Is there a rule, that you have to give your source?

I'm just wondering. It doesn't do any good anyway. When asked, I give a often then give my source, or go and find my source. I'm then told my source is wrong, by the know-it-all types on this forum.

Here is an example:

ADMIRAL KIMMEL AND THE QUESTION OF SHALLOW WATER TORPEDOES
Recent Discoveries, by Michael Gannon, University of FL


On June 13

th a second communication from CNO Stark advised Kimmel and his

staff that an aerial torpedo attack was "likely" only in water that was 60 to 75 feet deep. It

bears repeating that Pearl's water was only 30 to 45 feet deep. Thus, in this matter the
Navy Department's bond of trust with its Pacific Fleet commander was reassuring.​

But my research in Naval Attaché reports from London--documents in the
National Archives at College Park, MD, that stand outside the usually consulted Pearl
Harbor collection--reveal that Stark's operations people knew in July 1941 that the Royal
Navy Fleet Air Arm had made a fin modification to its 18-inch Mark XII aerial torpedo
that enabled it to be dropped in water as shallow as 24 feet. Use of the shallow water
torpedo had been made in Royal Navy air attacks on various Italian harbors in the​

Mediterranean during 1940 and the first month of 1941.​

Here is the web site:
http://pearlharbor911attacks.com/docs/GANNON_PAPER_SHALLOW_WATER_TORPEDOES.pdf​

I just don't understand, how people on this forum, know so much, that
they are sure this paper isn't correct.​

 

just do it, it's normal Web-site etiquette. we've had authors here in the past be great pains informing all of us of having their texts used illegally without proper ID or notification for using said source(s). in fact for your information I am mod on at least 2 aircraft forums and if there is any question in doubt as to whom the source may be and this does not mean the poster himslef, a warning will be issued and possible banning after the third posting if sources are not mentioned in the post. I would think one would want to protect him/herself in this regard and especially ww2f in general. We (mods/trustees) should not have to take great pains in IDing the source you should ..........

 

This is one of the best ww2 forums on the internet for a few reasons, one being that it is a well maintained forum. To cite a source is is prove a point, sure there will always be those people who will doubt your source to the end even if it comes from a legit document, some will say that historian is an idiot and can not be trusted. Well I say it is all a point of perspective.

Now there will be always be people who don't agree with you, some openly some not so openly but as long as you can cite your source we can all attempt to fish out whether it is true or false professionally.
We will however happily accept the well known and commonly accepted histories of the war, for a nice simple example of this, we all accept and acknowledge that Germany killed many Jews. It is common knowledge and one you will not have to prove, however if you are going to take something from another cite or a book you are required to cite that reference, or if you are trying to prove a point and need some help proving that point by a published book or site.

Simply, cite everything that is not common knowledge and you will be fine.

 

DogFather,

It is common courtesy to provide a source when asked. Just to let others know where you got the information and to judge for themselves its accuracy. Some persons are not as easily swayed as others, unless a source can be provided to back up your conclusion. This is especially so when the debate in question involves a rather controversial subject, e.g. the ongoing debate about Pearl Harbor.

IIRC, no one has said that the article is wrong, only your conclusion

I questioned the article's source because

is very vague at best. I could say that 'Well, I read it in a book in the History Section of the Reading Public Library,' which is what Gannon essentially does, but that is not proper citation for a source, and is a good way to get laughed at on a research forum. For example, look through Gordon W. Prange's "Notes" in the Appendix of "At Dawn We Slept" to see what I am used to for source citation.:
6. State Department Memorandum of Conversation, July 23, 1941, Hull Papers, Box 60.
or
23. Memorandum for the Secretary from Stark, November 12, 1940, papers of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, N.Y., President's Secretary File, Box 63.
These are more exact than Gannon's example.

I also posted

as further reasons for my doubts. As I have said, he is a historian of some repute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Gannon_(historian) and I have read his book on Operation Drumbeat Amazon.com: Operation Drumbeat: Germany's U-Boat Attacks Along the American Coast in World War II (9780060920883): Michael Gannon: Books which I thought was very good. So, I know this gentlemen is no slouch, which again makes me question his documents on The Story Within The Pearl Harbor Story To me, those documents appear to be quickly written magazine articles which would explain their poor research and citing of sources.

Another factor in this dilemma, at least in my opinion, is your use of obviously biased sources, e.g. Senate corrects injustice against Pearl Harbor Commanders | Human Events | Find Articles at BNET The Story Within The Pearl Harbor Story and the "Scapegoats" review at Scapegoats -- A Defense of Kimmel and Short at Pearl Harbor (review) In case you didn't know, the first article you posted was written by Bruce R. Bartlett, who also wrote "Cover-Up: The Politics of Pearl Harbor, 1941-1946", Arlington House Productions, 1978. You are using sources that put a clear "spin" or "slant" to their information and how that information is presented. The failings in much of these works has been pointed out to you. I would suggest trying to find a more "neutral" source or, at least, one that is not so biased in its opinion and presentation. That way, you might have better luck in convincing others of your beliefs. If, as you have said, you have been reading about World War II for many years, than this should not be a problem for you.

However, if you can not find an unbiased source to support you conclusion, take a different tact. Approach the source from the POV of a non-believer, and try and poke holes in its conclusion yourself. If you can not poke any holes in the source, or do not see any outright falsehoods, then it is, probably, OK to post it. This approach may take longer, but will cause you much less grief in the long run.

My two cents on the matter,
Craig, aka Takao

 

Citing your sources is no different than wiping your nose after you sneeze; there is no rule for it, but it is just common courtesy.

 

Well said. There's another point I'd like to raise. I appreciate those who cite their sources, especially when the posters are those that I disagree with about a conclusion or issue, because it gives me a chance to check for myself the sources cited and often, learn something new.

Sometimes, doing so makes me realize that I am wrong and I gladly concede the point.

 

And don't cite Stinnet in your posts concerning Pearl Harbor conspiracies in the future either. His work has been discredited, and is rabidly rejected by our resident Pearl Harbor Expert, El Professoro Opana Pointer.

 

Despite its crude wording, this is absolutely right.

 

If anyone really wants to bend their head round this stuff, read these:

The Practice of History: Amazon.co.uk: Geoffrey R. Elton: Books
What is History? with a new Introduction by Richard J Evans: Amazon.co.uk: Edward Hallett Carr: Books

You'll have trouble staying awake, but they'll give a pretty thorough grounding on objective/subjective/primary/secondary sourcing etc.

Nobody expects constant citing do they, we're not trying to write theses here.
But if you make a controversial statement that makes people go; 'really?' Then it's only polite/sensible to show the source, otherwise you might look a bit silly.
Of course, you might look silly even then - sources are like that.

~A

 

Some on this forum may post things without sources and I will take it as gospell , others I won't believe, even with sources. It's all a matter of common sense. I you are a respected member you won't be challenged to quote sources all the time, if you start being contraversial, then you may be asked to make your point.

 

But I have never sited "Stinnet", or ever suggested a pre-attack conspriacy, or foreknowledge on the part of FDR or his admin, as to the date and time of the PH attack. Find a post, where I say this; ya can't there ain't none. Yet, I still get called conspriacy nut, over and over again.

 

DogFather,

In your first quote, in the topic concerned there is

Since your position only concerned General Marshall you should have just quoted the sentence

However, you did not do this, but quoted the whole article thus linking yourself to the "Roosevelt Knew of Imminent Attack" subject of the article. The article suggests a

Thus you have unintentionally linked yourself to those conclusions.

Now in your quote from Scapegoats -- A Defense of Kimmel and Short at Pearl Harbor (review) you did better and only quoted the passage you wanted to support your position. However, the part of that passage

Again this points to a "conspiracy," and again your are linking yourself to such. You can see where Kimmel's thoughts lie in the 5th paragraph of the "Scapegoats" review that you cited

Also, the source for "Scapegoats", the "Journal of Historical Review" and its parent organization the Institute for Historical Review, are at best "questionable" as sources. See Institute for Historical Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or do a Google search for them.

As I have said earlier try to find a more neutral source for your quotes.

 

and I think it's about time to close this thread to settle this matter before the snake bites it's tail.