Syndicated Newspaper Articles

Eddie B., as a starting point, may we ask why your one source is divided into two sentences?

Eddie B., there's a basic principle that's misunderstood here. It's among those basics covered in Chapters 1 and 2 that apply to all types of sources. Go back to 2.38 "Reference Notes vs. Source Lists."  If we are using one source, and our reference note divides its detail into two different sentences, then our reader (and we, ourselves, at a later date after our recollection of this source has gone cold), will assume that there are two different sources. An additional problem would be that neither sentence will contain all the information needed to relocate the source or to accurately evaluate what it is and what its strengths and weaknesses are.

By longstanding practice in every style guide (and for good reasons), Source Lists use periods between the elements of each Source List Entry. That presents no problem in interpretation because each Source List Entry is a "paragraph" into itself. When we see it, we know that everything in that "paragraph" belongs to that one source.

By contrast, a Reference Note may have multiple sources cited in one paragraph. We indicate where one source stops and another starts from the use of periods. When our readers get to a period, that piece of punctuation tells them "Okay, we're done with that. Now we're moving on to the next source."

Source List Entries also contain significantly less data than Reference Notes.

I'll let you rethink the citation and I'll comment on what you create then.

EddieB, Source List Entries are used by researchers only for a generic list of sources. That is normally put at the back of books. It's not used to support individual assertions within your text or narrative.

The standard for reporting information on people, compiling biographies, or creating proof arguments is the Reference Note. Every assertion that is not public knowledge must carry a citation to the source and the exact place in that source where the information can be found. Source List Entries are not exact. They cite to the author and book, but not the page. They cite to a collection, but not the document. They cite to a newspaper, by name and time period searched, but not the exact issue, page, and column.  The work you describe, by research standards of any field of history, calls for the use of Reference Note format.

Perfect, EddieB. The only suggestion EE would make is that the editorial brackets are not needed for your added explanation about the source.  Writers use square editorial brackets when copying text exactly (transcribing or extracting) and need to add something into the original text for clarification.

In that case, the square editorial brackets are a flag that says: I'm not in the original, I'm being injected by the current writer or editor.  When writing citations, however, we are composing disparate pieces of information into a sentence that tells our reader where our information comes from. Any analytical or explanatory comment we add is not "injecting outside details into the original."