Bibliography and "my own words"

Cuba

I am in the middle of writing a paper for my philosophy class on morals and ethics, and have a question regarding... well, a bibliography.

The professor has written that "The bulk of your paper should consist in an explanation of the topic under discussion in your own words." Also, the professor has made it clear that "Do not use quotations as a means of making your points-explain things in your own words. You should quote very sparingly, and whenever you do quote you should paraphrase the quotation and cite your source."

What I am gathering from this is that I do not want to make use of much, if any, direct quotations. With that in mind then, my question about the bibliography is: the bibliography is merely the organized list of all of the sources that I gathered information from, even though I may not have used their contents directly within my paper? For example, I read through "Book A" and find nothing that I want to use in my paper. "Book A" must now be listed within my bibliography.

So... just write the paper and provide a bibliography that shows all of the things that I viewed while writing the paper. Does that sound about right?

Seydlitz

That sounds about right, I think. (Disclaimer: Coming at this from a science / engineering background, not English - I only read technical papers, not essays.)

Your list of references is things you have quoted directly - so for example, "Bob said this"[1] (the 1 should be superscript, but I don't know how to do this). Then at the end (or bottom of the page; depends on your style) you put "1. D. Yu, C. Ho, X. Yu, and S. Mori. On the application of cellular automata to image thinning with cellular neural network. In Cellular Neural Networks and their Applications, pages 210–215. 1992."

Your bibliography is stuff you've read and thought "hey, he's got a good point here!". Or stuff you've read and thought "this is dead wrong". Anything that influences what you're writing, even if you don't use the ideas in it . Your department should have guidelines for you, if you ask somebody - or you could check the library maybe?

LaOs

Sounds like it might be more of a References page than a Works Cited page. Also, it's not like you list the pages you used in your paper here--you just list the books referenced/read. If you read the book, note it in the format specified by your teacher.

TychoCelchuuu

You can cite something without directly quoting it. If I say "In 1985, the population of blue footed boobies decreased drastically as a result of an alien invasion," I would but a footnote after that or a parenthetical citation even though I haven't taken the words of my source directly. It's still necessary to acknowledge where you got your facts or an idea that you're using as a stepping point to original work. I'd ask your teacher though.

Numi

If a source is adding nothing then putting it in the bibliography seems beyond odd. The whole point of citing your sources and providing a detailed listing of them is so that people will be able to check where you got your information.

Your professor apparently just wants to avoid being quote-bombed, the basic rules will most likely still apply.

Cite your sources and be damn sure you avoid passing off other peoples thoughts as your own.
All cited sources must appear on the reference page.
Be consistant in how you cite sources, pick a system and make sure to use that one for the entire paper.

Kate of Lokys

This is coming from a sociology/English background, so YMMV.

You should only be referencing material you actually use... but *everything* you use needs to be on there, and it needs to be properly cited. If you read through Book A and there's actually nothing at all useful in it, do not put it on your bibliography. If you read through Book A and find that the author's work comments in an interesting way on what you're writing about, paraphrase their ideas, cite it properly, and list it on your bibliography.

Example: let's say a guy named Coetzee wrote a novel called Slow Man in which one of the characters discussed the paradox of originality in photography. If you were using a direct quote, it would look like this:

The question of originality in photography is concisely presented by Marijana, the object of Paul's misplaced affection, who scornfully refutes his belief in the importance of his collection of prints: "What is this thing, original photograph? You point camera, click, you make copy. That is how camera works. Camera is like photocopier. So what is original? Original is copy already" (Coetzee, 2006).

If you just wanted to put Coetzee's ideas into your own words, you would paraphrase, like so:

Coetzee (2007) argues that originality in photography is inherently impossible: photographs themselves are simply copies of actual scenes, and thus the very idea of an original image is flawed.

Putting things in your own words requires more understanding of the source material, so I can see why your prof would require it. But on the student side, it's a pain in the ass to paraphrase, especially if the author has already used a really unique expression.

SkyGheNe

I think the professor is also concerned about you quoting something and then moving onto your next point without spending 2-3 sentences talking about it. I get that a lot in some of the freshman college papers I have to go through.

JustPlainPavek

I'm reading these guidelines the same way as SkyGheNe — any sources you use in informing or supporting your arguments should be cited properly through the use of the bibliography, but don't use big blockquotes of other people's opinions in lieu of writing out your own argument.