Footnoting (1 Viewer)

[persephone]

Hopefully this goes here.

Anyway. I think I'm excessively footnoting. Do you footnote only when you quote and use someone's idea or opinion but not with facts?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Hopefully this goes here.

Anyway. I think I'm excessively footnoting. Do you footnote only when you quote and use someone's idea or opinion but not with facts?

You should aim to show off research as much as possible.

'Facts'
That being said, it depends how well-known the fact is.

If you're talking about Columbus' arrival in South America, you would not need to footnote 'Columbus arrived in the Americas in 1492.'.

If you would not know the fact before doing research, you should cite from where you got it. For example 'Columbus' first voyage brought with it horses, previously never seen in the Americas.' would have to be cited.

However, if you are unsure, there's no harm in over-citing. Since you're using footnotes, over-citation doesn't really look messy or a hassle (like it can with in-text citation).

Better safe than sorry. Technically, you should cite a fact whenever you take it from someone else, but the 'well-known' test is a good one, imo.

Theory/opinion
You need to cite all opinions/theories. Even if a theory is pretty well-accepted or comes towards being a 'fact', you should still cite where you found it, or, better yet, find who said it first.

 

[melsc]

As I understand it you footnote even when you paraphrase something etc...footnoting also shows that you have supporting evidence for your statement. I'm not sure if thats right since I havent got anything back yet

 

[_dhj_]

No I don't think you can excessively footnote.

Don't be afraid to cite more than one source within each footnote either.

 

[xeuyrawp]

As I understand it you footnote even when you paraphrase something etc...footnoting also shows that you have supporting evidence for your statement. I'm not sure if thats right since I havent got anything back yet

That's correct, although I'd say that the 'supporting evidence' should be in your essay. The place where you found this evidence, or where it's talked about in a more lengthy way should be referenced.

Edit: that being said, if the nature of the evidence only requires you to mention it, you don't have to explain it fully. In that case, the footnote almost acts as the main bulk of your authority, but it doesn't act as your evidence, if that makes sense. Prolly not...

 

[melsc]

Yep I get you, I probably didn't phrase that properly but I meant like stating an authority for a legal princple or something...

Bah I much prefer footnoting, I hate how my essays look when I have to use APA or harvard...ick

 

[Enlightened_One]

Good point melsc, APA looks messy. I suppose it depends on the question. If you're doing something that requires extensive research (most Arts and most subjects), or something where you need an authority for what you are saying (law etc) then footnote. The only class I don't footnote a lot in is philosophy because some of it might be my idea (for a couple of paragraphs or so).
A basic rule of thumb I was told is to at least footnote once in every paragraph (possibly the introduction or the conclusion may not count - depends on what you say). That was a first year directive. After that you'll come to do it easier and then end up giving advice to others.