, can make it look as if you've just strung together a pastiche of quotes.

[Maddy McCall]

10. If I were grading your paper, I would make the following comments:

The Soviet triumph over Nazi Germany in World War Two was the hardest-earned victory in military history. (Really? In whose opinion? You should state that "Many historians agree that the Soviet triumph...."; otherwise, it is your opinion.) The actions on the Eastern Front constituted the largest and probably the most savage land battle in which mankind has ever been engaged. (See first comment. Where did you get this info? Who made this judgement?) The numbers alone are staggering: 3.3 million Axis troops crossed the Soviet border in Operation Barbarossa to confront 2.9 million Soviet defenders. (Source?) Over 2,000 Red Air Force aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the first hours of the attack. (Source?) 650,000 Red Army soldiers were captured after the fall of Kiev, the largest number of prisoners ever taken in war. (Source?) The Battle of Kursk was the largest tank engagement ever. (Source?) Eventually, between 20 and 29 million Soviet citizens would die, along with 3.6 million German and Axis troops. (Source?) 80% of Soviet males born in 1923 did not survive the war. (You should start the sentence with "Eighty percent" not "80%.} The very enormity of these figures is difficult to absorb. (Find a better way to say this.) It is even more difficult to understand the enormity of the mistakes, brutality, sacrifice (add a comma here) and determination which led to an eventual Soviet victory in the face of these figures.

Let me add that, if this is your introduction, you need to find a way to say what you are saying without using all of the figures, if you plan to repeat the figures later in your paper. If this is in the body of your paper, you definitely need to cite all of this.

Hope this helps. The comments I made on your paragraph are very similar to the ones I make on my freshman students' papers. If I received a paper with the facts above, sans citations, the student would have to rewrite or would receive a failing grade on the paper, because I have pretty stringent citation requirements, but no more stringent that are generally practiced in my discipline.

:-)

[djg21]

11. Easy answer:

When in doubt, provide citation.

Keep in mind the purpose of a research article -- to further the READER'S research efforts. The Reader should be able to look to your paper to find other authority and sources. Consequently, you should provide cites for all factual statements or concepts or theories attributable to other sources. If, as you say, the facts you reference appear in numerous sources, you can use a chain cite to list a handful of them.

I also like jchild's comments. You should soften those statements which amount to your editorials. For instance, there is a subtle difference between "the hardest-earned victory" and "among the hardest-earned victories."

[leanings]

13. OK, I think I'm good.

Thanks much everybody, especially jchild!!! (and this is just a draft, btw.) :hi:

[Maddy McCall]

16. You're quite welcome...

If you have any other questions, feel free to PM me. :hi:

[Ramsey]

15. Let's analyze your paragraph

Sentence by sentence. Things that are facts obtained from a primary source or research source, direct quotations from another source, or ideas that are postulated first by someone else, ideas that are not considered "common knowledge", all require citations, and when in doubt, footnote.

The Soviet triumph over Nazi Germany in World War Two was the hardest-earned victory in military history.
*Opinion, not in need of citation.

The actions on the Eastern Front constituted the largest and probably the most savage land battle in which mankind has ever been engaged.
*Descriptive, subjective, no citation

The numbers alone are staggering: 3.3 million Axis troops crossed the Soviet border in Operation Barbarossa to confront 2.9 million Soviet defenders. Over 2,000 Red Air Force aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the first hours of the attack. 650,000 Red Army soldiers were captured after the fall of Kiev, the largest number of prisoners ever taken in war.
*Factual figures: footnote, multiple sources if applicable

The Battle of Kursk was the largest tank engagement ever.
*Descriptive

Eventually, between 20 and 29 million Soviet citizens would die, along with 3.6 million German and Axis troops. 80% of Soviet males born in 1923 did not survive the war.
*Footnote sources of numerical figures

The very enormity of these figures is difficult to absorb. It is even more difficult to understand the enormity of the mistakes, brutality, sacrifice and determination which led to an eventual Soviet victory in the face of these figures.
*Conclusion of author, no footnote needed


That's my take on your paragraph, as the author of peer-reviewed scientific articles and teacher of academic writing skills.

[Maddy McCall]

17. I respectfully disagree on a couple of points.

First sentence: Not subjective. If you say it is the "hardest-won" victory in early military history, then you are stating it as a fact. (I would argue that, if we are going to talk about "early military history," let's look at the Assyrians. WWII is considered MODERN military history, with no true RMAs occurring in the past century, save digitization.

Second Sentence: "constituted the largest" - says who? That's stated as an objective fact. Would indeed need citation.

Battle of Kursk: "largest tank engagement ever?" Cite it. Stated objectively.

(I, like you, have published in peer-reviewed journals and teach writing--in history.)

[PittPoliSci]

18. do what I do.

don't risk it and cite everything. if your profs like you having a million sources, which they usually do, go for it. I just cite every source because it's safe, and i think it looks good. hell, i get A's on all my shit so it must be working. I try to site about once a paragraph. GOOD LUCK! :toast:

[fortyfeetunder]

19. I love your post

obviously you have a writing thing going!

another paper-writer....