MetaChat - Citation question...

MetaChat is an informal place for MeFites to touch base and post, discuss and chatter about topics that may not belong on MetaFilter. Questions? Check the FAQ. Please note: This is important.

10 December 2009

Citation question... I'm finishing up a final paper and at a loss as to if I should cite something or not. Is it necessary to cite basic historical facts? I've seen them referenced by other authors, but they're not theories or conjecture, just history.→[More:] To be more specific, I'm writing about King Lear at the moment, and referencing that Regan and Goneril's husbands had the same titles as James I's two surviving sons had been given at birth (IE before they were in line for the English throne). I've seen it mentioned in a few texts and articles about James and King Lear, but I don't know if citation is necessary since it isn't a quote, and is a reference to easily accessible historic knowledge.

Any thoughts?

post by: kellydamnit at: 11:26 | 8 comments

I am not an English or Literature major, kellydamnit, but I would cite the act and scene where the knowledge is first revealed. It has been my experience that if you cite you will not lose marks, however, if you don't cite you will certainly be marked down. Better safe than sorry. Good luck!

posted by Luminous Phenomena 10 December | 11:34

I'd say cite it.

posted by CitrusFreak12 10 December | 11:36

One of my professors once said that you don't have to cite basic knowledge or historical fact in your field, but you would cite basic knowledge from other fields.

So, in psychology, you can reference basic Freudian concepts without citing them, but you probably wouldn't do that for a history paper.

In this case it sounds borderline, but I'd probably cite it because it's basic history knowledge being used in an English (I assume) paper. (If you're writing a history paper, though, then I wouldn't cite it.)

posted by occhiblu 10 December | 11:58

occhiblu, I recall hearing something similar as well now that you say it... Guess I'll cite, better safe than sorry.

And yes, it is for an English class. I'm just annoyed about the whole thing as I had a great thesis lined up before this one, but I couldn't find enough scholarly backing for it, and wouldn't have been able to pull it all together in time. I still think my original idea is rock-solid, but it looks to be fairly untrodden territory in terms of Shakespeare criticism, which would put it more firmly into dissertation territory than mere final paper.

posted by kellydamnit 10 December | 12:07

I'd cite it - it's not information revealed in the play, and though it's historical knowledge, it's not really general knowledge - it tends toward minutiae. Also, it's worth verifying stuff like this if it's important to your argument - scholarly errors can multiply in secondary sources.

posted by Miko 10 December | 13:07

If you're in doubt, cite it.

posted by box 10 December | 13:58

Actually, this is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of ideas. You say that "I've seen it mentioned in a few texts and articles about James and King Lear." So you should cite one of the places where you saw the association made (with page-number, if possible).

posted by Susurration 10 December | 14:42

Mrs. Doohickie (high school history teacher and recent college grad) concurs: cite it. She said something similar to what Susurration said.

posted by Doohickie 10 December | 22:04

← I Have 2 Hours To Buy Windows 7, Which Version Should I Get ? || Bunny! OMG! →

HOME || REGISTER || LOGIN