kendallkreene
Member
Or is it okay to directly quote?
Are you supposed to paraphrase quotes in essays? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter kendallkreene
- Start date
kendallkreene
Member
Quotes from a person or historical figure
Either is fine (probably better to write the actual quote and say its by them)
I think generally if you can remember the whole quote and it fits into what you are writing it doesn't hurt to put the whole quote (unless it is very long then you should think about shortening it or paraphrasing). Make sure you reference which figure/historian (as jazz already said). For example: Lenin argued, "Soviet socialist democracy is not in the least incompatible with individual rule and dictatorship" OR "Soviet socialist democracy is not in the least incompatible with individual rule and dictatorship" (Lenin).
If you can't remember the full quote in the exam don't stress about it. It is fine to just write the general idea of what the person/historian argued and reference them. That still gets your ideas across which is the whole point of essay writing.
If you can't remember the full quote in the exam don't stress about it. It is fine to just write the general idea of what the person/historian argued and reference them. That still gets your ideas across which is the whole point of essay writing.
nineteenninetynine
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2017
- Messages
- 14
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2017
It's completely fine either way. It's important that you engage with historiography by showing why the historian's view is consistent (or inconsistent) with available evidence.
E.g. from one of my essays on Society and Culture in Nazi Germany
Historian Mary Nolan interprets this as successful “penetrating, politicising and restructuring of the private.” However, the limited success of pro-natalist initiatives significantly undermines her assertion. Although the net reproduction rate increased marginally from 0.7 to 0.9 from 1933 to 1939, it failed to exceed pre-depression levels, indicating that the increase in births was mostly attributable to the improved economic climate. Indeed, the majority of women took advantage of Nazi policy but failed to wholeheartedly ascribe to party ideology, acting as what historian Jill Stephenson refers to as “a la carte Nazis.”
Initial post-war scholars emphasise the tremendous appeal of the Hitler Youth. However, their contention is inconsistent with the need for such draconian measures as the establishment of the SRD in 1934 and the Youth Ordinance of 1939 to punish nonconformity. Far more credible are revisionists Burleigh and Wippermann, who cite organised resistance such as the Edelweiss Pirates as evidence that increasing militarisation of the Hitler Youth resulted in many becoming “progressively disillusioned, recalcitrant and rebellious.”
E.g. from one of my essays on Society and Culture in Nazi Germany
Historian Mary Nolan interprets this as successful “penetrating, politicising and restructuring of the private.” However, the limited success of pro-natalist initiatives significantly undermines her assertion. Although the net reproduction rate increased marginally from 0.7 to 0.9 from 1933 to 1939, it failed to exceed pre-depression levels, indicating that the increase in births was mostly attributable to the improved economic climate. Indeed, the majority of women took advantage of Nazi policy but failed to wholeheartedly ascribe to party ideology, acting as what historian Jill Stephenson refers to as “a la carte Nazis.”
Initial post-war scholars emphasise the tremendous appeal of the Hitler Youth. However, their contention is inconsistent with the need for such draconian measures as the establishment of the SRD in 1934 and the Youth Ordinance of 1939 to punish nonconformity. Far more credible are revisionists Burleigh and Wippermann, who cite organised resistance such as the Edelweiss Pirates as evidence that increasing militarisation of the Hitler Youth resulted in many becoming “progressively disillusioned, recalcitrant and rebellious.”