Sources in Essay(other than WW1) (1 Viewer)

[sungkwo]

I've been reading the "writing modern history essays" thread, and someone said that you need to "use sources to support what I'm saying". I asked my teacher about it and he said that it wasn't neccesary- and I checked the exemplar essays and none of them have "sources" in them. (except historigraphical quotes if you count them as "sources".). However in one of the marking criterias for our essays includes "Extenesive evalution as sources".

So my question is do I need to include like primary and secondary sources in non WWI essays?

Perhaps I don't quite understand what is meant by a "source" is. Does the definition of a source include more than just ones we get in WWI questions?

 

[Cinnamonster]

In Modern I just use quotes from either historians or from first hand accounts (eg. Yamamoto said after Pearl Harbour that they have "awoken a sleeping giant").

 

[murphyad]

In Modern I just use quotes from either historians or from first hand accounts (eg. Yamamoto said after Pearl Harbour that they have "awoken a sleeping giant").

Yep. This sort of thing is generally a good idea. Keep in mind that the mod syllabus says one must consider various perspectives, so a historian's quote or whatever can be a great driver for perspective-based evaluation.

However, you don't need to use historiography all the time throughout your essay. When I write my essays I stick to 2 per paragraph absolute max - remember its/they're your essay and ideas, not someone else's. The other thing is that there's no point chucking them in willy nilly: make sure they have a purpose: they either support or refute something that is relevant to your argument. In this respect it's like English: you wouldn't leave a quote or any other point of analysis just hanging there without validating it.

While using specific historiography is not necessary, i would argue that even if only on a subconscious level they make your argument look more well-considered (which to a large extent it is).

EDIT: A 'source' in this context is any piece of supporting material from some specific person, either directly quoted or paraphrased

 

[roar84eighty]

While using specific historiography is not necessary, i would argue that even if only on a subconscious level they make your argument look more well-considered (which to a large extent it is).

I agree. Although with nationality and personality topics for Russia/Germany the polemic nature of historiography and the polarity in some cases (e.g. issues of totalitarianism and adherence to ideology) of historical opinion needs to be addressed; at least briefly. It is something simple that might convince the marker you know more than you actually do when you sit the HSC.