What the **** is it with this nearly universal rhetorical behavior right wing voices demonstrate here? Even george, who has a goddamn Ph D. insists on avoiding this simplest of scholarship requirements utterly commonplace in first years courses in damn near any subject area.
I really don't quite get it. Either these people just do not have the educational background to grasp why citations are important/necessary in the pursuit of truth or they are, for whatever set of reason, interested in something other than pursuing truth.
I believe the behavior you so energetically criticize here is every bit as common among "left wing" posters as you allege is among "right wing voices" here. In this you are, without fact or citation, advocating a nonsensical and obviously false proposition.
Citing, as you so frequently do, a source, providing the opinion of a usually biased observer, that is also itself devoid of either facts or citations, is hardly "scholarship" - all your repeated protestations on this point notwithstanding. All form, but no substance: though you appear to believe otherwise.
Actually, mathematics texts and treatises usually include citations only in cases involving either a specific theory or innovation provided by a well-known figure, or to credit an ignored or little known sources the author wishes to credit. The same goes for most scientific works. For the rest they rely on the clarity and consistency of their logical approach.
Citations occur mostly in non scientific fields populated by authors jealous of their own status, and in cases in which the argument from authority is deemed particularly important.