Publishing - footnotes, chapter notes, source notes, & references

[Richard T Eger]

From 12 O'Clock High!:

Jukka Juutinen
Placement of footnotes
Fri Dec 12 02:20:11 2003
213.28.164.219

We now, I believe, basically agree that footnotes should be used in serious books of history. Now, where do you folks prefer them to be located? I mean, is a footnote apparatus at the end book satisfactory or should they be on appropriate pages (footnote expalantions on the same page as the primary text)? I certainly prefer the latter since I have noted how frustrating it is to shuffle back and forth if one wishes to check the note, especially if the note contains more than a source note. One excellent recent example is John Beeler´s "Birth of the Battleship" where appropriate footnotes are conveniently on the same page as the main text. Comments?

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

David Ransome
Footnotes
Fri Dec 12 09:19:39 2003
195.92.168.175

Hi,
If the footnotes are brief, I prefer them on the same page.

I have, however, read books with lengthy footnotes on the relevant page and I find these to be very distracting from the point of view of text continuity. In these cases I would prefer them at the back of the book.

Regards,

David

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Marcel Hogenhuis
footnotes
Fri Dec 12 10:26:20 2003
217.122.92.115

Hello Jukka,

My thoughts on this:
1. first ask yourself for who you write a book. Is it for the historically minded local population in your region OR the airwar research community alone?
2. secondly, ask yourself whether you want a footnote system, that does match with your own taste or will satisfy the majority of your potential readers?

After much thinking, we (in Venlo) concluded that for a planned AIRFIELD VENLO IN WW-2 book, we will place footnotes AFTER each chapter. Why?
1. the people in our region are anxious to learn more about a German airfield near Venlo in WW-2. This number of readers will exceed the number of (hopefully) interested airwar researchers elsewhere on an estimated scale of 5:1
2. as you might have experienced yourself, some events are reconstructed on basis of 2-3 sources combined. This makes just one footnote 2-3 lines already, perhaps even longer, even when you will print those lines very small. IF each page contains 5-6 footnotes, THEN a proportionally large part of that page will contain footnotes. This is for a majority of the (less airwar adapted) readers unattractive, but very practical for airwar researchers like us.
2. if you put ALL footnotes, indexed by chapter, at the end of your book, airwar researchers will rightfully complain that they have difficulties to look for more details.
3. so, by putting the footnotes at the end of each chapter, we are convinced that we combine readability for most readers without doing the need for more details any harm.

I hope this will help the decision making process? Best wishes, Marcel Hogenhuis
Study Group Venlo Airfield in WW-2

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Jukka Juutinen
footnotes
Fri Dec 12 10:35:41 2003
213.28.161.65

I should have clarified that I am not writing a book, I simply expressed my preferences as a reader. I do still prfer notes on each page, but this may not be suited to small format books. Beeler´s book I referred to is of large 24 cm x 30 cm format allowing very nice layout without disturbance for even those who do not like these notes.

Jukka

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Steve W.
Agreed.....
Fri Dec 12 12:32:45 2003
64.12.96.76

Footnotes are so much more useful and easier to use if placed at the bottom of each page as was the practice for centuries. In the late 'sixties or early 'seventies some academics, apparently with nothing better to do, decided to move them to a special "Sources and Notes" section at the end of the book. With the reader still not inconvenienced enough, in their opinion, the academics then decided to place the foot notes at the end of each chapter. Today, unfortunately, it appears that "bottom-of-page" footnotes have fallen into disuse. However, if I ever write a book, that is exactly where I will put them, even if I have to publish the damn thing myself.

Steve W.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Bengt Norman
I’m currently reading...
Fri Dec 12 12:28:51 2003
212.151.115.89

...Angels Eight by David Clark and thou I’m not going to give critic in any direction regarding this work, I must admit I almost (accidentally) tore the book apart jumping from text to footnotes. No shadow on David Clark, just a comment related to this topic.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

C. herrera
Angels Eight-what is your opinion?
Fri Dec 12 14:22:06 2003
4.34.205.228

Bengt,

I just bought Angels Eight and started reading it. Unfortunately, I have come accross some fallacies in the text. Can others jump in and tell me what they think of this book?

Thanks,

Carlos

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

C. herrera
Angels Eight-what is your opinion?
Fri Dec 12 14:22:06 2003
4.34.205.228

Bengt,

I just bought Angels Eight and started reading it. Unfortunately, I have come accross some fallacies in the text. Can others jump in and tell me what they think of this book?

Thanks,

Carlos

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Sergio Luis dos Santos
"Is this footnote necessary"...
Fri Dec 12 13:29:12 2003
200.152.34.1

Sometimes I do not understand why some footnotes can´t be merged in the text itself... In my manuscript for a book "ohe day hope to see published" I do not used footnotes. All available information is in the text, even confliting ones from various sources. I only placed in the text a numbered system to identify from which source the info cames. It looks like: Data on this flight has confused informatiom from various sources, it took xxx hours and xxx kilometers[1], yyy hours and yyy kilometers [15] or zzz hours and zzz kilometers [25]. Then the reader can see from where I got the info. Some books has so many footnotes that I confess to read all text and ignore them...

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Antonio M
Footnotes
Sat Dec 13 08:55:14 2003
80.182.106.21

Sergio,
what you are talking about are exactly footnotes, used
to identify the sources of your information.

I agree that discussion about diffrent souces can be better
be included in the text itself.

Sometimes you want to put some additional information
about a unit, an event, or something other, in which
not all readers would be interested, and that would
harm the readability of the text. Maybe this information
might better be located in a footnote.

Antonio

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Antonio M
Footnotes
Sat Dec 13 08:55:14 2003
80.182.106.21

Sergio,
what you are talking about are exactly footnotes, used
to identify the sources of your information.

I agree that discussion about diffrent souces can be better
be included in the text itself.

Sometimes you want to put some additional information
about a unit, an event, or something other, in which
not all readers would be interested, and that would
harm the readability of the text. Maybe this information
might better be located in a footnote.

Antonio

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Sergio Luis dos Santos
Not footnote - Reference guide
Sat Dec 13 11:11:36 2003
200.97.140.96

Read carefully. I place all information on the text and gives the source from where it was taken. You can read all the text and whether be interested to research by himself or see where I got it, just check the reference listing. That´s very different from stoping the reading, read a short or sometimes long footnote then returning to the text.
In my manuscript you can read all information at once.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

John Vasco
Footnotes: an alternative view
Fri Dec 12 14:41:37 2003
195.92.67.68

The books that I have written, or co-written, do not have a single footnote. The reason for this is that if further information needs to be known by the reader, it is there with them at that moment of reading, not at the bottom of the page/end of chapter/end of book. So, in 'Bombsights', I may state what pilots like Aretz and Beudel were doing on particular days in the body of the text, with their Flugbuch entries as a separate entity in an appendix. Saves the reader from flicking back and forth all the time. That kind of thing has always bloody annoyed me! Also, quoting a tiny piece from another work in a proper context is not breach of copyright, so there is no harm in doing so.

I now expect to be completely taken apart on this one!!!


John Vasco

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Jukka Juutinen
Notes
Fri Dec 12 17:26:20 2003
213.28.164.216

So your approach would be similar to that employed by Thomas Jentz in his books on German tanks. It works for him. Don´t know about you since my budget has not permitted buying your books yet!

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

John Vasco
Re: Notes
Fri Dec 12 19:03:45 2003
195.92.67.75

I haven't seen any of Thomas Jentz's books,as my interest does not extend to tanks. If he works without using footnotes, then yes, my approach is identical to him.

Don't worry about not knowing me, my work is run-of-the-mill stuff.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

RD
Run-of-the-mill stuff...
Sat Dec 13 13:55:47 2003
219.215.180.18

Don't believe that. John Vasco's books are much better and a good contribution to Luftwaffe better knowledge. The Schiffer books are somewhat pricey but I got the "Zerstörer" 1995 JAC Publications at bargain price. You can always start fron there...

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

John Vasco
Re: Run-of-the-mill stuff...
Sat Dec 13 20:21:16 2003
195.92.67.70

They are run-of-the-mill stuff, in the sense that they are facts and photographs that are simply regurgitated for public consumption. They are not analytical critiques, nor a reasoned intellectual treatise on the subjects I have covered. What I have done, anyone could also have done. I did not 'discover' anything; everything was already there. That's the simple truth. I'm not fishing for compliments, simply stating how it is.

The above applies to my own works only. I do not include 'Zerstörer' in the above statement, since that was a joint effort with Peter Cornwell, and I would not presume to comment on any joint issue on his behalf.

I will not comment on the pricing policy of Schiffer, as that would be unprofessional to do so.


John Vasco

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Jukka Juutinen
sources
Fri Dec 12 17:31:22 2003
213.28.164.216

BTW, one thing I hate most is when some authors use the style of "...according to some sources blaa blaa, but another source blah blah..." without revealing the source. This really steals the reader the possibility of estimating the reliability of a particular source.

Jukka

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Hawk-Eye
Footnotes are necessary
Sat Dec 13 11:18:20 2003
195.93.65.9

They, or their equivalent, are necessary in genuinely historical works (just have a look at a few of them, for example "LUFTWAFFE - Strategy for Defeat 1933-1945", by Williamson Murray, a highly historical work) because most authors mention the same previously published books, articles or archive documents again and again. The readers would get fed-up very quickly of reading the same authors' names and the same titles again and again, up to several hundred times (?). So in this respect too it's better to give this information in a footnote or, more often still in historical works, in the form of a number corresponding a certain source or document which is given in all detail at the end of the chapter or of the book.

I find it very boring and tiring myself to look for the right number at the end all the time, often without discovering anything really new to the reader, but please note that a few sources are quoted very often so it's easy to remember their number or to make a short list yourself, and you can use some piece of paper to mark the page(s) at the end, too, which makes the use of these numbers much easier.

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Richard T. Eger
Footnotes & source notes
Sat Dec 13 13:49:19 2003
162.33.246.11

Dear fellow Luftwaffe researchers,

I am absolutely delighted with the tenor of this discussion. There is virtually no discussion of not using some form of sourcing identification, but rather, where this should be placed. The need for sourcing is assumed to be a given by most, if not all, the participants of this discussion.

When an author gives a source, he provides a way to check his statements and also potentially leads for others interested in researching the subject. A claim by Norman Malayney in his ATI/Watson's Whizzers series in the AAHS Journal (1995/1-3) in that 2 Me 262's arrived in the U.S. aboard victory ships prior to the big shipment aboard the HMS Reaper is supported with a reference note stating that the information came from AFHRA reels A5719 & A5720. The names of the victory ships are in question, so all I would need to do to check this out is to review these reels.

Misinterpretation of a source is always a possibility and a knowledgeable researcher, being able to review the original document, may then be able to determine the original intent of the document. Without this, the reader is left to either accept or reject the author's claims, but then it is a flip of the coin. The reader is left with a dilemma: "Should I believe what the author is telling me?" If the author won't show you his cards, you may decide to be distrustful. On the other hand, the author may appear to be quite reasonable in his other statements so, by inference, you simply accept his erroneous interpretation as correct.

There is also the rotten apple problem. If an author makes claims, especially claims that appear to be suspect, and does not support them with good documentation, these suspicious portions simply spread their rot to the rest of the book, making the whole work questionable, when perhaps the rest is quite correct. For instance, a recent work on ATI described German weapon systems completely inaccurately, this being apparent to any thinking reader regardless of previous knowledge of the subject, which tainted the rest of the work's history of ATI, bringing statements which might have been correct into question.

I very much appreciate an author noting with a superscript number where from a specific passage's claim is supported. The argument as to where to place the reference is probably a matter of personal choice of the author. Where possible, it would be nice to have a specific page in the source referenced, but this might make the printing costs quite high. While having a bibliographic reference in the back not connected directly to text in the book is better than nothing, it is a very poor second to knowing the source of specific claims within the text. Those superscript numbers in the text are priceless.

Whether to put all the information, itself, within the text really depends on what is being said. The author must ask himself: "Does the inclusion of this information here have greater benefit than the disruption it causes to the flow of thinking I am trying to maintain?" If you are just citing your source, it certainly shouldn't be buried in the text. Even if you have conflicting sources and want to be very honest about what you are dealing with, it is probably best to say in the text that there is some conflict, then direct the reader to a footnote somewhere that covers this. Breaking the continuity of thought in the text can be quite disruptive. As in any presentation, you have to keep your audience in mind.

Regards,
Richard

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

John Vasco
Re: Footnotes & source notes
Sat Dec 13 20:29:40 2003
195.92.67.70

It looks like I've made a balls, then, of everything I've done up to present!

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Richard T. Eger
Re.: Footnotes: an alternative view
Sat Dec 13 21:54:29 2003
162.33.246.72

Dear John,

For the sake of comment, I've reproduced your posting below.

It appears that your books are, in part, supported by presentation of the actual documents in the appendices, which saves the reader trouble in chasing them down.

But, from what you say, you also take snippets from other sources without noting what these are. So, my various comments then apply to these. Lacking the source of the information, the reader must assume that you know your stuff. But, even then, when you quote the works of others, actually not quote but include, you run the risk of duplicating any errors they may have made and leave yourself no out as to these errors. Had you noted the sources, then, at least, if they were in error, the error could be passed back.

I would think that, in the main, errors tend to be subtle, pretty indistinguishable from that that is true. Thus, if much of the book is correct, but a small percentage is in error, the work, as a whole, will be assumed to be correct. Then, the next author quotes your work for its scholarly demeaner and repeats the error. I'm sure we've all seen this game of "telephone history".

The book I cited regarding the errors relating to the aeronautical equipment had just the opposite effect. Most of the book dealt with the history of ATI and, for all I know, may have been correct. But the gross errors in telling about the equipment made the whole book suspect. Thus, in this case, the good gets tossed out with the bad. But, as I said, the book has a saving grace: its reference notes. With diligence, it would be possible to attempt to reconstruct the book from its references, thus providing an accurate picture. Without these, it just makes for interesting reading, but not much more.

Anyway, take these comments for what value you find in them.

Regards,
Richard

"John Vasco
Footnotes: an alternative view
Fri Dec 12 14:41:37 2003
195.92.67.68

The books that I have written, or co-written, do not have a single footnote. The reason for this is that if further information needs to be known by the reader, it is there with them at that moment of reading, not at the bottom of the page/end of chapter/end of book. So, in 'Bombsights', I may state what pilots like Aretz and Beudel were doing on particular days in the body of the text, with their Flugbuch entries as a separate entity in an appendix. Saves the reader from flicking back and forth all the time. That kind of thing has always bloody annoyed me! Also, quoting a tiny piece from another work in a proper context is not breach of copyright, so there is no harm in doing so.

I now expect to be completely taken apart on this one!!!


John Vasco"

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

John Vasco
Re: Re.: Footnotes: an alternative view
Sat Dec 13 23:24:38 2003
195.92.67.67

Richard,

You are correct in everything you have written. However, I will add one qualifying comment. There are certain sources from which I drew information (and subsequently used) that I was not able to quote. The reason for this is on the grounds of confidentiality.

There is other information that I received that I elected not to use on the grounds of sensitivity, and also on the grounds of not wishing to sensationalise something.

Hope this clarifies things to some degree, but I still accept that I am guilty to some degree of not quoting all sources.


John Vasco

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Richard T. Eger
Footnotes: The gray areas
Sun Dec 14 00:42:13 2003
162.33.247.213

Dear John,

I agree that authors do face a delimma when a source does not wish to be quoted. Saying that you have the data from a reputable source sounds coy, so you are really caught in the middle.

Another gray area is in the use of archive material. Some archives want a king's ransom for the author to be allowed to use their material directly, such as a photo, even though the author, in general, at best, breaks even or makes a very small amount on his book. For some reason, the government beaurocracy may see their holdings as a way to generate operating income, rather than as the more appropriate view of the furtherance of the educating of humanity on various aspects of history. I strongly suspect that the reason some authors fail to give references or give only a list of references in the rear of their books unconnected to the text and photos within the book is to avoid having to deal with this problem. As has been said before, if authors in our field of interest thought of earning a living through writing of history, they'd likely starve to death, with a very few rare exceptions.

Regards,
Richard

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Hawk-Eye
"Errors tend to be subtle"
Sun Dec 14 00:07:34 2003
195.93.65.13

Not always! For example some people - admittedly no recognized aviation experts - still today publish "historical" books in which they claim that the Luftwaffe engaged 15,500 (combat) aircraft in May 1940 as compqared to the real 3,500. I don't find this error really subtle.

Others print and claim on TV that the LW 1940 "systematically bombed all Dutch cities", which is nonsense - not because the nazis were nice but it's simply not true, they had other concerns and targets (it wasn't even true in the USSR). Not very subtle!

And even here on this forum most "experts" consider all victories won by Mölders, Wick, Galland, Balthasar etc. to have been won over England - in fact 15-25 victories were won before, during the Phnoney War (Sept. 39- May 40)and in the French Campaign, by each of them, leaving approx. 25 victories won over England. So most people, including book authors, ignore a whole campaign of WW II entirely (the 1940 French Campaign, which involved no less than 5 belligerents, of which 3 were major powers, the 2 others NOT being negligible (Belgium, NL) although a grand total of approx. 4,000 aircraft from all countries were lost in combat, mainly within 5 weeks (five), as compared to the BoB's grand total of approx. 3,100 in 13 (thirteen) weeks.

Is this kind of errors subtle too? I find them enormous, massive, incredible errors. There are many others. For example a few days ago a French TV network broadcast a "wonderful" program, directed by a famous "expert" (who is completely unserious) of 1 hr 30 minutes on the whole history of aviation - with almost nothing on WW II but they said that the Allied bombing of Germany killed more than 2 million civilians. For many years ALL GERMAN SOURCES say approx. half a million (there are some reasons for this : partial evacuation of big cities, shelters etc.).

So even 60 years later some so-called "experts" make such "subtle" errors : over 2 million dead German civilians instead of 1/2 million. You can be sure that many "historians" are going to include these reliable figures into their forthcoming books : Mr. X said it, it has to be true!

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Richard T. Eger
Re. Subtle errors
Sun Dec 14 00:57:51 2003
162.33.247.213

Dear Hawk-Eye,

I agree, some are not subtle. But, those that are, can be hard to detect. Or, if you simply aren't knowledgeable about the subject, i.e., pretty much unplowed ground, then you can get away with errors being repeated over and over again, such as in cutaway isometric views of aircraft. William Green, in his "Warplanes of the Third Reich", promulgated some real whoppers but, at the time, he was plowing new ground and could thus get away with it. Then, in turn, his work gets quoted by others, furthering the problem. Don't get me wrong about Green - I grew up on his and Nowarra's works. At the time, they were like gold to me. But, times change. New information gets discovered and old myths die, some very, very slowly.

As for TV "documentaries", these are like the cesspools of history. Think about it. Whose putting them together? They are lucky if they can get a real expert to be on them and then the guy has to hold his nose so he can collect his fee. The footage can be helpful, although, by now, I've seen Me 262 footage so often repeated that there is hardly anything new in any of them, yet they keep churning them out. I remember one where they pretended to be preparing the Cosford bird for flight. Like a fantasy film, you just had to ignore reality to enjoy it in any manner whatsoever. In another, the drawings of the Me 262's had been prepared on another planet. You'll have this narator in a deep, sonerous voice tell us quite seriously about something of which he has no knowledge and, for all we know, is claptrap. And, if you are up on your subject, the claptrap gets pretty obvious. So, yes in TV "documentaries" the errors are anything but subtle.

Regards,
Richard

[Richard T Eger]

From TOCH!:

Ed West
A few thoughts
Sun Dec 14 20:10:59 2003
64.7.186.149

I have read everyone's comments, and with understandable emotion, your's Hawk-Eye. These fascinating bits of very important information (at least to the serious historian) need to be preserved in some way. I don't think any one person should do it, but at least those who can cite appropriate references should.

Now at this point, I would also like to add: STOP THIS INCESSANT BICKERING and create a place on-line to put all of the corrections related to the books, magazines, TV programs and so on. Complaining to those responsible, in my view, is not the answer. Just do it, before this thread disappears into some electronic limbo and the lot of us will be doomed to revisit it for eternity. Or at least more often than most of us would like.

Honestly, Gents. A book would be great (possible title: Corrections to Myths, Errors and Nonsense about the German Air Force, 1939-1945), but expensive. My possible book title could be the heading for a specialized site where everyone could add their bit and have done with it. At least this information would be preserved for posterity and in a place where it could be of some use to all. And lastly, if the aviation experts here don't do it, who will?

My two cents. (Please excuse the brief rant.)

Best regards,
Ed