Talk:Author-date referencing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 2

Contents

[edit] Citing Citations

How do you cite a book or article that was citing someone else? I.e. If Smith cited Jones in a 2006 article, how do you reference this? E.g. (Smith, ref Jones 2006)? or would you have to search for the original Jones article, but that wouldn't be in the bibliography since it's not literature you would have read. NinjaKid 08:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being Bold

Given the compelling arguments presented here, my own research over the past few days, and my experience as a professor (in the States and elsewhere), it does make sense from a world-wide perspective to use "author-date" citations as the broader term and then adding into the narrative that this system is also known as parenthetical citations and Harvard referencing. This steps out of any regionalized use, by not calling it Harvard style or APA style or CBE style, etc. The same changes have been made over in the MoS. I'll do a bit more research, although perhaps not until this semester is over, to see what else I can find about the history of the development of this style. It would seem appropriate too to change the title of this and all of the relevant articles and templets, with redirects built in for those who most normally think of this method as Harvard referencing. I don't know how to do this yet, so if perhaps someone else with this expertise or access could oblige? warmly, Cyg-nifier 12:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

82.43.61.66 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am curently undertaking a igher education course in the UK and was advised to use the Harvard Referencing system - s it deffinately in use in the UK.

Wouldn't it make the most sence to have a seperate page for "author-date" and simply link the two? 82.43.61.66 20:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It might, but to me it doesn't seem to make sense to have two identical pages for the same thing, especially when one relies on a regional name. Also even if one looks at the defining of the British standards and the standards for the British medical journals (see BMA web site), the author-date terminology is now being added in to qualify this for broader understanding. British scholars who work in international contexts generally shift to adopt author-date or parenthetical referencing; otherwise, it isn't clear what is being referred to. Calling this "Harvard referencing" really is a Commonwealthism (or perhaps only in England and Australia, as those are the only places were I've found universities with style sheets using this termonology) and so keeping a separate page gives it a "world wide" standing that isn't quite accurate. Keeping it would suggest that maybe we needed to create a whole separate sheet for APA referencing or MLA referencing as being exactly equal to author-date referencing. It makes more sense organizationally to have a redirect from Harvard referencing (as a regional name) to author-date which really is the broader and more accurate term. It does seem a bit peculiar to have something named after a U.S. institution when no one (not even at Harvard) would refer to this form of referencing as Harvard referencing. A redirect would serve to make the section findable for anyone looking under Harvard referencing, but would take them to the more globally useful term "author-date citations" (which would seem important for an international encyclopedia and thus part of the mission of Wikipedia). -- Keeping separate pages would seem rather like building up walled compound in heaven so that a particular denomination can think they are the only ones there. warm regards, Cyg-nifier 19:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverting page edits without any discussion, even for an administrator, is unWikipedian. There was considerable discussion in the (now-archived) talk page regarding a need for a more global terminology and a tag on the page for this also. And so this was reflected in the editing done. The reason given for the revert was that the article did not match the name. And so, quite reasonably, then I did a move and a name change -- funny thing, then, both the move and the edits were reverted. This seems highly inappropriate.

[edit] Page move

Swan, if you want to organize a page move that is disputed, could you please do it via Request for page moves, rather than doing it unilaterally? Then we can have a poll and decide. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Why a move? And why shift to the name Author-date citations? Clearly this has been discussed before --see Archive 2 -- with a compelling argument made for the shift. The key reasons are these: (1) to reflect the global nature of Wikipedia through the use of a global term for this particular style of citing sources, and (2) to remove the ambiguity of using terminology (Harvard referencing) that not only is regional but can be confused with something else referred to as Harvard style.

Because Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, it is important that key terminology be global. "Harvard referencing" or "Harvard style" appears to have currency only in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. In Canada, a quick check of universities (University of Toronto, Ryerson, York, U.Waterloo, Fairleigh Dickinson) show that nor more than 1 faculty member in each of the universities even mentions this style of referencing. Even in the UK/AU/NZ, the use of "Harvard referencing" or "Harvard style" is often accompanied by a parenthetical explanation (author-date method) or (author-date system). In some universities, the order is being switched, so that Author-date is now the primary name and (Harvard style) is what is in parentheses (for example, Flinders in Australia). This is true with the British Standards Institute, the British Medical Association, and most of the universities that provide guidelines for documentation of sources (for example, Bournemouth University). Other UK institutions, such as University of St. Andrews and University of Southampton list Harvard referencing, but as a parallel with APA, MLA, and Chicago (and a look at links to programs show most calling for students to use these other options. If one looks at major universities in the U.S. (Harvard, Stanford, Duke, Yale, etc.), a search for Harvard referencing yields not a single hit and it is likely that most faculty in the U.S. would never have even heard of something called "Harvard referencing" and would be insulted that a format of citations being developed in any number of places and through any number of academic associations would be called "Harvard" referencing.
The guide for writing used by students at Harvard itself ("Writing with Sources: A Guide for Harvard Students" by Gordon Harvey) has no mention of it, although APA/MLA/Chicago are mentioned. Indeed a search of the Harvard web site reveals that "Harvard referencing" is what happens when pop culture tv, songs, films, and books make reference to Harvard. The only citation system with Harvard in its name at Harvard (the Harvard Citator, more commonly known as the Bluebook) refers exclusively to a system of legal citations begun at Harvard Law School and then adoped by Columbia, Pennsylvania, & Yale. In the extensive list that I.Lee has on the web of style guides [1], half the items listed under Harvard style are to the Bluebook. Clearly then, there is ambiguity in the use of Harvard referencing (in confounding the British term for author-date citations with the system of legal citations).

If Wikipedia were a localized encyclopedia, then this might not be an issue, but Wikipedia is bigger than that. Yes, it may be a bit of a pain for some Wikipedians to adjust to the shift in names, but with redirects, the regional name can then be directed to the more widely understandable Author-date citations. It takes only about an hour or so to clean up all the redirects (although if the templet names were updated, it might take a bit longer). And the change is the right thing to do. It certainly might make sense to have an article called Harvard referencing that could given the history of that name and an overview of the style (leading from the article on Citations -- wh/ probably ought to be titled Referencing or Documentation of Sources), but it seems quite inappropriate for "Harvard referencing" to be one of the house styles for Wikipedia, especially when one may easily move to the larger order name, increasing accessibility to all (especially if the reverts are undone and the very clear explanation that shows Harvard referencing and parenthetical referencing as akas is put back in place). This doesn't negate the fine work of the folks such as SlimVirgin and others in building up to this point; quite the contrary. When one is building something from the ground up, one naturally works from what one is most familiar. This proposal just offers an opportunity to now be a bit more inclusive, tweaking the excellent work and honoring the superb effort by a small shift in terminology. Cyg-nifier 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time to look for links at the moment, Cyg, but I remember looking this up before, and "Harvard referencing," "Harvard reference," or "Harvard system" are widely used in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and as I recall also in the U.S. Just because something is mostly used in Europe and the Commonwealth countries doesn't mean it's not appopriate for Wikipedia, by the way.
Google and Google Books show a preference for Harvard system:
  • "Harvard referencing": 61,000 (774 unique hits)
  • "Harvard reference": 32,600 (529 unique)
  • "Harvard system": 110,000 (200 unique)
  • "author-date citation": 596 (383 unique)
  • "author-date citation" without the word "Harvard": 777 (455 unique)
  • "Harvard referencing" without "author-date": 56,000 (769 unique)
(Weird search result above: author-date citation without the word Harvard gets more hits than author-date citation alone. :-D)
Google Books:
  • "Harvard referencing": 55
  • "Harvard reference": 76
  • "Harvard system": 661
  • "Author-date citation": 38
Also, just from the sheer style point of view, Harvard referencing or Harvard system is neater than author-date citation system. Can you supply links for some of the points you made? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Oxford and Cambridge use Harvard referencing, by the way, just to counter the point you made about British universities above. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course, Oxford and Cambridge use Harvard referencing. My point wasn't that they didn't, but that in a number of other UK institutions (including the BMA and BSI), that (author-date citations) or (author-date system) phrasing is often used to qualify Harvard referencing (suggesting that its meaning in a global context may now require an explanatory title). And if one checks the major institutions in Canada (take any university listed above, plop it in Google along with "Harvard referencing" and the information appears), it is clear that Harvard referencing is definitely NOT the dominant form. Contaminated I suppose by Americans perhaps, but a reality all the same. "Harvard referencing" is virtually unheard of in the U.S. (claim based on checking the sites of major universities for any reference to the terminology, on my 30 years experience as a professor in a variety of U.S. universities and teaching research writing and documentation for students in a wide range of disciplines, and on a check with colleagues who invariable went "huh?" followed with a snide comment about who did Harvard think they were anyway). It shows up in the U.S. when long lists of possible referencing styles are given (for enlightenment purposes, I suppose), but is never given as a preferred style. In the U.S., referencing is almost exclusively from one of four standards: APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, and CBE (CSE) (and occasionally AMA for medical schools). Counts for these in Google books: APA style (828), MLA style (715), parenthetical citations (690), Chicago style (17,400), Turabian style (456), CBE style (746), Harvard referencing (627) -- which if numbers were all should suggest that Chicago is the terminology to go with.
And, you are absolutely correct that the phrase "author-date citations" is not ideal -- it is clunky and awkward. I used it as an alternative here as it was already in use in discussions on Wikipedia as a work around to create a bridge between different "brands" of style books. A far better term would be "parenthetical referencing" as it captures the key element of this approach. And almost no-one that I know in academics would use the term "author-date citation systems" -- references would all be to MLA, APA, Chicago, or CBE specifically, although they all have the author-date system as the preferred mode (thank god! my hopefully never-to-be-repeated experience from undergrad days of actually having to do footnotes on a typewriter is the stuff of nightmares).
You do note, Slim, that just because something is used in the Commonwealth that it isn't necessarily inappropriate -- I absolutely agree, but only if the term is broadly used and understood globally. Using "Harvard referencing" as I've already noted seems problematic in an number of ways, including ambiguity and regionalism. I'm not arguing that Wikipedia shift to MLA or APA or Chicago, but that the shift be to a larger order term that steps outside of anyone's regionalism or imperialism (British or American) Author-date citations or Author-date citation system is okay; Parenthetical referencing would be better. Obviously given the archived discussions, others feel strongly about Harvard referencing being a problematic term -- why not collaborate and shift to the larger order approach. This way no one gets their private bias for a particular system of referencing met, a larger order term or approach that validates many "branded" styles develops, and yet another small step toward meeting the goal for a global approach for a global encyclopedia is made. Referencing styles in many ways is a part of the identify of academics (many of whom tend to think that the way they were taught is the only possible reality) -- why then choose one term that clearly is perceived as problematic by many when a shift of terminology (even if a trifle inelegant) makes it a win-win situation? Cyg-nifier 14:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
We have this come up often. Words that are more easily understood in America are used instead of words more easily understood in Europe, and vice versa. The ArbCom has ruled that, where the topic is tied to the U.S., then American expressions should be used, and when the topic is more European, then the British (or whatever) expression is used. They also ruled that, where the topic is universal, the expression used by the first major contributor should be used, unless there is a pressing need to change it. I see no pressing need here. The term is widely used around the world. If some American academics genuinely don't know it (and the American academics I know do), then Wikipedia will inform them! :-)
Seriously, this is a widely understood term, which Google returns more hits for (as Harvard style) than the alternative. So far as I recall, we've had only person in the two and a half years I've been here who wanted to change it, so it's not an issue that is perceived as problematic by many, as you said. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves, NPV, and accuracy of information

Please note that a poll is not in fact a requirement for requesting a move. Go look at the policy. It says it might be useful. The key here is the accuracy of the information and it requires no poll and no agreement to change information that is blatantly inaccurate and misleading. You SLIM having established yourself as a sole gatekeeper is a serious violation of the whole point of Wikipedia, especially when the information you insist on is inaccurate. You have bullied and then driven off any number of people (look back in the archives) who have very rightfully raised the issue of referring to this as Harvard referencing, even when it is clear that the evidence for using a larger order term is quite compelling. (See for example Harvard referencing/archive1, Wikipedia talk: Citing sources, 7: Harvard/author-date, Talk page: Cite sources--Archive 7). It is not appropriate for you to do so and in fact it flies in the face of the NPV policy. Every other person who has brought this up has recommended going for a larger order view. This does not fall under the category of "National varieties of English WP:ENGVAR, which refers specifically to spelling and grammatical conventions. Indeed, it specifically indicates that one is to come up with terminology (especially in article titles) that is common to all and that "in extreme cases of conflicting names, a contrived substitute is acceptable. It is only also with spelling style that the preference goes to the "first major contributor." This does not at all apply in this case. You are in violation of NPV policy and of misusing information to create an illusion of agreement that isn't there. You take advantage of the fact that there may not be many experts in this area and not many people to whom this is important, but you are the one that needs to step back from your "nationalist pride" and work with others to shift to more global terminology that represents accurate, verifiable, reliable information.

The reverts that you insist on making are also reverts that remove information that clarifies the origins of the term Harvard referencing -- and the reverts thus function only in the interests of disinformation and removing accurate references that document this. The removal of the gloss to the "further reading" item that is a style guide from Harvard is also a move to disinformation as there is not one single reference to something called "Harvard referencing" in the entire guide. They refer to APA, MLA, and Chicago, but NEVER to anything called Harvard referencing. That is because it is virtually unheard of in North American except for a few faculty members who happen to be from the UK.
The term "Harvard referencing" is by no means a common term except in the UK and OZ. Of the hits on Harvard referencing/Harvard system/Harvard references, most of them mean "references to Harvard as a university" and have nothing to do with systems of citation. If one looks for example using the search engine CLUSTY, which gives more information than Google does, one finds that of the unique hits for "Harvard referencing" and its variants that only between and 26% (Harvard referencing)and 36% (Harvard system) of the hits have anything to do with documentation systems AND of this small number of hits 100% of them are to institutions in the UK/OZ. To give an idea of the sorts of things that "Harvard referencing" FAR more commonly refers to, of 249 unique hits, 118 are miscellaneous references to Harvard (such as references to Harvard on The Simpsons, reference books housed in the Harvard library), 26 are .org (15 of which are to Wikipedia, 9 to misc. Harvard Univ. stuff unrelated to documentation), 29 are .com (with only vendors to the UK including that refer to documentation). There is no validity to a claim that "Harvard referencing" is a globally understood term to refer to a style of documentation -- it is one of many names for the author-date or parenthetical system. APA, MLA, etc. do NOT use "Harvard referencing" -- it is NOT the most widely recognized system of referencing. The author-date system is, in its various names, but to say "Harvard referencing" is is to perpetuate a blantant untruth.Cyg-nifier 19:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
A poll is required if there's an objection. Harvard referencing and the author-date citation system are two names for the same thing, so it makes no sense to say the latter is the most widely recognized system of referencing but the former isn't. Your edits in this area are becoming almost disruptive. Please organize a poll for a page move if you want one; otherwise, please let it be. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Harvard referencing and author-date system is not the same thing. Harvard referencing is a regional term ONLY understood in the region of UK and OZ, with a few other Commonwealth countries tossed in (see data above from CLUSTY). If you will look at the policy on changes and moves, votes are not required and are only suggestive even if they are used. โ€”Preceding unsigned comment added by SwanSZ (talk โ€ข contribs)
Something that is used all over the world is not regional. But more importantly, if Harvard referencing and author-date are not the same, please explain the differences. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical order by what?

Author-date referencing says:

  • ... full citations are collected in alphabetical order under a "References" or "Works Cited" heading at the end.

From the context, it appears that "alphabetical order" really means "alphabetical order by author's name." If this is so, it would be nice to make that explicit, so the reader does not have to waste time inferring it. And does the Author-date referencing article itself use Harvard referencing? Author-date referencing#Notes does not appear to. That seems confusing. --Teratornis 14:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harvard University

I return after some time to pick at an old scab - I have presented evidence for my contention that 'Harvard system' is a misnomer. And I find that there is continuing contention on the matter of whether it is a good name or not. My feeling is that it is not so much the convenience or otherwise of 'Harvard system' vs 'author-date system' as that 'Harvard' is downright inaccurate. As a teacher of study skills, I also happen to find 'author-date' a good way of demonstrating to students how the system works: "You need two words - author + date (+ sometimes a 3rd, 'p') in your text, and these direct you to the List of References, where I will look for the 'author' (+ forename detail) and 'date' - which must be the same as in the text." So the name 'author-date', if admittedly clumsier, is more helpful - as well as more accurate, and, finally, more widely accepted. Your question (30/04/07), SlimVirgin, about the difference between 'Harvard' and 'author-date', may be slightly misleading: in my own university, there are many departments that claim to be using 'the Harvard system', no two of which seem to agree on pernickety detail. There are many variants, and, as I hope my evidence suggests, we can't ask Harvard to adjudicate. So instead of using the (inaccurate) name of 'Harvard, which gives an illusion of magisterial authority, it seems preferable to use the idea of the 'author-date family of referencing systems, and, to save complexity, simplify this to 'the author-date system', adding if necessary, 'in this department's implementation'. (Incidentally, if anyone can tidy up my presentation of the images I have uploaded to support me, I'd be grateful: my solution to my problem doesn't seem elegant to me. (I'm still more virginal in Wikipedia than SlimVirgin, if probably not slimmer.)MacAuslan 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] API or APA?

The first paragraph mentions "API style". I've always heard it called "APA style". I would change it to APA but I'm not positive. Which is correct? Bubba73 (talk), 17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the link says APA so I changed it. Correct it if I'm wrong. Bubba73 (talk), 17:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cons

These don't seem to mention the biggest con of using the author-date system rather than an author-title system: viz that the title is usually a lot more informative than the date! Is this an oversight? ๐จ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฉ๐ก๐ž๐ง๐ต๐‘ˆ๐‘‡๐ด๐‘๐‘‚๐‘๐ธ โ“Šโ“‰ 18:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Let's Rename This to Author-date referencing

Two of the topics above have already proposed that this be renamed to Author-date referencing or something similar. "author-date" referencing on Google returns 571k hits, Harvard referencing returns only 94.5k. More significantly, you have lots of academics who don't call it Harvard referencing at all; I'd never heard the term till I saw Wikipedia, and nowhere in my Pocket Style Manual is Harvard mentioned. SlimVirgin claims that few people have raised the issue, but actually lots of people have raised the issue. For every 100 that think it, probably 1% actually make a fuss about it on here.

Note that when SlimVirgin refuted the more prominent use of author-date with Google hits here, she searched for "author-date citation" in quotes, and, though she searched for Harvard referencing, she didn't search for author-date referencing. Plus, her results significantly deviate from mine. I'm not sure if this distortion was purposeful. Author-date is a much more intuitive name. So far, this means Cyg-nifier, MacAuslan, and myself are opposed to SlimVirgin. If she wants to take it to a Requested Move, I'm willing to do that.

Also, afterward, she is free to do an article on the particular style of Harvard referencing, if Harvard referencing does imply a particular type of author-date similar to the way APA and MLA are different. OptimistBen (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose it, so please do as you see fit. I'd appreciate it if you'd assume good faith, however, and not imply that I might have distorted Google results. If yours differ, please know that Google search results can differ dramatically even from day to day. SlimVirgin talk|edits 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My apologies if I violated good faith. However, I seriously wondered how you could have overlooked author-date referencing when you searched for Harvard referencing, given your general skill with these sorts of things. Then again, "author-date citation" as compared to "Harvard citation" yields 1.7k and 7k, respectively. On Google Books, author-date referencing -Harvard has 1168 hits while referencing -author-date has 666. It seems rather strange for the number of Google hits to differ. Incidentally, do you know why they do? OptimistBen (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology. You mean why do Google hits change a lot? I don't know, and my recollection is that they used to be quite stable, but I've noticed a lot of variation recently, even from day to day. I was searching for some names of activists not long ago to decide who was notable in Google terms, because someone was challenging the inclusion of one of them in a template. I forget the exact figures, but on day one, one of them would get 500 hits, and on day two, 5,000. SlimVirgin talk|edits 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So I went ahead and did it. The joy is bittersweet; now I'm thinking maybe Parenthetical referencing would be a better, more global title. Some of the systems mentioned in the article, such as MLA, don't focus on author-date, however, let's keep it where it's at. Incidentally, I noticed that you cited style as one reason for keeping Harvard referencing. Are you referring to the fact that Harvard referencing has an even capitalization? That does make it easier to wikify. I suppose part of my bias is that: 1) people claim it's a misnomer and 2) author-date describes the system, and I like descriptive names. OptimistBen (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Well, I won't oppose Parenthetical referencing either should you change your mind.
I think when I talked about style, I just meant Harvard referencing had fewer words, because the proposal at the time (as I recall; I'm writing this from memory) was author-date citation system. Anyway, you're right that it's more descriptive, so I think it was a good decision, despite my earlier opposition. SlimVirgin talk|edits 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unknown Author

I have been compiling a series of reports and using various internet sources that I have been citing in my bibliography. However, many of these sources to not state the name of the author. I have found evidence from other sites that these should be referenced in the bibilography by Title and Company/Site name, but how do I reference it in the body of my report? I.e. (Unknown, 2008) or ([Title], 2008)? The Wikipedia article assumes that you have access to all the information and does not highlight the accepted format if some of this information is not available. NinjaKid (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Website Referencing

This article contains no explaination of how to reference websites. I believe the correct format is Surname, Initial. (Year). Title. <Website Address> [Date Accessed] NinjaKid (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing a reference

This article contains no explaination of how to reference another author's reference. I.e. (Jones quoted Smith, 2008) NinjaKid (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming this to Parenthetical referencing

I originally changed this from Harvard referencing to Author-date referencing, but I'm thinking now that the broadest, most descriptive name would be parenthetical referencing. Author-date seems to directly refer to the practice of referencing in-text by the author and the date. In MLA, this is not done; it's author title. If anyone has an objection to the change, please let me know. ImpIn | (t - c) 01:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MLA is not an author-date system

Current article states that author-date is the preferred style of the MLA. But surely MLA is an author-title system, not an author-date system? An MLA in-text parenthetical citation looks like this: (Breton, Nadja 20). Or: (Foucault, Order 149). The date appears nowhere. The MLA Handbook doesn't specify author-date citation anywhere. Can someone clarify this, and amend the article as necessary? E1ijah (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See the section above. I'm just giving people more time to weigh in before I retitle this to "Parenthetical referencing". ImpIn | (t - c) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that renaming this article to "Parenthetical referencing" would help. There are author-title systems that are parenthetical, author-title systems that are non-parenthetical , and author-date systems that are parenthetical. In other words:Image:CitationStyles.jpg
So APA would be a parenthetical author-date style, MLA would be a parenthetical author-title system, and Chicago allows for both parenthetical author-date citation and footnoted author-title citation. Surely the point of this present Wikipedia article is to describe the family of citation styles in the middle vertical column of the image above, which are sometimes called Author-date systems and sometimes called Harvard referencing, but which are distinguished from other referencing systems by the fact that they put dates in parentheses. In other words, the fact that they are author-date oriented is just as important as the fact that the citations are in parentheses, and to rename this article "Parenthetical referencing" would miss that point.E1ijah (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. Perhaps this is best kept as-is. Especially in the Cons section of this page, it references author-title system as a better alternative for humanities papers (CTRL-F for Spinoza to see what I'm talking about). If this was renamed to "parenthetical referencing", it would serve as a broader overview of that system, and then the MLA comment would not be incorrect. We could then comment on the fact that the CMOS allows for mixing them. By the way, what year is that image from? My Pocket Style Manual describes Chicago as just a footnote system; I know that's not right, having glanced at the CMOS itself. But I didn't dig real deep into it. I need to look through it again to understand how that works.

I recently renamed this to "Author-date referencing" from "Harvard referencing". However, it appears that there's been longstanding confusion over what these terms mean, as you point out with the inclusion of the MLA into. So someone working on this article meant it to broadly encompass parenthetical referencing, as is shown in the introduction: "Author-date -- also known as Harvard or parenthetical referencing". Here is another example.

There are two routes that can be taken. This article can become a broad article on parenthetical referencing, including the APA, MLA, and Chicago approach, or we can cut out the reference to MLA in this article (and the example I pointed to). I actually think that broadly addressing parenthetical referencing may be more beneficial for this article. ImpIn | (t - c) 09:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)