[Buddha-l] The state of buddha-l: a brief report

[Franz Metcalf]

Alberto et al.,

Thank you for that provocative defense of notes including titles,  
Alberto. In fact, having considered your point, I think you're right.  
Perhaps a good solution is not having notes so much as changing the  
form of parenthetical references to include titles (or perhaps  
abbreviated titles).

Meanwhile, the conversation continues on H-Buddhism. A respected  
scholar, Oliver Freiburger, just wrote this:

> Call me archaic, but I don’t like in-line citations. They may be  
> convenient for the author, but as a reader I find it rather annoying  
> having to consult the bibliography of a book for each single  
> reference. With citations such as “Schopen 1988b: 22” or “Smith  
> 2001: 5” the author has done his or her duty, but they give the  
> reader very little information and force him or her to start  
> investigating what exactly they refer to. I think in-line citations  
> were developed in the natural sciences (and came upon us via the  
> social sciences), to capture the basic information that is most  
> required in the sciences, i.e. the name of the author of a study and  
> the year of publication, to indicate how recent the results are.  
> Regardless whether or not these would be the most important data for  
> abbreviating a citation in our field, having a complete citation  
> conveniently at hand in the footnote on the same page makes it very  
> easy for the reader to quickly see the argument in context and check  
> the references. I’ve never viewed citations as “clutter,” even in  
> works that are tangential to my interest, and I’m surprised that  
> some scholars do. A quick glance at the footnote assures me that I  
> can find everything I need when I need it, and I can keep on  
> reading. (Honestly, we fully “read” a citation anyway only when we  
> want to look it up, right? No disruptive clutter there.) Quite on  
> the contrary, it’s in-line citations that hinder me in reading  
> smoothly - and they don’t even give me much information. I find  
> citations in footnotes much more reader-friendly.


I think he makes a strong point, and one very similar to Alberto's.  
More thinking through is required to find the best practice.

Cheers,

Franz