My article, “Citations Have Two Purposes,” elicited a good batch of comments. Here are some related to the author-date citation style.
-- The Insider
…The important thing is to have the full publication details in the literature list at the end.
You said "In some fields both purposes can be met with as little as a name and a publication date, the so-called author-date style. This style works well when:".
I think you're not looking deeply enough. In my field, this is what appears in the narrative instead of a footnote. It is merely indicates the information that the reader needs to consult the associated REFERENCES CITED at the end of the article/book.
Also I give newbies a different, additional pair of reasons for citing sources (which I think are imperative):
a) it gives credit to the people who have done work before you (since you may be citing a COMPILATION document rather than a primary source)
b) it allows those who continue your research in the future to verify the captured information and compare it with other (possibly discrepant) sources.
Dear Kaisa and Judith,
Good point. I’ll try to fix that section of the article.
As for additional reasons for citing sources, Judith, you read my mind. Or Turabian. Merge our lists of reasons to cite sources and you have the list that appears on pp. 133-4 (see note 2 of my article). An earlier draft of my article contained the complete list.
-- The insider
The abbreviated scientific citation style works well not because of the reputation of the authors cited, but because the works cited are peer reviewed.
Are you trying to say that peer review is a better indicator of quality than the reputation of the author? Fair enough. My point is that in some fields of study the name of a reputable author has enough value as an initial indication of quality, that it makes sense to call it out before the reader reaches the source list at the end of the article.
-- The Insider