It's been suggested to me, on occasion, that the style of writing that I use for the books isn't always geared to the average person. Criticism makes each of us better what we do, especially when we take criticism well and use it as a guide to help us improve what we do in our lives.
It's with this in mind that I want to talk to you briefly today about footnotes and the style we use for them. At the end of the post, I'll include some links to the style of citations I use in my books.
Let's answer this first question:
What are footnotes (or endnotes), anyway?
When scholars put together articles and books, they must cite their sources. Footnotes and endnotes together comprise one way of citing your sources. There are others (like citing your sources in the text, or parenthetical citations), but, for our purposes, we'll only worry about the concept of footnotes and endnotes.
Footnotes and endnotes are styled in the same way. Footnotes, however, will appear at the bottom of each page in the text. Endnotes, on the other hand, appear at the end of a chapter (or article) or at the end of a book.
I cite my sources following the guidelines of something called the
Chicago Manual of Style. This is what historians will use to format how they cite their sources in a work they are writing. This book isn't short--it's thicker than most phone books are in many major cities. And you would only read the CMS like a novel if you also read cookbooks and phone books like novels. (Which is to say, you probably wouldn't.)
The CMS is comprehensive--or, at least, as comprehensive as you might expect for something that gives a guide on how to tell the reader what you used where you used it.
It's now published 17 editions.
So what? Why do we need footnotes or endnotes?
To avoid plagiarism. In other words, to avoid someone stealing and taking credit for your ideas, and
vice versa.
Also, to ensure that no one is making up quotes or saying that something was in a given book when it wasn't. (That's called fabrication.)
Above all, to protect the integrity of research and scholarship.
Here's a link to a 2002 story by Michael Nelson (vqr.com)
highlighting six historians who faced some sort of misconduct-related controversy.
One of the most egregious cases of academic misconduct centered on historian Stephen Ambrose. A
New York Times article published in January 2002 cited comments from two historians from whose works Ambrose plagiarized. Ambrose died a year later (see
this New York Times article, among others), but, as a 2010 article from
The Guardian indicated,
the controversy did not.
Are you making this Chicago style stuff up, Mr. Day?
No. Here's some links:
The
Chicago Manual of Style Online:
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html
Citation Machine Online
(Here, you can create citations if you have the information but are not sure how to cite your work)
https://www.citationmachine.net/
(Click "I only want to create citations" on the home page)
