View the h-diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-diplo's December 1999 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in h-diplo's December 1999 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the h-diplo home page.
To second David Kaiser regarding anyone playing "the footnote game": in our profession, the use of footnotes is not a game. I was taught as an undergraduate that the most important component of any research paper, monograph, etc was a easily referenced and *accurate* footnote or endnote. The footnote would serve not only as a "map" for the reader if he or she wished to verify the accuracy of a quote, but could also serve as a guide for further reading. Whenever we as historians advance a thesis we *must* leave a trail of evidence for our colleagues to navigate, and (hopefully) that trail will be as complete and accurate as possible. When I reference or interpret a document, then I must cite that document. At the same time, if I quote only a portion of a given document, or if I use ellipses to support my thesis and either misleading or sometimes a false impression of what the evidence *really* says is portrayed, (the practice employed by Williams which Maddox cited in his book), then I should be called to the floor for selectively using those sources. Chris Tudda American University ctudda@american.edu
|