Also this can be general citations thread

i think there is something called mla, and then there is a less popular one called apa. different style guides with different ways of citing. depends on what your teacher wants. or if there is no teacher than it depends on what field you are writing in. read some stuff in the field and see what is popular and copy it. that is the way to do it.

speaking of citing things, 2 examples of famous quotes that people got wrong and made no sense to people like me at all and i never understood them until i later found out they were misquotes.

one small step for man one giant leap for mankind - what? man and mankind have the same meaning here so what is this trying to say?
turns out it was
one small step for a man one giant leap for mankind

power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely ... ? what does it mean to corrupt absolutely?
turns out it was
power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. - oh i see, "corrupts absolutely" just means "definitely corrupts" not some super-corruption or something... that kind of makes no sense.

hope that helps

@SYnapse - Try this site. Just plug in the information and it makes an MLA style citation for you.

http://www.easybib.com/

Kant, Immanuel, Paul Guyer, and Allen W. Wood. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ., 1998. N. pag. Print.

KANT, I. ed. 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Top is MLA, bottom is Harvard. Also I'm confused about in-text citations. Would I put (Kant 1781) (original date)? Publication date and page number - (Kant 1998:72)?

I know that Plato and Aristotle for example have their own referencing rules.

I for one almost never use re-publications. Original language if I can handle it. SO in fact, my style would be (Kant, 1781:72).

However, I got away with a lot because I used the EndNote software. It has a built in style guide and saves you a lot of headache by being able to archive appropriate quotes and to easily make a bibliography. I don't know if it still is what kids today use, but it was good in the day so it's worth a google.

Or just do like some people here and copy an entire tale, word for word, without any citation at all and swear it wasn't plagiarism.

power corrupts and absdolute power corrupts absolutley still makes sense. There is corruption (where one is somewhat evil but still has an element of good int hem, like Darth Vader) and absolute corruption (where one has no possibility of redemption or good left, like Emperor Palpatine).

it still sounds weird though. its like saying "gay men wear pink" "totally gay men wear pink totally". ... its not normal english. you dont go around saying "this man was corrupted absolutely"....
ok i cant explain why it sounds weird and nonstandard english but it does

I'm still not quite on board with the whole notion that throwing Palpy in the well is akin to there still being good in him. If Palp is considered absolute corruption, but Vader isnt, I'd say we might be putting the bar a tad high.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA

Also, about the quote, just see the word 'absolute' as meaning 'the most', as its meant in this instance. Power corrupts. More power corrupts more. The most power corrupts the most.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html

Palpatine is pure fun, not evil. People need to watch more canonical work, like Robot Chicken.

@TMoW - Luke could sense the good in Vader. But he didn't say anything like that to Palpatine.

LOVE Robot Chicken.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F1d3QWsyk0

Robot Chicken is *the* best animated show for adults. Of course I do love Star Wars: Clone Wars and Tron: Uprising but they are for preteens/tweens on up.