Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
RJM
Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
In a posting on the much discussed "Medieval Lands", Douglas Richardson
commented on quoting sources and giving acknowledgements. I will try to
avoid the heat that debate is producing by recasting my question in
another form.
During June, as a result of a Google search, I became aware of a
posting by John Brandon about Sir Alexander Temple's second wife. His
posting mentioned documents that are catalogued in "Access to
Archives".
It is likely that if I write anything in future about Sir Alexander
Temple's second wife, I will provide a reference to Access to Archives
(or possibly to Staffordshire Record Office) since this will guide the
reader to the contemporary document which offers the evidence.
I would expect to include an acknowledgement to John Brandon, although
this could be as part of a list of acknowledgements, might not be
specific and would not mention his posting to this group.
I would like to invite discussion (or instruction) from group members
on what is regarded as appropriate behaviour in this area.
John Matthews
commented on quoting sources and giving acknowledgements. I will try to
avoid the heat that debate is producing by recasting my question in
another form.
During June, as a result of a Google search, I became aware of a
posting by John Brandon about Sir Alexander Temple's second wife. His
posting mentioned documents that are catalogued in "Access to
Archives".
It is likely that if I write anything in future about Sir Alexander
Temple's second wife, I will provide a reference to Access to Archives
(or possibly to Staffordshire Record Office) since this will guide the
reader to the contemporary document which offers the evidence.
I would expect to include an acknowledgement to John Brandon, although
this could be as part of a list of acknowledgements, might not be
specific and would not mention his posting to this group.
I would like to invite discussion (or instruction) from group members
on what is regarded as appropriate behaviour in this area.
John Matthews
-
Gjest
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
I'm both a genealogist and a librarian, so I have strong feelings in
the area of citations. A footnote or citation should be made to show
whence the information came in order for others to find that source.
Ideally in genealogy it should be to a primary source record (i.e.
birth, marriage or death notice, etc.), although in the realm of
medieval genealogy, it is probably a court case, will, ipm, etc.
The error most people make is confusing what a good footnote is from
what I term a provenance note. That is, many people who use the
Internet will cite the database from which they garner information
rather than the actual source of the information. In your example,
Access to Archives is a database and therefore a poor citation. The
appropriate citation would be something akin to "Yorkshire Public
Records, blah, blah, from the Acess to Archives database."
Full bibliographic footnotes are best. On this forum several leading
works are abbreviated like CP (Complete Peerage), etc. Still, page
numbers and if possible the underlying source used in such works as CP
is best. Example: CP III:432, citing the ipm of Mr. whoever.
You can go further with more specifics, but those are the basics. I
would also always include the original text in a language other than
the one you're writing in with a translation. I would also include
the transcription with the exact spellings used in older documents.
Martin
RJM wrote:
the area of citations. A footnote or citation should be made to show
whence the information came in order for others to find that source.
Ideally in genealogy it should be to a primary source record (i.e.
birth, marriage or death notice, etc.), although in the realm of
medieval genealogy, it is probably a court case, will, ipm, etc.
The error most people make is confusing what a good footnote is from
what I term a provenance note. That is, many people who use the
Internet will cite the database from which they garner information
rather than the actual source of the information. In your example,
Access to Archives is a database and therefore a poor citation. The
appropriate citation would be something akin to "Yorkshire Public
Records, blah, blah, from the Acess to Archives database."
Full bibliographic footnotes are best. On this forum several leading
works are abbreviated like CP (Complete Peerage), etc. Still, page
numbers and if possible the underlying source used in such works as CP
is best. Example: CP III:432, citing the ipm of Mr. whoever.
You can go further with more specifics, but those are the basics. I
would also always include the original text in a language other than
the one you're writing in with a translation. I would also include
the transcription with the exact spellings used in older documents.
Martin
RJM wrote:
In a posting on the much discussed "Medieval Lands", Douglas Richardson
commented on quoting sources and giving acknowledgements. I will try to
avoid the heat that debate is producing by recasting my question in
another form.
During June, as a result of a Google search, I became aware of a
posting by John Brandon about Sir Alexander Temple's second wife. His
posting mentioned documents that are catalogued in "Access to
Archives".
It is likely that if I write anything in future about Sir Alexander
Temple's second wife, I will provide a reference to Access to Archives
(or possibly to Staffordshire Record Office) since this will guide the
reader to the contemporary document which offers the evidence.
I would expect to include an acknowledgement to John Brandon, although
this could be as part of a list of acknowledgements, might not be
specific and would not mention his posting to this group.
I would like to invite discussion (or instruction) from group members
on what is regarded as appropriate behaviour in this area.
John Matthews
-
Brad Verity
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
RJM wrote:
Dear John,
I also get somewhat confused when citing sources. From what I
understand, secondary sources should be cited if you are using
conclusions that their authors have reached. Otherwise, if the
secondary sources simply point you to primary and other sources, then
it's not necessary to cite them.
So using your example, if the post by John Brandon contained research
and conclusions made by him that Sir Alexander Temple's second wife was
Eleanor Roosevelt (I clearly haven't read the Temple posts), and he
discussed the A2A documents he used to reach that conclusion, you would
need to cite his post (John Brandon, 'Sir Alexander Temple's Second
Wife' [or whatever the title of the discussion thread was],
soc.genealogy.medieval discussion group, 19 June 2006 [or whatever the
date of his post was], in addition to citing the A2A documents you
looked at yourself.
If however the identity of Temple's second wife was already known, and
John Brandon was posting about the contents of the A2A documents that
mention her, it isn't necessary to cite to his post. Though you could
choose to include within the footnote you write that cites the A2A
documents a statement like "I'd like to thank John Brandon for bringing
my attention to this reference".
Hope this helps.
Cheers, ----Brad
I would like to invite discussion (or instruction) from group members
on what is regarded as appropriate behaviour in this area.
Dear John,
I also get somewhat confused when citing sources. From what I
understand, secondary sources should be cited if you are using
conclusions that their authors have reached. Otherwise, if the
secondary sources simply point you to primary and other sources, then
it's not necessary to cite them.
So using your example, if the post by John Brandon contained research
and conclusions made by him that Sir Alexander Temple's second wife was
Eleanor Roosevelt (I clearly haven't read the Temple posts), and he
discussed the A2A documents he used to reach that conclusion, you would
need to cite his post (John Brandon, 'Sir Alexander Temple's Second
Wife' [or whatever the title of the discussion thread was],
soc.genealogy.medieval discussion group, 19 June 2006 [or whatever the
date of his post was], in addition to citing the A2A documents you
looked at yourself.
If however the identity of Temple's second wife was already known, and
John Brandon was posting about the contents of the A2A documents that
mention her, it isn't necessary to cite to his post. Though you could
choose to include within the footnote you write that cites the A2A
documents a statement like "I'd like to thank John Brandon for bringing
my attention to this reference".
Hope this helps.
Cheers, ----Brad
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
In message of 19 Jun, "Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
The old style of doing this was 'ex inform John Brandon', to be found in
one or two places. IIRC, in CP.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<snip>
If however the identity of Temple's second wife was already known, and
John Brandon was posting about the contents of the A2A documents that
mention her, it isn't necessary to cite to his post. Though you could
choose to include within the footnote you write that cites the A2A
documents a statement like "I'd like to thank John Brandon for bringing
my attention to this reference".
The old style of doing this was 'ex inform John Brandon', to be found in
one or two places. IIRC, in CP.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
In message of 19 Jun, mhollick@mac.com wrote:
<On citations>
Personally and for a proper reference work, I would be delighted to
see this, it is only by quoting the source primary document that readers
can be assured of the accuracy of the interpretation. However this
might easily double and triple the size of the work and is probably
infeasible for a book; on the other hand a computer-based database can
easily accommodate such a method.
Though I shudder to think of the problems of, say, including originals
in Hebrew or Sanscrit. It might be beyond the powers of even the
genealogical scholar.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<On citations>
You can go further with more specifics, but those are the basics. I
would also always include the original text in a language other than
the one you're writing in with a translation. I would also include
the transcription with the exact spellings used in older documents.
Personally and for a proper reference work, I would be delighted to
see this, it is only by quoting the source primary document that readers
can be assured of the accuracy of the interpretation. However this
might easily double and triple the size of the work and is probably
infeasible for a book; on the other hand a computer-based database can
easily accommodate such a method.
Though I shudder to think of the problems of, say, including originals
in Hebrew or Sanscrit. It might be beyond the powers of even the
genealogical scholar.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
John Brandon
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
The old style of doing this was 'ex inform John Brandon', to be
found in
one or two places. IIRC, in CP.
Yep, very common in CP.
Though I'm a little curious why you will be writing about A. Temple's
second wife. Are you possibly the ODNB author of the Izaak Walton
sketch? (I emailed the ODNB about this correction a few weeks ago.)
It's okay with me if you want to write about it (and I certainly don't
ask to be a co-author), but I would like my name mentioned and a copy
of whatever you write ...
-
RJM
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
John Brandon wrote:
I'm not sure how relevant this reply is to the topic I've raised, but
since you ask ...
Why would I write about Sir Alexander Temple? My wife would say it's
because I'm suffering from an obsession; I think I'd settle for saying
I find him interesting. Since I've already writen about him 3 times (2
published, the third under review) I think it's fairly likely that I
might do so again. Would I mention your name? Probably. Would I send
you a copy of what I write? I personally think this is asking too much,
but I'm willing to be tutored by others.
And no, I have no connection with the ODNB!
John Matthews
The old style of doing this was 'ex inform John Brandon', to be
found in
one or two places. IIRC, in CP.
Yep, very common in CP.
Though I'm a little curious why you will be writing about A. Temple's
second wife. Are you possibly the ODNB author of the Izaak Walton
sketch? (I emailed the ODNB about this correction a few weeks ago.)
It's okay with me if you want to write about it (and I certainly don't
ask to be a co-author), but I would like my name mentioned and a copy
of whatever you write ...
I'm not sure how relevant this reply is to the topic I've raised, but
since you ask ...
Why would I write about Sir Alexander Temple? My wife would say it's
because I'm suffering from an obsession; I think I'd settle for saying
I find him interesting. Since I've already writen about him 3 times (2
published, the third under review) I think it's fairly likely that I
might do so again. Would I mention your name? Probably. Would I send
you a copy of what I write? I personally think this is asking too much,
but I'm willing to be tutored by others.
And no, I have no connection with the ODNB!
John Matthews
-
John Brandon
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
I'm not sure how relevant this reply is to the topic I've raised, but
since you ask ...
Why would I write about Sir Alexander Temple? My wife would say it's
because I'm suffering from an obsession; I think I'd settle for saying
I find him interesting. Since I've already writen about him 3 times (2
published, the third under review) I think it's fairly likely that I
might do so again. Would I mention your name? Probably. Would I send
you a copy of what I write? I personally think this is asking too much,
but I'm willing to be tutored by others.
And no, I have no connection with the ODNB!
John Matthews
The tone of this is not very pleasing, but maybe you wouldn't mind
sharing the references to your writings (articles or books?) on
Alexander Temple (or even any other articles you've written, etc.).
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
Brad Verity wrote:
In this context, one thing that should never be done is to cite anything
that you yourself have not consulted. All too frequently, an author
will only consult a secondary source, and then cite the primary sources
that that secondary source itself cites without following up the
citation to examine the original. Examples of this have been discussed
here in the past, where it is clear that an author has simply copied
references from the footnote of another author without consulting the
originals - that is a big no-no.
This can sometimes be hard to detect - it is sometimes evident when the
sources end up not saying what the author claims they do, because the
author of the consulted secondary work was using them to document
something other than what the derivative author supposed, although there
have also been examples discussed here where such a disconnect between
what they say and what they are cited to support has occurred for other
reasons. A good example where 'reference poaching' is evident is when
Stuart, in his RFC3, makes reference to an author named Saly, citing him
for various connections in early-medieval Iberia. There was no such
author, the articles being by Emilio Saez Sanchez. However, in the
published George Andrews Moriarty notebook (published, it would seem,
without the permission of the copyright holder, but that is another
story), "Saez" looks like "Saly" in Moriarty's handwriting. It is clear
that Stuart never consulted the original, but only cited his work from
Moriarty's citation, or he would not have butchered the author's surname.
taf
I also get somewhat confused when citing sources. From what I
understand, secondary sources should be cited if you are using
conclusions that their authors have reached. Otherwise, if the
secondary sources simply point you to primary and other sources, then
it's not necessary to cite them.
In this context, one thing that should never be done is to cite anything
that you yourself have not consulted. All too frequently, an author
will only consult a secondary source, and then cite the primary sources
that that secondary source itself cites without following up the
citation to examine the original. Examples of this have been discussed
here in the past, where it is clear that an author has simply copied
references from the footnote of another author without consulting the
originals - that is a big no-no.
This can sometimes be hard to detect - it is sometimes evident when the
sources end up not saying what the author claims they do, because the
author of the consulted secondary work was using them to document
something other than what the derivative author supposed, although there
have also been examples discussed here where such a disconnect between
what they say and what they are cited to support has occurred for other
reasons. A good example where 'reference poaching' is evident is when
Stuart, in his RFC3, makes reference to an author named Saly, citing him
for various connections in early-medieval Iberia. There was no such
author, the articles being by Emilio Saez Sanchez. However, in the
published George Andrews Moriarty notebook (published, it would seem,
without the permission of the copyright holder, but that is another
story), "Saez" looks like "Saly" in Moriarty's handwriting. It is clear
that Stuart never consulted the original, but only cited his work from
Moriarty's citation, or he would not have butchered the author's surname.
taf
-
RJM
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
John Brandon wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unpleasing. BTW, I meant my reply to you was
not relevant; I was not commenting on your reply to me. How easy it is
to write something that is ambiguous.
The two published articles appeared in Panorama, the Journal of the
Thurrock Local History Society. The first of these was "Two Local
Regicides" and appeared in Panorama 41. It has been republished on the
web at http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/hi ... ides1.html.
The second was published in Panorama 44 and was an edited version of
the notes I used for a talk to the society. This has not been
republished on the web, but there is a short meeting report at
http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/hi ... htm#210105.
There is a brief note on Sir Alexander and the advowson of Grays church
in Panorama 42.
John Matthews
I'm not sure how relevant this reply is to the topic I've raised, but
since you ask ...
Why would I write about Sir Alexander Temple? My wife would say it's
because I'm suffering from an obsession; I think I'd settle for saying
I find him interesting. Since I've already writen about him 3 times (2
published, the third under review) I think it's fairly likely that I
might do so again. Would I mention your name? Probably. Would I send
you a copy of what I write? I personally think this is asking too much,
but I'm willing to be tutored by others.
And no, I have no connection with the ODNB!
John Matthews
The tone of this is not very pleasing, but maybe you wouldn't mind
sharing the references to your writings (articles or books?) on
Alexander Temple (or even any other articles you've written, etc.).
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unpleasing. BTW, I meant my reply to you was
not relevant; I was not commenting on your reply to me. How easy it is
to write something that is ambiguous.
The two published articles appeared in Panorama, the Journal of the
Thurrock Local History Society. The first of these was "Two Local
Regicides" and appeared in Panorama 41. It has been republished on the
web at http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/hi ... ides1.html.
The second was published in Panorama 44 and was an edited version of
the notes I used for a talk to the society. This has not been
republished on the web, but there is a short meeting report at
http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/hi ... htm#210105.
There is a brief note on Sir Alexander and the advowson of Grays church
in Panorama 42.
John Matthews
-
John Brandon
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unpleasing. BTW, I meant my reply to you was
not relevant; I was not commenting on your reply to me. How easy it is
to write something that is ambiguous.
The two published articles appeared in Panorama, the Journal of the
Thurrock Local History Society. The first of these was "Two Local
Regicides" and appeared in Panorama 41. It has been republished on the
web at http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/hi ... ides1.html.
The second was published in Panorama 44 and was an edited version of
the notes I used for a talk to the society. This has not been
republished on the web, but there is a short meeting report at
http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/hi ... htm#210105.
There is a brief note on Sir Alexander and the advowson of Grays church
in Panorama 42.
John Matthews
If you just want to point out a narrower range for the death date of
Dame Margaret Temple, it would be okay to cite Peter Beal's _In Praise
of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century
England_ (and no need to mention me). But I would prefer you leave the
connection to Izaak Walton out of it (at least till the ODNB lets me
know for sure about that; they've sent me an email stating they
received the correction and are looking into it).
Did you actually find the Will of Dame Margaret? I was thinking it
might be in the Consistory Court of Lichfield.
-
John Matthews
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
John Brandon wrote:
I haven't found the will yet. I'm planning to have a look for it next
time I visit the SoG.
BTW, I don't actualy expect to publish anything in the near future.
John Matthews
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unpleasing. BTW, I meant my reply to you was
not relevant; I was not commenting on your reply to me. How easy it is
to write something that is ambiguous.
The two published articles appeared in Panorama, the Journal of the
Thurrock Local History Society. The first of these was "Two Local
Regicides" and appeared in Panorama 41. It has been republished on the
web at http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/hi ... ides1.html.
The second was published in Panorama 44 and was an edited version of
the notes I used for a talk to the society. This has not been
republished on the web, but there is a short meeting report at
http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/hi ... htm#210105.
There is a brief note on Sir Alexander and the advowson of Grays church
in Panorama 42.
John Matthews
If you just want to point out a narrower range for the death date of
Dame Margaret Temple, it would be okay to cite Peter Beal's _In Praise
of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century
England_ (and no need to mention me). But I would prefer you leave the
connection to Izaak Walton out of it (at least till the ODNB lets me
know for sure about that; they've sent me an email stating they
received the correction and are looking into it).
Did you actually find the Will of Dame Margaret? I was thinking it
might be in the Consistory Court of Lichfield.
I haven't found the will yet. I'm planning to have a look for it next
time I visit the SoG.
BTW, I don't actualy expect to publish anything in the near future.
John Matthews
-
John Brandon
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
BTW, I don't actualy expect to publish anything in the near future.
John Matthews
Okay, good. Maybe the ODNB will published a correction and then you
can cite to that.
-
Ginny Wagner
RE: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
Is the Pipe Roll Society publication of the Pipe Rolls, from
the late 19c, considered primary or secondary source?
Ginny
the late 19c, considered primary or secondary source?
Ginny
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:4496ff2e@news.ColoState.EDU...
Well said, Todd. This is one of the reservations I alluded to recently about
the Henry Project in relation to peer-reviewed standards of scholarship.
Before giving an example, let me say unequivocally that the following
apprears to be an unusual lapse on Stewart Baldwin's part, and that in my
view it does not by any means indicate a systematic problem in his research.
I am sure that it will be corrected quickly and that a similar "big no-no"
will not occur again, especially after a public reminder.
The page for Foulques I le Roux (not "le Reux" as the heading has it) starts
out with the statement: "Foulques (Fulco) first appears as a witness to a
charter of count (later king) Eudes, abbot of of Saint Martin de Tours, in
April 886 [BEC 30 (1859): 431-3]."
The reference cited is in error. The 1859 volume of _Bibliothèque de l'Ecole
de chartes_ is number 20, not 30, and pages 431-3 in this are part of a
review by Eugène de Certain of the fourth issue in the series _Mémoires de
la Société archéologique de l'Orléanais_. This has nothing whatever to do
with Saint-Martin de Tours, Eudes or Count Foulques I of Anjou (see
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k12394n, pp 426-435).
The intended reference is to BEC 30 (1869), where pages 431-3 are part of
the major (i.e. important) article 'Les Invasions normandes dans la Loire et
les pérégrinations du corps de saint Martin' by Emile Mabille. The document
that was meant to be cited in the Henry Project also has nothing whatever to
do with Count Foulques I of Anjou in my opinion, but Karl Ferdinand Werner
(mis-)identified him as a witness to this particular charter that Mabille
(mis-)dated April 886 (instead of 887, see
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k124044, no. 5, pp 431-3).
The trouble here is that Karl Ferdinand Werner made exactly the same error
in citing the charter in his study of Foulques in 'Untersuchungen zur
Frühzeit des französischen Fürstentums (9.-10. Jahrhundert)', I-III. _Die
Welt als Geschichte_ 18 (1958) 256-289 at p. 284 in the first note on
mentions of Foulque, Annexe 1. The 17th witness after Eudes was named Fulco,
and supposed by Werner, on the flimsiest grounds and without due research
into other charters of Saint-Martin from around the same time, to be
Foulques I of Anjou as a youth.
However, the point for now is that if the reference had been verified the
typo in Werner's citation would have been corrected, not copied.
Peter Stewart
news:4496ff2e@news.ColoState.EDU...
Brad Verity wrote:
I also get somewhat confused when citing sources. From what I
understand, secondary sources should be cited if you are using
conclusions that their authors have reached. Otherwise, if the
secondary sources simply point you to primary and other sources, then
it's not necessary to cite them.
In this context, one thing that should never be done is to cite anything
that you yourself have not consulted. All too frequently, an author will
only consult a secondary source, and then cite the primary sources that
that secondary source itself cites without following up the citation to
examine the original. Examples of this have been discussed here in the
past, where it is clear that an author has simply copied references from
the footnote of another author without consulting the originals - that is
a big no-no.
Well said, Todd. This is one of the reservations I alluded to recently about
the Henry Project in relation to peer-reviewed standards of scholarship.
Before giving an example, let me say unequivocally that the following
apprears to be an unusual lapse on Stewart Baldwin's part, and that in my
view it does not by any means indicate a systematic problem in his research.
I am sure that it will be corrected quickly and that a similar "big no-no"
will not occur again, especially after a public reminder.
The page for Foulques I le Roux (not "le Reux" as the heading has it) starts
out with the statement: "Foulques (Fulco) first appears as a witness to a
charter of count (later king) Eudes, abbot of of Saint Martin de Tours, in
April 886 [BEC 30 (1859): 431-3]."
The reference cited is in error. The 1859 volume of _Bibliothèque de l'Ecole
de chartes_ is number 20, not 30, and pages 431-3 in this are part of a
review by Eugène de Certain of the fourth issue in the series _Mémoires de
la Société archéologique de l'Orléanais_. This has nothing whatever to do
with Saint-Martin de Tours, Eudes or Count Foulques I of Anjou (see
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k12394n, pp 426-435).
The intended reference is to BEC 30 (1869), where pages 431-3 are part of
the major (i.e. important) article 'Les Invasions normandes dans la Loire et
les pérégrinations du corps de saint Martin' by Emile Mabille. The document
that was meant to be cited in the Henry Project also has nothing whatever to
do with Count Foulques I of Anjou in my opinion, but Karl Ferdinand Werner
(mis-)identified him as a witness to this particular charter that Mabille
(mis-)dated April 886 (instead of 887, see
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k124044, no. 5, pp 431-3).
The trouble here is that Karl Ferdinand Werner made exactly the same error
in citing the charter in his study of Foulques in 'Untersuchungen zur
Frühzeit des französischen Fürstentums (9.-10. Jahrhundert)', I-III. _Die
Welt als Geschichte_ 18 (1958) 256-289 at p. 284 in the first note on
mentions of Foulque, Annexe 1. The 17th witness after Eudes was named Fulco,
and supposed by Werner, on the flimsiest grounds and without due research
into other charters of Saint-Martin from around the same time, to be
Foulques I of Anjou as a youth.
However, the point for now is that if the reference had been verified the
typo in Werner's citation would have been corrected, not copied.
Peter Stewart
-
Stewart Baldwin
Re: Citation, Acknowledgement and appropriate behaviour
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 03:22:37 GMT, "Peter Stewart"
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
I have now reexamined Werner's article on the early counts of Anjou
(which I had temporarily misplaced through misfiling), and I have to
agree that Peter was correct in criticising my sloppiness in using
Werner's article for my Henry Project page on Fulk I of Anjou. While
I don't recall exactly what happened in this case, I believe that I
probably did go to the charter cited by Werner (easily available at
the Gallica site), but that the only pages of BEC 30 which I checked
were pages 431-3, to verify Werner's statement that a "Fulco" did in
fact sign a charter of Eudes (Odo), and that having verified that BEC
30: 431-3 said what Werner claimed, I copied his year of publication
without checking any other pages. This was very sloppy on my part,
because "BEC 30: 431-3" by itself is not a correct citation, and I
should have at least checked the full article itself to get the full
citation and to see the context in which the charter was cited (and I
should also have caught this problem later on while proofreading). I
should also have discussed the fact that the conclusions (and
chronology) depended on accepting Werner's identification of the Fulco
in the earliest charters cited.
I acknowledge that giving bibliographic citations in a consistent form
is not a strong point for me, and I should also warn that I have a
habit of often copy-pasting my citations from one page to another.
This saves time (and, I believe, reduces the total number of typos in
the long run), but if there is a typo in the bibliography of one of my
pages, the same typo is quite likely to appear for the source on other
pages. Also, in some cases where I did not have the exact citation
(either because I did not photocopy the title page or because my notes
only give a partial citation without the full title, or, in some
cases, simply because I could not currently locate my copy of the
article in my stacks of papers), I have sometimes completed the
citations using other bibliographies to which I did have access (or
from library catalogs in some cases). In addition, I maintain "want
lists" of articles which I have not yet seen, either typed in from
bibliographies or other citations, or even copy-pasted from websites,
which I then use when I visit libraries while travelling, and these
might eventually get copy-pasted in the same way when I get a copy of
the article. (I usually try to check this against the article itself
when I find it, but I don't always remember to do so.) While I
recognize the potential for spreading inaccurate citations in this
way, I am not sure that retyping each citation would be any more
accurate in the long run, and I would welcome suggestions on this, or
comments on the appropriateness of my ackowledged practice of taking
bibliographic citations from elsewhere when I have checked the source
but don't have the full bibliographical citation at hand for that
source. (My impression is that this is fairly common practice, but I
could be mistaken about this.)
As for the sin of directly citing items which I have not seen, my main
procedure for avoiding this has been to give indirect citations in the
form "A, citing B" (more common in the early versions of the pages
that others do not see), in which case checking source B has a high
priority for me (especially in those cases where I have access to
source B). It is not my practice to change the "A, citing B" notation
unless I have checked B, which is why I believe that the above
description of what happened is likely (although that is of course
still a poor excuse for my sloppiness in not taking a closer look).
In any case, I certainly hope that sloppiness of the above type is
rare in my work.
Stewart Baldwin
<p_m_stewart@msn.com> wrote:
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:4496ff2e@news.ColoState.EDU...
Brad Verity wrote:
I also get somewhat confused when citing sources. From what I
understand, secondary sources should be cited if you are using
conclusions that their authors have reached. Otherwise, if the
secondary sources simply point you to primary and other sources, then
it's not necessary to cite them.
In this context, one thing that should never be done is to cite anything
that you yourself have not consulted. All too frequently, an author will
only consult a secondary source, and then cite the primary sources that
that secondary source itself cites without following up the citation to
examine the original. Examples of this have been discussed here in the
past, where it is clear that an author has simply copied references from
the footnote of another author without consulting the originals - that is
a big no-no.
Well said, Todd. This is one of the reservations I alluded to recently about
the Henry Project in relation to peer-reviewed standards of scholarship.
Before giving an example, let me say unequivocally that the following
apprears to be an unusual lapse on Stewart Baldwin's part, and that in my
view it does not by any means indicate a systematic problem in his research.
I am sure that it will be corrected quickly and that a similar "big no-no"
will not occur again, especially after a public reminder.
The page for Foulques I le Roux (not "le Reux" as the heading has it) starts
out with the statement: "Foulques (Fulco) first appears as a witness to a
charter of count (later king) Eudes, abbot of of Saint Martin de Tours, in
April 886 [BEC 30 (1859): 431-3]."
The reference cited is in error. The 1859 volume of _Bibliothèque de l'Ecole
de chartes_ is number 20, not 30, and pages 431-3 in this are part of a
review by Eugène de Certain of the fourth issue in the series _Mémoires de
la Société archéologique de l'Orléanais_. This has nothing whatever to do
with Saint-Martin de Tours, Eudes or Count Foulques I of Anjou (see
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k12394n, pp 426-435).
The intended reference is to BEC 30 (1869), where pages 431-3 are part of
the major (i.e. important) article 'Les Invasions normandes dans la Loire et
les pérégrinations du corps de saint Martin' by Emile Mabille. The document
that was meant to be cited in the Henry Project also has nothing whatever to
do with Count Foulques I of Anjou in my opinion, but Karl Ferdinand Werner
(mis-)identified him as a witness to this particular charter that Mabille
(mis-)dated April 886 (instead of 887, see
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k124044, no. 5, pp 431-3).
The trouble here is that Karl Ferdinand Werner made exactly the same error
in citing the charter in his study of Foulques in 'Untersuchungen zur
Frühzeit des französischen Fürstentums (9.-10. Jahrhundert)', I-III. _Die
Welt als Geschichte_ 18 (1958) 256-289 at p. 284 in the first note on
mentions of Foulque, Annexe 1. The 17th witness after Eudes was named Fulco,
and supposed by Werner, on the flimsiest grounds and without due research
into other charters of Saint-Martin from around the same time, to be
Foulques I of Anjou as a youth.
However, the point for now is that if the reference had been verified the
typo in Werner's citation would have been corrected, not copied.
Peter Stewart
I have now reexamined Werner's article on the early counts of Anjou
(which I had temporarily misplaced through misfiling), and I have to
agree that Peter was correct in criticising my sloppiness in using
Werner's article for my Henry Project page on Fulk I of Anjou. While
I don't recall exactly what happened in this case, I believe that I
probably did go to the charter cited by Werner (easily available at
the Gallica site), but that the only pages of BEC 30 which I checked
were pages 431-3, to verify Werner's statement that a "Fulco" did in
fact sign a charter of Eudes (Odo), and that having verified that BEC
30: 431-3 said what Werner claimed, I copied his year of publication
without checking any other pages. This was very sloppy on my part,
because "BEC 30: 431-3" by itself is not a correct citation, and I
should have at least checked the full article itself to get the full
citation and to see the context in which the charter was cited (and I
should also have caught this problem later on while proofreading). I
should also have discussed the fact that the conclusions (and
chronology) depended on accepting Werner's identification of the Fulco
in the earliest charters cited.
I acknowledge that giving bibliographic citations in a consistent form
is not a strong point for me, and I should also warn that I have a
habit of often copy-pasting my citations from one page to another.
This saves time (and, I believe, reduces the total number of typos in
the long run), but if there is a typo in the bibliography of one of my
pages, the same typo is quite likely to appear for the source on other
pages. Also, in some cases where I did not have the exact citation
(either because I did not photocopy the title page or because my notes
only give a partial citation without the full title, or, in some
cases, simply because I could not currently locate my copy of the
article in my stacks of papers), I have sometimes completed the
citations using other bibliographies to which I did have access (or
from library catalogs in some cases). In addition, I maintain "want
lists" of articles which I have not yet seen, either typed in from
bibliographies or other citations, or even copy-pasted from websites,
which I then use when I visit libraries while travelling, and these
might eventually get copy-pasted in the same way when I get a copy of
the article. (I usually try to check this against the article itself
when I find it, but I don't always remember to do so.) While I
recognize the potential for spreading inaccurate citations in this
way, I am not sure that retyping each citation would be any more
accurate in the long run, and I would welcome suggestions on this, or
comments on the appropriateness of my ackowledged practice of taking
bibliographic citations from elsewhere when I have checked the source
but don't have the full bibliographical citation at hand for that
source. (My impression is that this is fairly common practice, but I
could be mistaken about this.)
As for the sin of directly citing items which I have not seen, my main
procedure for avoiding this has been to give indirect citations in the
form "A, citing B" (more common in the early versions of the pages
that others do not see), in which case checking source B has a high
priority for me (especially in those cases where I have access to
source B). It is not my practice to change the "A, citing B" notation
unless I have checked B, which is why I believe that the above
description of what happened is likely (although that is of course
still a poor excuse for my sloppiness in not taking a closer look).
In any case, I certainly hope that sloppiness of the above type is
rare in my work.
Stewart Baldwin