I had a question I wanted to ask, in regards to the rules. If this is an inappropriate way of doing so, I apologize, and wouldn't object to the Mods removing this.
My question was - the rules argue against personal knowledge and anecdotes. However we are allowed to provide information through secondary literature. Speaking as a historian, Is it against the rules of the sub if I provide an answer drawing on my personal research, and provide a reference to my own published work.
Would my own published work not be an appropriate thing to cite? If I were citing myself, I would be careful to highlight my own research and personal conclusions from general information for the question asker, but first I'd like to know if this is even allowed, or against the what the community believes constitutes appropriate answers.
Regards
Yes, citing your own published work is perfectly acceptable, just as would be a citation of any other historian. I know off hand of several flairs who cite themselves in this way, and it is perfectly fine! The actual 'No Personal Anecdotes' rule is much narrower than it seems to be understood in the retelling, as the focus is really aimed specifically at the medium of the internet. We don't allow the kinds of unverified "My grandfather told me..." or "I was there in 1973 and as I recall...." kind of stuff. If you are the author of published secondary literature, the rule has nothing that would constrain you from using it.
And of course, just speaking more generally, I would even note that one can use their grandfather's war stories if they are from properly conducted and published interviews (perhaps they gave one to the Veterans History Project) or even your own distant memories if they are published in a memoir or similarly from a proper interview, as long as they are employed judiciously and in conjunction with secondary literature, as we would expect with any primary source.
