Talk:Harvard referencing/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

reasons for changing the top section

Someone took out all my recent changes without bothering to look for value -- the reverter even reverted to grammatical errors and obvious contradictions. I had provided a citation for my changes. The reverter provided no citations for the reversion.

So I'm putting it all back, with a few additional changes. And I'm providing explanations of why I think the reverter is incorrect, right here.

1. I had already provided a citation for the disagreement between Harvard and Chicago over preferences in the sciences and social sciences. This is important to include because many people read the Chicago Manual, and our Article had previously pointed to the Chicago Manual page that describes the contrary-to-Harvard view. So it's important to address this issue and not leave the reader wondering what's going on (sciences? social sciences? humanities?).

2. Notwithstanding the reverter's preference, in Harvard referencing, a citation is not placed after the sentence. It is placed before the period.

3. If a writer were to say "Pat believes A, but Lee believes B", we would obviously want the citations to look like "Pat believes A (D'Souza 1998), but Lee believes B (Wong 1999)". In other words, citations sometimes need to be placed at the end of a phrase, not at the end of a sentence.

4. It's confusing if we don't give a good name to the thing in the text and a (different) good name to the thing at the bottom of the text. The Chicago Manual calls the first thing the citation, the second the reference. Unless someone knows of a better terminology, we should go with that.

5. Anyone who starts using Harvard referencing is going to wonder "what if I want to make a comment on the work I am citing?", or "what if I want my text to point not just to the work but to a longer quote from the work"? Think this is not an important issue? Then see the impressive amount of confusion and argument, even bad feeling, about footnotes and citations in the Discussion. We could have avoided that by providing a short explanation in the Article.

And consider that the confusion and argument in the Discussion come only from those who care enough and are articulate enough to express their knowledge, opinions, and questions. Wikipedia rule of thumb is that there were 100 times more people who just got confused and silently gave up.

To have a good article, we need to head off this confusion. Therefore we need to discuss the relation between citations and footnotes.

6. Anyone who doesn't like what the article now says about References and Bibliography needs to clear up the ambiguity, not to delete discussion of it.

7. Notwithstanding the reverter's preference, "history" does not require footnotes. Neither do historians. It must be history professors who do that, collectively, hence "history departments".

8. Do people still write manuscripts? I thought they were all at least typescripts now. Many readers of this Article will be wondering about Harvard referencing in Wikipedia. We need to serve those readers especially. (Is there some other article about that? If so, why don't we point to it?) And notwithstanding the reverter's preference, we need to discuess social science documents that are not manuscripts and not typescripts and not theses (say, a journal article or book).

9. It's useful to give the name (documentary-note) of the major competing system, not just the names of some relatively obscure alternatives such as the Vancouver system.

10. Wikipedia Manual of Style says it should be "Works cited", not "Works Cited".

11. The citation in parentheses should not be followed by the year -- though that's what the reverter wants this Article to say. Instead, the citation followed by the year is placed in parentheses!

12. Elsewhere in this article we say that the convention for citations with page numbers is "(Smith 2005: 73)". The reverter reverted to using "p.". Let's be consistent! Sure, we don't have to give all the rules at the top of the Article, but it would be good not to give a rule incorrectly.

13. A page number is insufficient when the writer is citing more than one page. Let's help the readers out by telling them what to do in such a case. And let's show them how to use an en-dash, so they won't have to go chasing around the Wikipedia Manual of Style to find out how to specify a page range.

14. Harvard referencing does, as I pointed out, specify the format of the reference. Let's not leave readers ignorant of this aspect of Harvard referencing. Teacher will flunk them for this too!

15. Despite the reverter's preference, we can stop calling it "the Harvard referencing system" after a while and just call it "Harvard referencing".

16. Wikipedia is so good at hyperlinking, it's important to discuss the fact that Wikipedia does not hyperlink citation to reference. Apparently Wikipedia does not provide special tools for hyperlinking the citation to the reference, nor, apparently, do we recommend that the writer hyperlink the citation to the reference.

TH 05:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The term is used almost exclusively in Commonwealth countries

At google.com I searched for

"Harvard referencing" examples

Every one of the first 100 hits was in a Commonwealth country (ignoring wikipedia.org, answers.com, and a hit from United Arab Emirates).

TH 17:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

These came close to the top of my search. [1] [2] You'll need a source if you want to say it's used mostly in Commonwealth countries. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
My source is google.com. Details: at google.com, search for
"Harvard referencing" examples
Observe that every one of the first 100 hits is in a Commonwealth country (ignoring wikipedia.org, answers.com, and one hit from United Arab Emirates).
Your "washington" URL does not seem to appear in the first 100. Perhaps you did not include the word "examples" in your query. Perhaps if I removed the word examples from my query, I would have to change my claim from saying "every one" to "nearly every one".
TH 20:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I just looked for it in a different way. However, our Google searches don't count as reliable sources. If you want to make claims about where it's mostly used, you need to find reliable third-party sources who say what you want to say. See WP:NOR. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

changing author-date references cited; settling on a dialect of author-date

I removed the UGA reference, because both the Flinders reference and the OSU reference appear to be more complete and free of inconsistency.

I added the University of Chicago reference, because everybody else seems to refer to U of C, and I thought it would be good to go to the horse's mouth.

I used the OSU style in the text of the document (rules and examples), which leaves the text inconsistent with the References (more Flinders-ish).

It would be good to settle on one dialect as the "best" or the most completely explained or the most commmonly used. Possibly we would mention one or two competing dialects. Speaking of dialects, I see that some Liverpool university wants you to put author names in all caps (!) in the Reference section, and end each reference without punctuation.

I plan to look around a bit, and if I don't find any reason not to, soon I will apply the U of C dialect throughout the article for consistency.

TH 16:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

two types of footnotes in documentary-note: pointer notes and discursion notes. one type in author-date

There are two types of footnotes (if the author is not using author-date):

One type I call a pointer note. It points to a bare citation of a work. The author of the article has not said anything additional about the work and has not quoted the work more fully.

The other I call a discursive note. (A discussion must be between two or more people. A discursion can be made by just one person.) The author has remarked on the work, or has provided a longer quote. Or perhaps the author has not referred to a work at all but is just giving a personal opinion (verboten in Wikipedia) or is providing a longer explanation of a minor detail.

These two types of footnotes are very different. If an author uses author-date, the entire job of pointer notes must be taken over by the author-date system, and none of the job of discursive notes can be taken over by author-date.

It's important for anyone comparing author-date with documentary-note to understand these differences, because otherwise they will not understand what should be different, and what footnotes are still needed for, in author-date. Hence all the confusion and people talking past one another (for lack of understanding the two types of notes) in the Talk pages of HR and of WP:HR.

It is much easier to talk about these two types of notes if we give them names. If there are better names than the ones I am using, I would be glad to hear them. For example, ask an expert "what kind of footnotes should or can be converted, and what kind must or may be retained, if I switch a document from documentary-note to author-date? and do the things you are describing have names?"

As it is, I use these names only on the Talk pages, not on the Article pages.

TH 20:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

discursive notes

Notes that discursive notes had already been discussed both at the top of the article, and in the Advantages and disadvanteges section.

TH 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In-universe/out-of-universe

Toohoo, thanks for adding all that material. I've tidied some sections, and changed the citations to footnotes, which is the most commonly used system at WP, and the one that was used before. (They shouldn't be changed from one to the other.) Also, we do link our references, because our articles are aimed at people reading online. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

why I restored page-range in 1st example, and discussion of footnotes

I restored the page numbers in the first example because our readers are not babies who can understand only names and years. It's important to give them an explained example early on of the one thing that's most likely to be confusing to them, namely, a page number or a page range in a citation. After reading this example, many readers will be able to understand author-date without much further study, because they will have seen a full example of a citation, the main thing that's different from documentary-note, which they are more familiar with.

I restored the discussion of footnote because otherwise we'll have the kind of tremendous confusion revealed in the Talk page of this article over fundamental differences between footnotes and author-date. I have already explained this issue in Talk. The reverter has a second time reverted my change here, again without giving any explanation for his or her reversion, even though I took the trouble to explain the reason for my change (and am explaning it here again). Read the Talk reverter, and note the terrific waste of argumentation that could have been avoided if the article had simple said "here's what footnotes can and cannot do, here's what author-date can and cannot do". As I already explained.

TH 16:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove the page range. I don't understand your point about footnotes. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

restored the pointer to WP:HR

I restored the pointer to WP:HR because it's necessary to avoid confusion. Otherwise, some readers will come here are wrestle with this page for hours, not realizing there's a special page on HR in WP. Like I did some days ago, because nobody bothered to put a pointer in here to help me. A pointer like you can find, for example, at namespace.

TH 16:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing the encyclopedia with the project space. The two shouldn't be mixed up. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored changes re worldwide term, science, Mark because

1. Re "Commonwealth ... throughout the world": I provided (and have now restored) a verifiable source, citing all major search engines. Google.com is a reputable source. MSN.com is a reputable source. They publish pages dynamically on the web. Anyone can verify these results. Returns from google.com etc. have more credibility than what the reverter is asking for, which could be one person who once wrote some article in a library journal on the terminology of author-date.

I wonder if I wrote in some article that 4040 + 303 = 4343, whether the reverter would ask me to cite some mathematician.

"Galileo was often willing to change his views in accordance with observation, as contrasted with a few notable men who refused even to look through their telescopes at celestial objects for fear of what they might see".

That quote's from Wikipedia! Now there's a claim that should have a citation. But unless the reverter can explain why the evidence from the major search engines either (a) is not overwhelming or (2) could somehow deceive us, I can't see much difference between the reverter and the "few notable men" in the story.

You're engaged in original research. Your search of Google is not a reliable source. Please see WP:NOR. If your claim is correct, someone is likely to have published it somewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

2. The reverter asked for a citation regarding use of author-date in the sciences. I provided (and have now restored) a citation from a top-quality source (University of Chicago) . The reverter ignored this and deleted mention of this important issue (now restored).

You didn't give a full citation so far as I could see. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

3. Who invented author-date? Nobody cares! It's not going to change anyone's decision to use author-date or not, or anyone's decision which variant to use. It's a trivia item. Do we have any idea how rudimentary Mark's effort in 1881 was? -- if author-date has evolved considerably since then, then Mark's work is not particularly important. If we don't want the discussion towards the bottom of the article in History, then let's take it out.

TH 18:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting fact and lead sections are supposed to try to be interesting. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
TH, I appreciate your hard work on this, but it's veering in the direction of a personal essay. Bear in mind that we only publish what other reliable sources have already published. See WP:V. We're not allowed to add our own opinions or assumptions to Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I inserted "for example" and changed "at" to "near" because ...

I changed "at the end" to "near the end", because the References section may easily be followed by a Bibliography or Further reading or External links section, or by a disclaimer, or possibly by sections we have not thought of.

I added "for example" because otherwise a reader could wonder about 2004 or 2006 or 1952. Of course, that is unlikely, so the rule seems a little fussy. However, it's still the rule that good editors follow: examples are always explicitly identified as examples so the reader will always understand the possibility of extending them.

TH 03:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I restored change re worldwide term because ...

... (a) because I don't think it's good to make readers read the whole general article and then find out in See also that there's a Wikipedia-specific article;

... (b) because it appears to be a Wikipedia convention or rule to place such a pointer at the top of an article.

So, if anyone wants to revert this change, please first make the corresponding change at AFD, robots, namespace, Style_guide, citation, and all the others that follow this convention or rule.

TH 07:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(I restored example with page-range (and other changes)

I already explained my reason for putting a page range in the first example. Did I miss someone's compelling counter-argument, or is someone wasting everyone's time here by reverting without even providing the courtesy of a rationale?

I also explained why it's important to discuss footnotes with author-date, and discuss it early. Did I miss someone's compelling counter-argument?

Here's another reason we need the page range in the example -- farther down we refer up to the example and mention the page number or page range -- and that doesn't make sense if the example doesn't show a page number or page range.

And here's yet another reason we need the page range in the example -- most book and journal citations will need to provide a page number or page range. So we fail a large segment of our readership if we don't provide an example with a page range up early in the article, where a reader can glance at it and say "oh yeah, I see" instead of saying "I wonder where they will put the page numbers".

Did I mention that the page-range example is very easy to understand, but that without an example, very few readers would be able to figure out how to write a page number or range correctly.

TH 07:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed many problems

Folks,

I am fed up with SlimVirgin's foot dragging, nit picking, and ankle biting, so I just made all the changes I believe are correct. (SlimVirgin is the person who takes a very proprietary attitude toward the article, but never bothered to tell anyone that there are seriously differing variants of author-date! Never bothered to tell anyone how to cite a range of pages! Never bothered to say that a citation often belongs elsewhere than at the end of a sentence! Just 3 examples among many.)

Folks, I apologize if you get caught in the middle. If I accidentally clobber any change you make, please write a note here in Talk and I will restore them for you (or I will talk back!).

DWaterson, thanks for the link to Vancouver system. I think with the link, we don't need the italics, so I unitalicized the phrase. Please let me know if you disagree.

TH 08:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding your own opinions. Also, why do you keep saying I'm removing the page range from the first example? It's there. Or are you talking about some other example? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
And why won't you link certain references? You have to use our normal format for articles, not one that you think people will print out. Can you explain what you think is wrong with the current version? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Page range in example

Folks,

Above you will see SlimVirgin say "why do you keep saying I'm removing the page range from the first example? It's there".

But SlimVirgin is wrong -- the page range is not there in the first citation example in SlimVirgin's last version, :21:35, 25 October 2006 SlimVirgin

It appears that SlimVirgin has yet again confused the citation with the reference.

Hey! check this out -- up above here, on 2 November 2005, SEWilco tells SlimVirgin:

You're again confusing citations with referencing.

Folks, SlimVirgin's other contentions are too vague for me to talk to you about.

TH 02:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Toohoo, almost all the changes you made to the article have been left as you wanted them. Can you please say exactly what is wrong with the current version? SlimVirgin (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Probably better to do one-at-a-time for now. Let me know if you're not okay on colon -> comma, and consistency with Namespace etc.
Sorry, I don't know what that means. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
My last 2 changes to the article. TH 18:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted inconsistency in notes section

I reverted some changes because Jayjg introduced a Notes section that is a hodgepodge of inconsistent styles.

Examples of what I deleted:


2. ^ Mark, Edward Laurens. 1881. Maturation, fecundation, and segmentation of Limax campestris. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology vol. 6, part 2, no. 12: 173–625.

3. ^ Flinders University. 2005. The Harvard referencing system: a simple guide, PDF


Obviously, that's not author-date -- because author-date always uses citations to references, never puts references in footnotes.

Obviously, that's not footnote3 and it's note Cite.php -- they never put the year between periods.

So make it one or make it the other. Or explain why it's a good idea to cobble together a hodgepodge reference system, part author-date and part documentary-note, in this article on referencing systems -- explain why that isn't going to be inherently confusing to any reader.

Also this fixes other errors Jayjg introduced, such as "at the end", which should read "near the end".

And if you don't like something, fix it, don't just revert -- I spent considerable time in an effort to make only the changes required to remove the hodgepodge. (Tell me if I missed something and I'll fix it myself for you.) I didn't just revert -- please extend the same courtesy to me.

TH 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Toohoo, you keep re-introducing your personal views, which means the edit will be reverted; with respect, you can't expect other editors carefully to copy edit all your versions for you. There are already some personal views in there that have been tagged and must be sourced, so there's no point in adding more. Please review WP:NOR. Also, this article uses footnotes to list its references. You shouldn't change from one citation system to another without consensus; see WP:CITE. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Lengthy arguments about the pros and cons of a referencing system are not simple "facts" that need no referencing themselves. You seem to have a penchant for inserting opinion without citing it; please abide by WP:V and WP:NOR instead. Jayjg (talk) 05:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Toohoo, could you say what this means exactly, please? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Other disadvantages of author-date are that the rules for composing citations are more complex than for the simple integers of footnotes; and that non-academic readers are usually less familiar with citations than with footnote integers.

SlimVirgin, I don't think I was the one who said that. I think it was already there before I ever touched this page. But I agree with it, so --
I believe what the writer meant was that it's a lot easier to say <ref> ... </ref> than it is to decide whether you need to repeat the author's name, whether to give the year ("well, I just gave the year in the previous sentence -- now do I need to give it again?"), and whether to give the page number.
And when general readers see something like (2000) or (12) come apparently out of nowhere, they may be very confused -- which they wouldn't be if they saw a superscripted footnote.
TH 02:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. You did write it so far as I can tell. [3] Probably best to leave it out as it seems either to state the obvious or not to be true (in a sense it's easier to write ref/ref, but if you're adding the full citation, it isn't). SlimVirgin (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I wrote it, but I did not "write" it. I borrowed it from WP::HR (ahem -- another unnecessary inconsistency between the two articles).
I don't understand what you mean about "adding the full citation". Do you mean the reference itself? But an author-date reference is roughly as complex as a documentary-note reference, no real difference there, they just happen to be written in different spots. So the difference in complexity comes down to the citation.
And author-date citations are much more complex than doc-note. Doc-note: one easy decision -- where to put the integer -- usually easy decision because it naturally belongs after the closing quote mark or at the end of the sentence. Author-date: four decisions, none of which is always easy -- authors; year; page; where to put the dang thing. I find that those four decisions often take a fair amount of thinking. Strange, none of the guidebooks gives any guidance on placement. Usually two issues (other than placement) require the thinking: did I mention the authors/year/page recently enough that I don't need to mention them again? And will I confuse the reader if I just say (2000, 18) or just plain (18)?
TH 03:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you show me where you borrowed it from in Wikipedia:Harvard referencing? SlimVirgin (talk) 04:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Harvard_referencing&oldid=77301771
TH 22:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't see it there. The first example I can see of that wording is when you added it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I quote from the page I pointed to:
The disadvantages of the system are that it takes more space (which is why the journal Nature for example doesn't use it) and that the rules can be complicated or unclear for non-academic references, particularly those where the author is unknown. The system may also be unfamiliar and distracting to a general readership, who are unfamiliar with journal articles.
TH 17:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

why I changed the section

Here are some of the reasons I changed the sections:

old version has wrong punctuation before page number; see Chicago Manual
old version has links (blue) in references; there is no such thing in Chicago Manual or other authorities we cite
old version doesn't mention that newspaper articles should generally not be in references (see Chicago)
old version says citation is placed "after the sentence" -- misleading at best
old version formats dates wrong in all book refs (see Chicago)
old version doesn't show when to put first names before or after surnames
old version doesn't provide integrated examples (citation and corresponding reference)
old version is wrong about use of "&" (see Chicago)

There are more problems than that. Are those not enough?

Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen any citations or reasoning in support of the old version.

TH 17:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I give citations and reasons for changes

Folks,

SlimVirgin and Jayjg keep reverting to text that is full of errors. I keep demonstrating the errors by citing accepted manuals of style.

I keep giving reasons why the changes I make are necessary (I gave 8 reasons for my last change).

Jayjg and SlimVirgin give no reasons for their reversions.

Occasionally SlimVirgin asks me a question. I explain the answer politely (unlike some other things I do, which might not be polite), giving references and examples. So far as I can tell, SlimVirgin ignores all the citations and examples I give. He or she never provides a counter-citation or a counter-example.

Any suggestions?

TH 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As a very simple example of what is wrong with your claims; you claim that the old version says citation is placed "after the sentence" -- misleading at best In fact, the old version states A citation is placed wherever appropriate in or after the sentence. You're knocking down strawmen. Jayjg (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your old version says that the citation is (sometimes) placed "after the sentence". But it is never placed after the sentence (except, fairly uncommon case discussed in the article, at the end of a block quote) (I cite Chicago). It is placed inside the sentence (before the period). That's why the statement that you are defending is misleading.

Now you're 0 for 8 (not counting your errors and omissions that I didn't mention because 8 is enough). Next one?

By the way, I'm the writer who added to this article the point about "wherever appropriate". You and SlimVirgain, who take such a proprietary attitude toward this page, had never bothered to inform your readers about that important and easily discovered point (see Chicago).

Could you tell us all why you have so much energy to waste defending your errors and omissions, but you are so unwilling to go look at the primary sources and see what the facts are?

TH 19:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the bullets from the examples

Folks,

I took the bullets off the examples -- it was looking like we were implying that all references had to be bulleted.

TH 19:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it didn't look like that at all, and it's hard to read the examples if they're not bulleted. Jayjg (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg,

If, out of seven examples we provide, seven are bulleted, many readers will assume that their references should be bulleted. Many others will be frustrated by the fact that Wikipedia is confusing them and that they need to figure out for themselves whether the bullets belong or not. Many writers who just copy our examples without thinking will tend to leave the bulllets on.

But they do need to be fixed. They should be blockquoted, not coloned.

TH 16:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

why I changed top part of article below lead paragraph

Folks,

Here are the reasons for the changes:

  • The previous version used the phrase "partial citation". But the recognized citation guides (APA, MLA, Chicago, Mayfield, etc.) do not use that phrase. They use the term citation.
  • The previous version used the phrase "full citation". But the recognized citation guides do not use that phrase. They use the term reference; occasionally bibliography.
  • The terms citation and reference are technical terms with strict definitions in the context of author-date. If we don't make that very clear, readers are likely to be confused. Not only do readers become confused, but writers (of the Article) become confused as well, and then they start using incorrect phrases such as "partial citation", further confusing the readers.
  • As further explanation of the need to emphasize the terms citation and reference, I cite the example of the University of Western Australia, http://www.library.uwa.edu.au/education_training___and___support/guides/how_to_cite_your_sources/citing_your_sources_-_harvard_style
The Harvard system is made up of two components:
Citation: This occurs in the text of your essay or assignment and provides brief details of the author and date of publication.
Bibliography: This is a list at the end of an essay or assignment of all references used in the text. It provides details to help readers identify each source.
  • A minor point -- the previous version used the verb "collected" without having an agreeing noun.
  • The previous version had an example that used the wrong format for the page number ("p."). I cite Chicago.
  • The previous version had another example that used the wrong format for the page number (":"). I cite Chicago.
  • The previous version provided, near the top, examples (incorrect) of citations, but no example of a reference -- forcing the reader to wait another half a page to find an example of the critical other half of the author-date system. That was sloppy, confusing, and frustrating to readers.

TH 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I made changes regarding variants

I removed the discussion of "many variants", Flinders Univ., and OSU (all of which I put in some time ago) (but I left Flinders in as a footnote). I suspect there are only two variants -- US and UK -- but I don't have any citations to support that, so I guess we should take it out.

I deleted the footnote about Vancouver because Vancouver is already discussed in the text.

TH 16:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

TH, I've merged the old version with some or most of your changes, but you keep reverting to your version as though it must be exactly as you want it. That's not how Wikipedia works.
For a start, there's no need to change the citation style used by the previous author, and in fact you're advised not to by WP:CITE. You can't add your own opinion of it. Also, please don't refer to a real author. (Author 2001) is fine, and is actually clearer, in my view. And don't keep calling it author-date; the article is called Harvard referencing, so please stick to that throughout the text. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I restored the earlier version because in your latest version you've re-introduced too many errors. I would tell you what they are, but I've already told you (above) very clearly what they are.

At this point I have given 14 reasons, with citations, for my changes, just in the last couple of days (I gave more reasons, with citations, before that). You have not answered a single one of my reasons. You have not provided a single reason (citation or logic) for any of your changes.

You're 0 for 14 at best.

You claim I'm adding my own opinion, but once again you fail to provide an example, so you give no idea what you're talking about.

You claim I'n changing the citation style, but once again you fail to provide an example, so you give no idea what you're talking about.

I changed "author-date" to "Harvard referencing", as you prefer it.

I repeat: I continue to provide concrete evidence for my changes. You continue to make vague, undocumented claims.

TH 07:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

why I restored changes

Slrubenstein,

I restored the changes that you had reverted, because you provided no reasons, no citations, for your changes.

Nor did you refute or counter in the tiniest way the 14-plus reasons and citations that I gave for making the changes I made. TH 15:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

My main changes were to restore features you had deleted without valid cause. Your main changes were to the lay-out: you removed the break between two sections (principles and examples) - I restored the break because breaking the article into subsections makes it easier to read. Also, you removed bullet points which helpmakethe text easier to follow; I restored them. I did make some other changes to layout: I removed a sentence that refered to different variations because th sentence was unclear (what does "quotations or no quotations" mean exactly?) and since the article focuses on Chicago style, distracting. I created a new section on origins and variants, and a new section on content notes, in order to clean up the introduction. That is, I did not delete material, Ijust moved it into subsections. This makes the introduction to the article short and clear. Details belong in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
One question for SLR: was there a reason you chose the Chicago Manual of Style or was that inherited from a previous version? I'm going to remove it temporarily because I don't think the page does follow it. Feel free to restore. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I inherited it, and have no problem with others making changes to that. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks,

I restored my last version, because SlimVirgin answered not a single one of my reasons for making the changes (I will reiterate: I listed them on this Talk page under Nov 3).

SlimVirgin's statement "best not to name a particular author" is equivalent to saying "anywhere in all of Wikipedia, when we give the readers an example, it's best not to give them a particular example". Why not say "best not to name a particular article"? Why not "best not to name a particular year"? (By the way, I am not the creator of the Deane example. Someone, perhaps I, borrowed it from Flinders University.)

I picked Chicago Manual of Style because many of the other folks (OSU, MIT=Mayfield, etc.) cite it. If someone comes up with evidence that there is a better-respected ultimate authority, please present the evidence for and against.

TH 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed because . . .

Folks,

  1. There is no ampersand (&) in the format defined by the Chicago Manual of Style.
  2. We need to provide an example that shows where to place first names.
  3. If we don't show examples in pairs (citation and corresponding reference), we put the burden on the reader to put the concepts together. Not good.

TH 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

why I deleted the text about EL Mark, 1881, BMJ "Mystery dispelled"

Folks,

I deleted the text about Edward Laurens Mark, 1881, BMJ "Mystery dispelled" -- because I found a University of North Texas citation that appears to contradict it. This citation is 18 years more recent than the BMJ citation.

Has anyone seen the Mark 1881 article? Please show us a sample citation, sample reference.

Has anyone read the "Mystery dispelled" article? What does it say? What was the "mystery"? How was it "dispelled"?

TH 07:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Toohoo, this is becoming absurd. Almost everything you wanted to change has been changed; Slrubenstein has updated and corrected the version. Please stop reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,

The article still contains a number of errors (some of which I have corrected, with citations, multiple times, only to be reverted by you, with no reason given). So you are mistaken to say the almost everything I wanted to change has been changed.

The version you call a "compromise version" is just your own version of 22:23, 5 November 2006 -- so your definition of "compromise" is -- very strange.

You still have provided no reason or citation for your changes or in reply to the reasons and citations I have provided.

TH 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

recent vandalism against verifiability in the article

SlimVirgin,

If you continue to violate verifiability, I will report you for vandalism.

Here's my first draft of what I will provide to the anti-vandalism committee when I report you for vandalism:


Greetings,
I understand that the principle of verifiability is very important to Wikipedia. I need to report a user who persistently violates the principle of verifiability by repeatedly changing an article without providing any reasoning, evidence or citations, in the face of changes that I have made while consistently providing explanations and citations.
As evidence, I will first quote many of the reasons I have provided for my changes (I collected these quotes from the Talk page and from the Edit Summaries). I will then quote statements from SlimVirgin that are the closest he or she has come to providing reasons or citations for his or her preferences.
My reasons and citations:
I'm providing explanations of why I think the reverter is incorrect, right here.
1. I had already provided a citation for the disagreement between Harvard and Chicago over preferences in the sciences and social sciences. This is important to include because many people read the Chicago Manual, and our Article had previously pointed to the Chicago Manual page that describes the contrary-to-Harvard view. So it's important to address this issue and not leave the reader wondering what's going on (sciences? social sciences? humanities?).
2. Notwithstanding the reverter's preference, in Harvard referencing, a citation is not placed after the sentence. It is placed before the period.
3. If a writer were to say "Pat believes A, but Lee believes B", we would obviously want the citations to look like "Pat believes A (D'Souza 1998), but Lee believes B (Wong 1999)". In other words, citations sometimes need to be placed at the end of a phrase, not at the end of a sentence.
4. It's confusing if we don't give a good name to the thing in the text and a (different) good name to the thing at the bottom of the text. The Chicago Manual calls the first thing the citation, the second the reference. Unless someone knows of a better terminology, we should go with that.
5. Anyone who starts using Harvard referencing is going to wonder "what if I want to make a comment on the work I am citing?", or "what if I want my text to point not just to the work but to a longer quote from the work"? Think this is not an important issue? Then see the impressive amount of confusion and argument, even bad feeling, about footnotes and citations in the Discussion. We could have avoided that by providing a short explanation in the Article.
And consider that the confusion and argument in the Discussion come only from those who care enough and are articulate enough to express their knowledge, opinions, and questions. Wikipedia rule of thumb is that there were 100 times more people who just got confused and silently gave up.
To have a good article, we need to head off this confusion. Therefore we need to discuss the relation between citations and footnotes.
6. Anyone who doesn't like what the article now says about References and Bibliography needs to clear up the ambiguity, not to delete discussion of it.
7. Notwithstanding the reverter's preference, "history" does not require footnotes. Neither do historians. It must be history professors who do that, collectively, hence "history departments".
8. Do people still write manuscripts? I thought they were all at least typescripts now. Many readers of this Article will be wondering about Harvard referencing in Wikipedia. We need to serve those readers especially. (Is there some other article about that? If so, why don't we point to it?) And notwithstanding the reverter's preference, we need to discuess social science documents that are not manuscripts and not typescripts and not theses (say, a journal article or book).
9. It's useful to give the name (documentary-note) of the major competing system, not just the names of some relatively obscure alternatives such as the Vancouver system.
10. Wikipedia Manual of Style says it should be "Works cited", not "Works Cited".
11. The citation in parentheses should not be followed by the year -- though that's what the reverter wants this Article to say. Instead, the citation followed by the year is placed in parentheses!
12. Elsewhere in this article we say that the convention for citations with page numbers is "(Smith 2005: 73)". The reverter reverted to using "p.". Let's be consistent! Sure, we don't have to give all the rules at the top of the Article, but it would be good not to give a rule incorrectly.
13. A page number is insufficient when the writer is citing more than one page. Let's help the readers out by telling them what to do in such a case. And let's show them how to use an en-dash, so they won't have to go chasing around the Wikipedia Manual of Style to find out how to specify a page range.
14. Harvard referencing does, as I pointed out, specify the format of the reference. Let's not leave readers ignorant of this aspect of Harvard referencing. Teacher will flunk them for this too!
15. Despite the reverter's preference, we can stop calling it "the Harvard referencing system" after a while and just call it "Harvard referencing".
16. Wikipedia is so good at hyperlinking, it's important to discuss the fact that Wikipedia does not hyperlink citation to reference. Apparently Wikipedia does not provide special tools for hyperlinking the citation to the reference, nor, apparently, do we recommend that the writer hyperlink the citation to the reference.
TH 05:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are some of the reasons I changed the sections:
old version has wrong punctuation before page number; see Chicago Manual
old version has links (blue) in references; there is no such thing in Chicago Manual or other authorities we cite
old version doesn't mention that newspaper articles should generally not be in references (see Chicago)
old version says citation is placed "after the sentence" -- misleading at best
old version formats dates wrong in all book refs (see Chicago)
old version doesn't show when to put first names before or after surnames
old version doesn't provide integrated examples (citation and corresponding reference)
old version is wrong about use of "&" (see Chicago)
There are more problems than that. Are those not enough?
Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen any citations or reasoning in support of the old version.
[SlimVirgin never responded with any citations or reasoning.]
TH 17:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Examples of what I deleted:
2. ^ Mark, Edward Laurens. 1881. Maturation, fecundation, and segmentation of Limax campestris. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology vol. 6, part 2, no. 12: 173625.
3. ^ Flinders University. 2005. The Harvard referencing system: a simple guide, PDF
Obviously, that's not author-date -- because author-date always uses citations to references, never puts references in footnotes.
Obviously, that's not footnote3 and it's note Cite.php -- they never put the year between periods.
So make it one or make it the other. Or explain why it's a good idea to cobble together a hodgepodge reference system, part author-date and part documentary-note, in this article on referencing systems -- explain why that isn't going to be inherently confusing to any reader.
TH 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Folks,
Here are the reasons for the changes:
The previous version used the phrase "partial citation". But the recognized citation guides (APA, MLA, Chicago, Mayfield, etc.) do not use that phrase. They use the term citation.
The previous version used the phrase "full citation". But the recognized citation guides do not use that phrase. They use the term reference; occasionally bibliography.
The terms citation and reference are technical terms with strict definitions in the context of author-date. If we don't make that very clear, readers are likely to be confused. Not only do readers become confused, but writers (of the Article) become confused as well, and then they start using incorrect phrases such as "partial citation", further confusing the readers.
As further explanation of the need to emphasize the terms citation and reference, I cite the example of the University of Western Australia, http://www.library.uwa.edu.au/education_training___and___support/guides/how_to_cite_your_sources/citing_your_sources_-_harvard_style
The Harvard system is made up of two components:
Citation: This occurs in the text of your essay or assignment and provides brief details of the author and date of publication.
Bibliography: This is a list at the end of an essay or assignment of all references used in the text. It provides details to help readers identify each source.
A minor point -- the previous version used the verb "collected" without having an agreeing noun.
The previous version had an example that used the wrong format for the page number ("p."). I cite Chicago.
The previous version had another example that used the wrong format for the page number (":"). I cite Chicago.
The previous version provided, near the top, examples (incorrect) of citations, but no example of a reference -- forcing the reader to wait another half a page to find an example of the critical other half of the author-date system. That was sloppy, confusing, and frustrating to readers.
TH 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Folks,
1. There is no ampersand (&) in the format defined by the Chicago Manual of Style.
2. We need to provide an example that shows where to place first names.
3. If we don't show examples in pairs (citation and corresponding reference), we put the burden on the reader to put the concepts together. Not good.
TH 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Folks,
I deleted the text about Edward Laurens Mark, 1881, BMJ "Mystery dispelled" -- because I found a University of North Texas citation that appears to contradict it. This citation is 18 years more recent than the BMJ citation.
Has anyone seen the Mark 1881 article? Please show us a sample citation, sample reference.
Has anyone read the "Mystery dispelled" article? What does it say? What was the "mystery"? How was it "dispelled"?
TH 07:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
05:59, 31 October 2006 T00h00 (Talk | contribs) (Needed to discuss "n. d." before using it in the 3-name n. d. http example)
00:42, 29 October 2006 T00h00 (Talk | contribs) ("at the end" -> "near the end" because it may be followed by Bibiliography, Further reading, External Links, Disclaimer, etc. Plus: "the citing work")
06:16, 21 October 2006 T00h00 (Talk | contribs) (changed "S.A." to "Sandra" to clarify that period is structural. Going with OSU style.)
Here are SlimVirgin's justifications for his changes:
22:23, 5 November 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (added surname and first name as requested on talk)
[But no one had made any request.]
9:41, 5 November 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (best not to name a particular author and the previous para seems less confusing)
[SlimVirgin gave no reason for his opinion about "best" nor "seems". I then explained the flaw of promising the reader an example and then not naming a sample author. SlimVirgin never responded.]
19:04, 1 November 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (this compromise version is better than either of the other two)
[SlimVirgin gave no reason for this opinion.]
04:20, 29 October 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (removed personal opinions)
[I asked what part SlimVirgin thought was personal, but never got any response.]
05:50, 27 October 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (removed personal opinions)
[SlimVirgin gave no explanation for thinking that something I added was personal.]
21:35, 25 October 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (previous version is better, and you must include a source for your claim about where it is used)
[SlimVirgin gave no reason for the "better" claim.]
To summarize: I have supported my changes with numerous citations and explanations. I have invited others to provide counterbalancing evidence. SlimVirgin never provided citations, evidence, or explanations, either to support his or her own changes or to counter my changes.
SlimVirgin's actions against the Wikipedia requirement of verifiability have not been accidental or few; they have been so persistent as to constitute vandalism.

TH 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

why I restored the changes

Folks, I restored my changes that have just bren reverted (2nd time, I think) by SLRubenstein, who give no reasons or citations (either time) for making the reversions, and who did not counter the reasons and citations I provided when I made my changes initially. TH 14:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I think Slim's wording in the opening is clearer. Second, I think that people do use the &. If Chicago Manual doesn't, then the solution is to delete the setnence that says this article uses the Chicago Manyual of Style. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Your claim that “people do use the &” is too vague – please provide a citation (see WP:Citing sources).

Here are the reasons why I think your changes are wrong:

  • You want to abandon reliance on a top authority in the field of citations and references. But when a field rests on strict, technical, arbitrary rules, yet has variant rule systems, it is a disservice for an encyclopedia to present a little bit of this variant, a little bit of that variant, leaving the reader with a muddle. An encyclopedia should be informative and consistent and follow the top authorities.

Wrong. This is an article and thus descriptive, not normative. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You keep putting back a sentence that reads

… full citations ... is ... collected.

  • Other reasons why I think your changes are wrong I have given previously in Talk. You have not responded to them. Please read, research, and reply before you replace those errors.
  • Also, you said "I think" twice when trying to justify your changes. But "I think" is not a reason. Evidence, citations, recognized authorities, demonstrations -- those are reasons.

Silly. "I think" is simply a rhetorical device, you are being obtuse, I just do not know if it is deliberate or not. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC) You can do something useful -- find out who uses the ampersand. Find out what the major alternative is to Chicago. Write a section about that alternative -- exactly what are the major rules? Please add clarity, information, and authority, not confusion and unhelpfulness and “I think” and “some people”.

TH 03:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SLR: You're right about the word "think". I used the word myself first, in this Talk section, to explain why I think your edits are wrong. But my work "think" always leads to a reason or citation that can be evaluated objectively. Your word "think" always leads to nothing of substance.

And you are wrong about "normative". Author-date citation is a normative system. A decriptive article on any such system must describe the norms. The encyclopedic way to describe norms is to explain what the top authority says, and to explain what dissenting authorities say. I repeat: "it is a disservice for an encyclopedia to present a little bit of this variant, a little bit of that variant, leaving the reader with a muddle. An encyclopedia should be informative and consistent and follow the top authorities".

TH 16:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Need citation example - book w/o author

Could someone add a reference example for a book without an author entry? Both in article and in ref section? I'm dealing with an entry I would adjust if it was wrong but I can't tell if it is because there are no examples in MOS and here!

Citation at issue: (2005) ICTUR et al, Trade Unions of the World, 6th, London, UK: John Harper Publishing. ISBN 0-9543811-5-7.

Please realize that the "ICTUR et al," is not part of the title of the work--which is why I want to fix the ref. -- Thanks--RCEberwein | Talk 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RC -- Why are you looking here for that? Some contributors to this page believe that we should maybe give a rule or example from Chicago Manual of Style, and then maybe a rule or example from LSE or Webster's, and not bother to pick one variant and be consistent. So at this time you can't trust anything you read in the article enough to actually use it. And some contributors believe we should not use Harvard referencing for the references on this page of all pages! Do you think that would tend to confuse readers? As the warning on the article page says, "Warning: the items in this section follow neither the Harvard referencing system nor any other accepted guidelines for citing references. Do not consider these items to be examples of any footnote or reference system."
The answer to your question is: that's a corporate author. It's kind of weird to have "et alia" with a corporate author, but maybe the corporation got together with some people or other corporations to write it.
This paragraph illustrates the citation (ICTUR et al. 2005).
The reference:
ICTUR et al. 2005. Trade Unions of the World. London, UK: John Harper Publishing. ISBN 0-9543811-5-7.
Change italics to regular font if that's the title of an article rather than a book.
I left "6th" out because I don't know what it means.
TH 01:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi Robert, there's likely to be an author or editor. The author/editor of the 5th edition was Bob Duckett, and the previous edition had a named author/editor too. It's published in association with the International Centre for Trade Union Rights (ICTUR), but I wouldn't call them the authors. If I were you, I would leave it without an author and just write:

  • Trade Unions of the World. Sixth edition. London, UK: John Harper Publishing in association with the International Centre for Trade Union Rights, 2005. ISBN 0954381157.
SlimVirgin (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My predictions

Folks,

1. I predict that SlimVirgin will not revert because he (I use the term he as the neutral pronoun) will finally remember that he volunteered to join the Wikipedia Harmonious Editing Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harmonious_editing_club, with this purpose:

These members would bind THEMSELVES to the rule of "you can only revert once".

By the way, at that club, SlimVirgin said:

SlimVirgin I think the decision to self-limit on reverting is a good idea.

(Myself, I have never been a member of that club. I belong to the Provide Reasons and Citations for Your Changes club. I have collected most all of my reasons and citations above in one section for the reader's convenience.)


2. I predict that Slrubenstein will not revert because he will grasp the concept that the article is a descriptive article about a normative system.


3. Jayjg, I can't predict -- except that if he reverts, I predict that he will be unable to provide any substantive reason for his revert.

TH 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

T00h00's posts to Talk:Author-date reference system

Folks,

I renamed Harvard referencing to Author-date reference system. I redirected Harvard referencing to the new title so no links would be broken.

Here’s why I made the changes:

When the article was created, it was given a name that is used in only a fairly small area of the world. For lack of a better term, I will call it a ‘’regional name’’. The region I refer to is the Commonwealth countries.

The regional name is “Harvard referencing”. Authoritative evidence, presented below, shows that over seven times as many people, worldwide, use a different name – “author-date”. It is time for Wikipedia to face up to its worldwide responsibilities; it is time to change the name of the article from the regional name to the name used by seven times as many people throughout the world.

Actually I think the term “Harvard referencing” is not used throughout the Commonwealth countries. I think it’s used throughout the Commonwealth countries less Canada. But I haven’t researched that issue deeply (See a hint below, in the citation from the University of Toronto).


As the first piece of evidence in support of changing the name, I cite a document published by a highly reputed authority, google.com:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22author+date%22+citation+reference&btnG=Google+Search

This document states:

"Results ... about 125,000"

As the second piece of evidence I cite another document published by the same authority:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22harvard+referencing%22+OR+%22harvard+reference%22+citation+reference&btnG=Google+Search

This document states:

"Results ... about 17,000"

These two published documents together demonstrate that over seven times as many web pages worldwide, in the context of citations and references, use the term “author-date” than use either “Harvard referencing” or “Harvard reference”.

I think it is reasonable to assume that, unless anyone can produce evidence to the contrary, use by persons is roughly proportional to use by web pages.


Additional evidence comes from another web page published by google.com:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22harvard+referencing%22+%22harvard+university%22&btnG=Search

This published authority shows (on the first page and subsequent pages of the document) that almost every web page that uses the term is a web page in the Commonwealth.

Interestingly, the first non-Commonwealth web page that appears in the document is http://www.wku.edu/Library/dlps/guides/stylwrit.htm. This page, from Western Kentucky University, does mention “Harvard” – just once. Aside from that one mention of “Harvard”, the document uses the term “author-date” exclusively. And the sole mention of “Harvard” is a reference to the University of Western Australia (it is a pointer to UWA’s citation guidelines). This document provides further demonstration that the term “Harvard referencing” is used very rarely outside Commonwealth Countries, excluding Canada.


What about Harvard University itself? That’s where author-date was developed, in the 1950s and 1960s. Surely if any institution outside the Commonwealth uses the term “Harvard Referencing”, it would be Harvard University.

Therefore I cite another document published by Google:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22harvard+referencing%22+%22harvard+university%22+site%3Aharvard.edu&btnG=Search

This document states:

Your search - "harvard referencing" "harvard university" site:harvard.edu - did not match any documents.

This evidence demonstrates that even Harvard University doesn't call the author-date system “Harvard referencing”.

Perhaps it was too restrictive to include the phrase “Harvard University” in the last citation. Let’s look for any mention of “Harvard referencing” that comes from Harvard University, even if it doesn’t mention “Harvard University”.

Therefore I cite the document

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22harvard+referencing%22+site%3Aharvard.edu&btnG=Search

The document states that there is one web page at Harvard University that mentions “Harvard referencing”. But if we follow the citation, we see that it leads to this document:

http://lists.hmdc.harvard.edu/lists/apsa_itp/2006_03/pdfEFQQA6DOCI.pdf

and if we examine that document, we see that the author uses the word "organisational" and the phrase "14 June 2006". Those UK-style usages demonstrate that this document was created by a Commonwealther. (The document is an announcement of an international symposium organized by the Commonwealther under the auspices of Harvard University.)


Let’s examine a published authority other than google.com.

The primary reference in the article we are discussing is The Chicago Manual of Style. This reference was chosen as the primary reference because so many other citation authorities refer to Chicago as the ultimate authority concerning the citation system we are discussing. There is an online version of Chicago – The Chicago Manual of Style Online.

What does The Chicago Manual of Style Online have to say about "Harvard referencing"?

I cite the index of The Chicago Manual of Style Online as not mentioning the term "Harvard referencing".

I cite the table of contents of The Chicago Manual of Style Online as never once mentioning "Harvard referencing".


Let’s look at other published authorities. I cite the University of Toronto’s citation guide, http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/document.html, as always using the term “author-date” and never once mentioning "Harvard referencing".

I cite the University of Maryland’s "Citation Systems and Style Manuals", http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/style_manuals.html, as always using the term “author-date” and never once mentioning "Harvard referencing".

The Mayfield Handbook of Technical and Scientific Writing is a joint project of MIT and Microsoft Corporation. Mayfield’s online citation guide includes comprehensive guides to five citation formats:

American Psychological Association (APA) Author-Date Style

Modern Language Association (MLA) Author-Page Style

Chicago Manual of Style (CMS) Note Citations

Council of Biology Editors (CBE) Citation-Sequence System

IEEE Citation-Sequence System

I cite ethe index of The Mayfield Handbook as never once mentioning “Harvard referencing”.

I cite the table of contents of The Mayfield Handbook as never once mentioning “Harvard referencing”.


Let’s look at printed authorities:

I cite the Chicago Manual of Style (printed version): the index, which is 76 pages long, has no entry for “Harvard referencing”.

I cite the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association: the index has no entry for “Harvard referencing”.

I cite Turabian’s A Manual for Writers: the index has no entry for “Harvard referencing”.

I cite the MLA Handbook: the index has no entry for “Harvard referencing”.

I cite the MLA Style Manual: the index has no entry for “Harvard referencing”.

I cite John Bruce Howell’s Style Manuals of the English-Speaking World: A Guide: the index has no entry for “Harvard referencing”.

I cite Webster’s Standard American Style Manual: the index has no entry for “Harvard referencing”.


I did not cherry-pick the citations above. On the contrary, every citation authority I investigated, online or printed, confirmed the evidence discussed above. I did not find and discard authorities who did not confirm the idea that the term “Harvard referencing” is regional. This means that I could, probably with ease, produce additional authorities (outside the Commonwealth countries less Canada) that use the term “author-date” and do not use the term “Harvard referencing”. I have not done so because, at this time, I think it’s enough for me to cite google.com, The Chicago Manual of Style, The University of Toronto, The University of Maryland, the MIT-Microsoft Mayfield Handbook, the APA Manual, Turabian, the MLA Handbook, the MLA Style Manual, Howell, and Webster’s.


There is no need to break any links – we preserve the value of links by redirecting the regional term “Harvard referencing” to the worldwide term “author-date”. There is no need to ban the term “Harvard referencing” – we can support the term by redirection, and we can define it properly as a regional synonym for “author-date”.

TH 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding recent substantive changes -- I copied 2 sections of Talk to here because substantive and naming changes are related

verifiability in the article

I understand that the principle of verifiability is very important to Wikipedia. I need to report a user who persistently violates the principle of verifiability by repeatedly changing an article without providing any reasoning, evidence or citations, in the face of changes that I have made while consistently providing explanations and citations.
As evidence, I will first quote many of the reasons I have provided for my changes (I collected these quotes from the Talk page and from the Edit Summaries). I will then quote statements from SlimVirgin that are the closest he or she has come to providing reasons or citations for his or her preferences.
My reasons and citations:
I'm providing explanations of why I think the reverter is incorrect, right here.
1. I had already provided a citation for the disagreement between Harvard and Chicago over preferences in the sciences and social sciences. This is important to include because many people read the Chicago Manual, and our Article had previously pointed to the Chicago Manual page that describes the contrary-to-Harvard view. So it's important to address this issue and not leave the reader wondering what's going on (sciences? social sciences? humanities?).
2. Notwithstanding the reverter's preference, in Harvard referencing, a citation is not placed after the sentence. It is placed before the period.
3. If a writer were to say "Pat believes A, but Lee believes B", we would obviously want the citations to look like "Pat believes A (D'Souza 1998), but Lee believes B (Wong 1999)". In other words, citations sometimes need to be placed at the end of a phrase, not at the end of a sentence.
4. It's confusing if we don't give a good name to the thing in the text and a (different) good name to the thing at the bottom of the text. The Chicago Manual calls the first thing the citation, the second the reference. Unless someone knows of a better terminology, we should go with that.
5. Anyone who starts using Harvard referencing is going to wonder "what if I want to make a comment on the work I am citing?", or "what if I want my text to point not just to the work but to a longer quote from the work"? Think this is not an important issue? Then see the impressive amount of confusion and argument, even bad feeling, about footnotes and citations in the Discussion. We could have avoided that by providing a short explanation in the Article.
And consider that the confusion and argument in the Discussion come only from those who care enough and are articulate enough to express their knowledge, opinions, and questions. Wikipedia rule of thumb is that there were 100 times more people who just got confused and silently gave up.
To have a good article, we need to head off this confusion. Therefore we need to discuss the relation between citations and footnotes.
6. Anyone who doesn't like what the article now says about References and Bibliography needs to clear up the ambiguity, not to delete discussion of it.
7. Notwithstanding the reverter's preference, "history" does not require footnotes. Neither do historians. It must be history professors who do that, collectively, hence "history departments".
8. Do people still write manuscripts? I thought they were all at least typescripts now. Many readers of this Article will be wondering about Harvard referencing in Wikipedia. We need to serve those readers especially. (Is there some other article about that? If so, why don't we point to it?) And notwithstanding the reverter's preference, we need to discuess social science documents that are not manuscripts and not typescripts and not theses (say, a journal article or book).
9. It's useful to give the name (documentary-note) of the major competing system, not just the names of some relatively obscure alternatives such as the Vancouver system.
10. Wikipedia Manual of Style says it should be "Works cited", not "Works Cited".
11. The citation in parentheses should not be followed by the year -- though that's what the reverter wants this Article to say. Instead, the citation followed by the year is placed in parentheses!
12. Elsewhere in this article we say that the convention for citations with page numbers is "(Smith 2005: 73)". The reverter reverted to using "p.". Let's be consistent! Sure, we don't have to give all the rules at the top of the Article, but it would be good not to give a rule incorrectly.
13. A page number is insufficient when the writer is citing more than one page. Let's help the readers out by telling them what to do in such a case. And let's show them how to use an en-dash, so they won't have to go chasing around the Wikipedia Manual of Style to find out how to specify a page range.
14. Harvard referencing does, as I pointed out, specify the format of the reference. Let's not leave readers ignorant of this aspect of Harvard referencing. Teacher will flunk them for this too!
15. Despite the reverter's preference, we can stop calling it "the Harvard referencing system" after a while and just call it "Harvard referencing".
16. Wikipedia is so good at hyperlinking, it's important to discuss the fact that Wikipedia does not hyperlink citation to reference. Apparently Wikipedia does not provide special tools for hyperlinking the citation to the reference, nor, apparently, do we recommend that the writer hyperlink the citation to the reference.
TH 05:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are some of the reasons I changed the sections:
old version has wrong punctuation before page number; see Chicago Manual
old version has links (blue) in references; there is no such thing in Chicago Manual or other authorities we cite
old version doesn't mention that newspaper articles should generally not be in references (see Chicago)
old version says citation is placed "after the sentence" -- misleading at best
old version formats dates wrong in all book refs (see Chicago)
old version doesn't show when to put first names before or after surnames
old version doesn't provide integrated examples (citation and corresponding reference)
old version is wrong about use of "&" (see Chicago)
There are more problems than that. Are those not enough?
Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't seen any citations or reasoning in support of the old version.
[SlimVirgin never responded with any citations or reasoning.]
TH 17:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Examples of what I deleted:
2. ^ Mark, Edward Laurens. 1881. Maturation, fecundation, and segmentation of Limax campestris. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology vol. 6, part 2, no. 12: 173625.
3. ^ Flinders University. 2005. The Harvard referencing system: a simple guide, PDF
Obviously, that's not author-date -- because author-date always uses citations to references, never puts references in footnotes.
Obviously, that's not footnote3 and it's note Cite.php -- they never put the year between periods.
So make it one or make it the other. Or explain why it's a good idea to cobble together a hodgepodge reference system, part author-date and part documentary-note, in this article on referencing systems -- explain why that isn't going to be inherently confusing to any reader.
TH 19:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Folks,
Here are the reasons for the changes:
The previous version used the phrase "partial citation". But the recognized citation guides (APA, MLA, Chicago, Mayfield, etc.) do not use that phrase. They use the term citation.
The previous version used the phrase "full citation". But the recognized citation guides do not use that phrase. They use the term reference; occasionally bibliography.
The terms citation and reference are technical terms with strict definitions in the context of author-date. If we don't make that very clear, readers are likely to be confused. Not only do readers become confused, but writers (of the Article) become confused as well, and then they start using incorrect phrases such as "partial citation", further confusing the readers.
As further explanation of the need to emphasize the terms citation and reference, I cite the example of the University of Western Australia, http://www.library.uwa.edu.au/education_training___and___support/guides/how_to_cite_your_sources/citing_your_sources_-_harvard_style
The Harvard system is made up of two components:
Citation: This occurs in the text of your essay or assignment and provides brief details of the author and date of publication.
Bibliography: This is a list at the end of an essay or assignment of all references used in the text. It provides details to help readers identify each source.
A minor point -- the previous version used the verb "collected" without having an agreeing noun.
The previous version had an example that used the wrong format for the page number ("p."). I cite Chicago.
The previous version had another example that used the wrong format for the page number (":"). I cite Chicago.
The previous version provided, near the top, examples (incorrect) of citations, but no example of a reference -- forcing the reader to wait another half a page to find an example of the critical other half of the author-date system. That was sloppy, confusing, and frustrating to readers.
TH 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Folks,
1. There is no ampersand (&) in the format defined by the Chicago Manual of Style.
2. We need to provide an example that shows where to place first names.
3. If we don't show examples in pairs (citation and corresponding reference), we put the burden on the reader to put the concepts together. Not good.
TH 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Folks,
I deleted the text about Edward Laurens Mark, 1881, BMJ "Mystery dispelled" -- because I found a University of North Texas citation that appears to contradict it. This citation is 18 years more recent than the BMJ citation.
Has anyone seen the Mark 1881 article? Please show us a sample citation, sample reference.
Has anyone read the "Mystery dispelled" article? What does it say? What was the "mystery"? How was it "dispelled"?
TH 07:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
05:59, 31 October 2006 T00h00 (Talk | contribs) (Needed to discuss "n. d." before using it in the 3-name n. d. http example)
00:42, 29 October 2006 T00h00 (Talk | contribs) ("at the end" -> "near the end" because it may be followed by Bibiliography, Further reading, External Links, Disclaimer, etc. Plus: "the citing work")
06:16, 21 October 2006 T00h00 (Talk | contribs) (changed "S.A." to "Sandra" to clarify that period is structural. Going with OSU style.)
Here are SlimVirgin's justifications for his changes:
22:23, 5 November 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (added surname and first name as requested on talk)
[But no one had made any request.]
9:41, 5 November 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (best not to name a particular author and the previous para seems less confusing)
[SlimVirgin gave no reason for his opinion about "best" nor "seems". I then explained the flaw of promising the reader an example and then not naming a sample author. SlimVirgin never responded.]
19:04, 1 November 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (this compromise version is better than either of the other two)
[SlimVirgin gave no reason for this opinion.]
04:20, 29 October 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (removed personal opinions)
[I asked what part SlimVirgin thought was personal, but never got any response.]
05:50, 27 October 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (removed personal opinions)
[SlimVirgin gave no explanation for thinking that something I added was personal.]
21:35, 25 October 2006 SlimVirgin (Talk | contribs) (previous version is better, and you must include a source for your claim about where it is used)
[SlimVirgin gave no reason for the "better" claim.]
To summarize: I have supported my changes with numerous citations and explanations. I have invited others to provide counterbalancing evidence. SlimVirgin never provided citations, evidence, or explanations, either to support his or her own changes or to counter my changes.

TH 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)



My predictions

Folks,

1. I predict that SlimVirgin will not revert because he (I use the term he as the neutral pronoun) will finally remember that he volunteered to join the Wikipedia Harmonious Editing Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harmonious_editing_club, with this purpose:

These members would bind THEMSELVES to the rule of "you can only revert once".

By the way, at that club, SlimVirgin said:

SlimVirgin I think the decision to self-limit on reverting is a good idea.

(Myself, I have never been a member of that club. I belong to the Provide Reasons and Citations for Your Changes club. I have collected most all of my reasons and citations above in one section for the reader's convenience.)


2. I predict that Slrubenstein will not revert because he will grasp the concept that the article is a descriptive article about a normative system.


3. Jayjg, I can't predict -- except that if he reverts, I predict that he will be unable to provide any substantive reason for his revert.

TH 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

TH 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please -- add value -- cite other authorities -- WITH CLARITY

Folks,

I wanted to repeat my invitation to anyone who dislikes the reliance on Chicago Manual of Style in this article:

You can do something useful -- ... Find out what the major alternative is to Chicago. Write a section about that alternative -- exactly what are the major rules? Please add clarity, information, and authority, not confusion and unhelpfulness and “I think” and “some people”.

By the way, I am not from Chicago, never went to the University of Chicago, have no connection to Chicago. Is there a more-respected authority? Then read my documentation above, and document the respect of the authority you prefer.

TH 21:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing the title

T00h00 would like to change the title from Harvard referencing to Author-date citation system. I don't know which is more common. Google doesn't help much:

  • "Harvard referencing": 61,000 (774 unique hits);
  • "Harvard reference": 32,600 (529 unique);
  • "Harvard system": 110,000 (200 unique);
  • "author-date": 1.5 million (798 unique);
  • "author-date" without the word "Harvard": 68,700 (757 unique)
  • "Harvard referencing" without the phrase "author-date": 56,000 (769 unique)

Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,


1. Please explain how you get "unique hits".


2. You should point out that your six queries provide very selective evidence. If you're just starting on a different approach from what I took, I think that's a great idea -- but you should not paint the picture that your six queries represent the state of our knowledge. Note my evidence on regional usage, and my evidence from The Chicago Manual of Style, The University of Toronto, The University of Maryland, the MIT-Microsoft Mayfield Handbook, the APA Manual, Turabian, the MLA Handbook, the MLA Style Manual, Howell, and Webster’s.


3. Your queries will be more meaningful results if you put them in the context of citation and reference. See the examples I gave above in Talk (search for harvard+).

For example, your query

  • "Harvard system": 110,000 hits

in the context I mention becomes

  • "Harvard system" citation reference: 33,000 hits


4. Page counts are not the whole story -- regionality is also a factor. For example, above you show that

  • "Harvard referencing": 61,000 hits

Notice what happens if we take out just some of the UK pages:

  • "Harvard referencing" -ac.uk: 669 hits


5. Your "Harvard system" query retrieves pages such as "Alumna is Harvard System’s first woman chief of medicine Soheyla Gharib, M.D.". Yes, my queries also brought up spurious retrievals, I'm sure. That's why I added the context of citation and reference, to minimize them.


6. I think it would be better if you would provide exact queries (see my examples above) so that others can check for flaws.


TH 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

more evidence -- author-date is the worldwide preferred term

Another example --

If you go to Newcastle Law School, http://www.ncl.ac.uk and do a keyword search for "Harvard system", it will take you to a page http://www.ncl.ac.uk/nuls/lectures/legwrit/app2.htm that says:

The author date system (also known as the Harvard system) is widely used in social sciences.

I have not yet found a non-UK educational site that gives prominence to the term Harvard referencing, but I can find UK sites that give prominence to the term author-date.

---

And all of Canada? --

I have previously shown evidence that U Toronto uses "author-date". What about U Calgary (which I chose at random)?

google: harvard.reference OR harvard.referencing ucalgary.ca citation reference -> 3

google: author-date ucalgary.ca citation reference -> 59

So it appears (I haven't inspected the results for errors or patterns as I usually do) that Calgary prefers author-date by a twenty-to-one margin.

TH 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/Talk%7EHarvard_referencing_archive2_b8e0.html"