TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2008-05 > 1209669730

From: "Michael J. Hannah" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Citation reference code proposal
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 13:22:10 -0600
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be complete and accurate.

Multiple people have proposed changes to TMG so that the *same* citation
footnote/endnote be referenced in the output for a tag multiple times,
such as after the person *and* after the date *and* after the place
*and* after the memo that are covered by that single citation. As I
have been taught, standard publication guidelines advise that is an
incorrect usage of citation references. I may be an old timer, but I
*am* willing to be taught something new. However, it is my
understanding that a single reference note citation is referenced once
and only once in the text, and a given citation reference number appears
once and only once in the text at the end of the _collection_ of
information supported by that citation. If an author wishes to have
separate citation references concerning separate pieces of data in the
text, then I have been taught the author should create separate
citations that only support each piece of data, and then each will have
their unique reference number.

Following my understanding of these style guidelines, my proposal
provides a way to identify where to place the single reference to a
citation at a single location in the text that is other than at the
current end-of-tag output. It does not propose duplicating the single
citation reference multiple times at multiple locations in the tag text.
Further, because I believe it to be an incorrect and inappropriate use
of citation references, I would not currently support any proposal to
have a single citation generate multiple references. (Unless I am
taught the error of my ways, of course <G>).

As documentation for this style guideline for the usage of citation
references, I am including the following quotes for the sake of those
who do not have easy access to these books. One commonly used reference
for publications that I have on my bookshelf is the _Chicago Manual of
Style_ , 13th ed. I also include quotes from the recently published
book concerning documenting genealogy, _Evidence Explained_ by Elizabeth
Shown Mills. The _Chicago Manual_ is one of the style manuals cited by
Mills, and she even states on page 42 of _Evidence Explained_ that "The
_Chicago Manual's_ Humanities Style has been the most effective for
history researchers. _Evidence Explained_ is rooted in that style."

_Chicago Manual's_ Entry 15.43 concerning the numbering of footnotes and
endnotes states:
The same reference number should not be repeated
in the text... Where a subsequent reference is made
to a source cited earlier, the *new* note contains
either the shortened form of the citation or, if the
citation is exactly the same, a reference to the
earlier note:
3. See note 1 above.
[emphasis added]

TMG's current style to put the citation reference at the end-of-tag
output also follows the recommended style from _Chicago Manual_ entry 15.40:
Wherever possible a note number should come at
the end of a sentence, or at the least at the
end of a clause. Numbers set between subject
and verb or between other related words in
a sentence are distracting to the reader.

Again this suggests to me that the single reference should come after a
complete clause, such as "he was born on this date at this place with
this extra text". The only circumstances I can find in the guidelines
that would produce a reference after date and a separate reference after
place are if these references were for citations from completely
different sources or from different locations within a source. But if
the citation to a given source mentiones _both_ date and place, then its
reference should come at the end of the complete clause.

This also follows the advice in _Evidence Explained_ on page 63, Section
2.42, "Reference Numbers, Placement of":
In classic expository writing, note numbers
within the text are typically placed at the end
of sentences, outside the closing punctuation mark.
However, some history researchers apply more
precision in various situations.

Continuing in _Evidence Explained_ on page 63 to describe such situations:
If a single sentence contains information from
first one source, then another, genealogical
standards call for identifying _precisely_ what
detail came from which source. To do this, the
writer places a reference number at each
point where details from each source *end.*
[emphasis added]

And later on the same page:
If a sentence contains not only information from
a source but also our own interpretation or
observations, it is best to place the reference
number at the point where the information from
the source actually *ends* and our own
thoughts begin...
[emphasis added]

Continuing on the next page:
When a reference number appears in the middle
of a sentence, as in the previous example, the
superscript number should appear immediately
after any punctuation mark (except the dash)
that divides the two parts of the sentence.

As I read it, this continues to advise that the single reference number
for a citation should follow whole parts of a sentence, or whole clauses.

Both _Chicago Manual_ and _Evidence Explained_ give examples of
combining references to multiple sources in a single reference at the
end of the text. While my examination is not exhaustive, I can find no
example in _Evidence Explained_ where the same reference note citation
is split/replicated to be referenced multiple times in the same text, or
where a reference note number to the same note is repeated. And the
_Chicago Manual_ which Mills states is the basis of her style explicitly
advises that such repetition should not be done. If someone can
demonstrate counter examples I would be interested in understanding
their desire for such multiple references for a single citation and the
publication style people wish to follow.


This thread: