When to use a short footnote

By Anonymous on Fri, 03/15/2013 - 17:02

Forums

I am working on an article and am wondering in which cases you need to use a full reference note and when you can use a subsequent note. I understand that you use a subsequent (short) note when you use the same source twice, but does it need to be the exact same source in order to use the short form? 

For example: if I have two citations for the same book, but for two different page numbers. Do I use two full footnotes or do I use a subsequent short note for the second citation? Same with series of court records: if I have already identified the record group and repository of the series in the first (full) footnote, do I need to repeat all of that information in a subsequent footnote that references a different record on a different page in a different volume in the same series?

It seems a waste of space to repeat all that redundant information, but it is the first time that particular item is being referenced so it may be better to do the full footnote so readers don't have to guess. Or is this one of those "citations is an art, not a science" type of situations where it depends on your own style and the particular circumstances of the citations?

Submitted byEEon Fri, 03/15/2013 - 21:51

Yvette,

The first time you cite a book, you give a full citation. After that, if you cite a different volume or page of the same book, you use the short citation, followed by the new volume or page.

The first time you cite a collection, you give a full citation. After that, if you cite a different manuscript from the collection, or a different register from the collection, you identify the new item and name the collection again, but you don't have to give the full schmear on the collection when it's a second or subsequent citation.

 

Submitted byyhoitinkon Sat, 03/16/2013 - 12:38

Thank you for this very clear answer. This is going to make my footnotes much more compact and readable, especially since I'm writing it in English and the sources are in Dutch so there's going to be a lot of [translations]. 

Submitted bykstanbaryon Sun, 03/24/2013 - 06:51

And what if it is a newspaper for a particular town?  Most (but not all images) are viewed on newspaperarchive.  The title of the newspaper is slightly modified over time.  Does this then require the "full schmear" (including URL and access date) every time?

kstanbary, EE sees 3 issues here:

1. Using a newspaper via an online archive means we have two parts of the citation: (a) the newspaper; and (b) the website that imaged the newspaper. Once we have identified a newspaper in full, including its access data, then we can use a short citation so long as everything about that newspaper remains the same—aside from date and page.

2. When a town's newspaper changes its name, then we cannot identify it with a short citation to the previous title . It has a new identity. We have to be explicit about that identity because of the all the mergers and splits of similarly titled papers that occurred across time. If we cite a new title, then we (and ultimately our readers) need to identify the version of that new title that we used. That means the new title needs a full citation the first time we use; that would include both parts a and b.

3. If we use a newspaper archive online, on differing days, do we need to do all of part b in order to record the access date?  Let's reason through that issue from the standpoints of both practicality and longstanding convention:

  • Q: Why do we cite the access date? A: Because the content of website publications is so easily altered. Information or opinions we access one day might not be there the next day—or it may be radically altered.
  • Q: Why would this not apply to newspaper images used online? A: Because the content of that newspaper, for that particular date, is unchangeable. If we cite a newspaper of 3 March 1865, the content of that newspaper should be the same regardless of where or when we use it.
  • Q: But the online archive might drop that newspaper; it might be there one day and gone the next, right? A: Yes, but how does this situation differ from traditional library usage? A book we consult at a certain library might be there one day and gone another. So what? We simply find the book elsewhere. The content of the book is the same--so long as it is the same edition, with the same title, etc.

Just to expand a bit on this point... I assume the rationale in point 3 would apply to digital images of any historical content, especially if your citation is to the original material with the web data added at the end?  I have seen publications where an access date was cited in footnotes only once followed by a phrase "all access dates were on (date) unless otherwise noted."  How prevalent is that among editors?  Is that a practice you recommend?

bbailey73:

The rationale in point 3 applies to publications that are reproduced online, not to original material.

Regarding the editorial practice that you cite: It is a practice followed by some editors. The important thing for us to remember, as researchers, is that there is a difference between our needs at input vs. output.  When we consult a record (the data input stage) we need to capture all data that will affect both our evaluations and our access in the future. When we publish (the data output stage), editors will apply all sorts of space-saving devices, depending upon their house style.

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal or a press, all URLs and links will be checked in the editorial process. That is the point at which an editor, in the interest of saving space, might write a generic statement at the beginning of the footnotes to tell the reader that all URLs were last accessed on a certain date.  This is not a practice that would be practical for an ongoing research project.

 

Submitted bykstanbaryon Sun, 03/24/2013 - 11:56

Thank you very, very much.  That is quite helpful.  The purpose of the access date was illuminating.  I had previously believed that the purpose was to be able to reconstruct a web page on a given date.  But since, I am only using the general URL for the site as a whole, specifying the details of the source in part A (date, page, etc.) to assist a reader to find it, then the access date is really irrelevant.  So then following this logic, what is the purpose of the access date in the very first, full footnote?

Submitted byEEon Sun, 03/24/2013 - 14:04

kstanbary,

The basic purpose is explained at 2.37 (part of those front pages your puppy chewed up smiley):

"Identification of a website’s address—its URL—can be tricky. Long URLs typically represent dynamic pages created on the fly when we enter a search term. We may find a long URL reusable so long as we do not clear our computer’s browser cache. However, it likely will not work for others or for us at a later time. An alternative is to cite the
website’s home page, along with keywords in the path that takes a browser to the proper site. That method is not more permanent, however. The reorganization of a website could eventually make our cited keywords and path unworkable. By recording the access date, we may have a reference point we can use to retrieve the material from an Internet cache such as WayBack Machine (http://www.archives.org)."

Beyond this basic point, of course, is the issue mentioned in the prior message: with material written directly for the web, the version we access on one day may be different from that accessed on another day.