I'm writing a history paper, but I'm not asking for direct critiques. But I'm concerned that I'm just summarizing different sources. I try to include as much analysis and ideas of my own, but it seems like the evidence does most of the talking. I know studying history involves taking many sources into account, and that "opinion" can't take precedent over evidence, but it feel like a 8th grade book report that just summarizes the information I've found.
How much should one rely on the information they find, and how much should they include their own interpretation and extrapolation of this evidence?
Speaking as a teacher: no, evidence does not "do the talking." :) A lot of times, what seems intuitive to the writer is not to the reader.
One general principle is that for every piece of evidence I introduce--a statistic, a quote, a paraphrase--I provide a sentence of analysis. A lot of times, that might just be "and this is how it contributes to the argument I am making in this paragraph/section/paper." No rule is absolute; sometimes you need two pieces of evidence together to make the point via comparison or something.
Another strategy I use is to have strong topic sentences of each paragraph that signal ("signpost") to the reader the POINT of that paragraph. Then all the evidence introduced in that paragraph has a clear purpose that the reader knows--making the point discussed initially.
I have never taken off a single point for someone being "too clear." ;)
Having just finished my History Associates' program, I can tell you that most history teachers want not only your evidence (Because they know you're not out in the field researching primary sources) but they want to know that you understand what you're writing about. as /u/sunagainstgold said, evidence alone doesn't do much other then say something like "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue". It doesn't tell the reader who, what, when or why (well in my example it doesn't say why and the other stuff in acceptable detail). It also doesn't tell the professor/teacher that you understand the importance or the connections an event or person has. I had the same professor for my last three history courses and his favorite question was "So what?" whenever someone tossed out a factoid. He wanted us to be able to say what effect that factoid had on history. When we were talking about WW1, and we covered that in the Treaty of Versailles, the Wiemar Republic was forced to sign Article 231 laying blame on Germany for the war. When he asked "so what?" he wanted to know that we understood that the Wiemar Republic was formed in the absence of the Kaiser (who was forced to abdicate) and that they were left holding the gun when it came time for the people of Germany to look for who to blame for their economic suffering and attack on sovereignty. This led to many other problems that also led to the rise of unrest and allowed Hitler to come into power. There was a solid connection he wanted to make sure we knew and understood.
So as a fellow student, research, cite and analyze. Use /u/sunagainstgold's recommendations (I mean hell, he's a teacher how much better of a recommendation can you get?") and use the evidence to help you talk to your reader. I told one person on a different sub, relying totally on other people is lazy history; you learn nothing. If you read all the evidence on something and come up with a different conclusion, and its appropriate, state it. A good example of this is in my mid-term I was asked to define when Rome fell. We were given a lot of dates/events to choose from. I chose none of them, arguing that Rome didn't necessarily fall, it faded in importance. I took the evidence and other people's interpretation and developed my own.
Hope that's not too confusing...