I was reading an article in a professional journal, and skimmed over it’s bibliography page when I saw a strange abbreviation: “Ibid.” In context, it looked like:
What’s “Ibid.” mean? Oh, and here’s a link to an example article in the same journal I was reading.
Tripler
Tripler. (2008). SDMB Thread: I don’t know what ‘Ibid.’ Means. Straight Dope: Chicago.
Ibid. (Latin, short for ibidem, “the same place”) is the term used to provide an endnote or footnote citation or reference for a source that was cited in the preceding endnote or footnote. It is similar in meaning to idem (meaning something that has been mentioned previously; the same) abbreviated “Id.,” which is commonly used in legal citation.[1]
(from Wikipedia)
So, references 2 and 3 in my original example would all be from Joe Schmoe’s book as well? That and #5 would be from #4?
Tripler
Man, them Latins were darn efficient with their abbrev. and stuff.
Yes.
In other words, it’s to make it visually simpler, so it’s not lines and lines and lines of Joey Bag of Donuts.
“The trouble with you, Ibid, is you think you’re the biggest bloody authority on everything.” - Terry Pratchett, Pyramids
You beat me!
My God! What are our schools teaching today? Isn’t the meaning of “ibid” something every student learns before leaving high school?
And keep those damn kids off my lawn!
The way I’ve always used it, “Id.” refers to the citation directly preceding this one. “Ibid” refers to any subsequent references to the same cite (provided that no different cite has intervened). I’ve also added a specific page number to my Id’s and Ibid’s, should they differ from the original cite.
So, you’d have:
(1) Joey Bag of Donuts. I like Donuts, pg. 42
(2) Id.
(3) Ibid., at pg. 45
Is that wrong?
I learned that before I wrote my first “real” research paper – in fifth grade. It was about Thomas Edison. My mom saved it. Of course, that was way back in the 1960’s. Things are a wee bit different now.
Just in case you’re still stuck in bibliographyland – “op. cit.” means “work cited,” so if footnote 7 were “Schmoe, op. cit.,” the reference would be to the work cited in #1.
Depends on the stylesheet you are following:
I’ve never seen Id. used in non-legal citations, though; nor have I seen Ibid. used in legal citations. I don’t know of any system that does it the way you suggest, Atomicktom
Actually, I am travelling through WritingMyMastersProjectPaperVille-sylvania, and was taught that your “Works Cited” means just that, while your “Bibliography” includes a list of sources you read in support, but didn’t directly cite in the text of your writing.
Tripler
Oh yes, I will have several pages of each.
Ibid. is traditionally used for “in the exact same place as the last footnote.” I.e., if page 8 of your manuscript includes a quote from Cecil Adams, footnoted “5, Zotti, Edward B. The Life and Times of Cecil Adams, page 338. Chicago: Chicago Reader Associates Press, 2008” and page 9 of your manuscript includes a quote from Mike Linehan found on the same page of the Zotti book, that’s when you use Ibid.
If, on the other hand, a footnote references a different page in the Zotti book (the only book by Zotti you’re using as reference), the proper cite is “Zotti, op. cit., p. 218.” Op. cit. means opus citatum (nominative) or opere citato (ablative) – meaning “(In) the cited work.”
A modern trend that seems to be fully accepted nowadays: if two sequential footnotes reference different pages of the same work, use “Ibid., p. 95” in place of the formerly “correct” construction with Op. cit..
A third, occasionally seen abbreviation is loc. cit., “in the cited place” – meaning “This would have been an ibid if a bunch of other footnotes didn’t get in the way.” If your sole reference to the Zotti book is page 338, and footnotes 5, 14, and 33 all reference that page, the first gets the full cite and the other two are "Zotti, loc. cit..
Finally, you never use any of these but Ibid. to reference one of two or more cited works by the same author. If you also cited the companion volume, Zotti’s The Art of Slug Signorino: a Retrospective, the proper second and later cites would be of the form “Zotti, Adams, p. 87” and “Zotti, Signorino, p. 1034.”
I understand they are becoming quite proficient in the art of evading metal detectors.
As long as you don’t write “imbis” (check you german) which I did for a uni. paper… I just couldn’t think of the bloody word!
(fortunately enough, the prof was quite relaxed and had a laugh about it)
Mileage varies for those traveling through bibliographyland, but I don’t see the point in differentiating between works you ‘read in support’ and works you cite. I don’t know of any referencing system or publisher or style sheet that allows for that, but there’s lots of things that I don’t know, of course. So what field are you writing in?
Anyway, it seems to me that basically, such a list of things you read sometime would just be showing off how much you really now that you can’t bring up legitimately but want to show anyway. My advice is this: you show off by making an original point and by doing good research, not by showing that you’ve read a ton of things. And if you do want to beef up your reference list - which I think is perfectly legitimate - then just include one of those off-hand sentences about how a discussion of concepts such and so or issues this and that goes back a long way, (cf. Schmoe, 1964, 1968, 1975; Smith, 1958, 1978; Jones, 2004a, 2004b) (before you ask, cf is short for confer, i.e. compare. And i.e. is id est, that is 
)
I’m currently pursuing a Masters in Aeronautical Science. And to be honest, “If the Committee Chair says to add a bibliography, add the bibliography.”
I don’t particularly care about the academia’s politics of the whole thing, I just want to get to the bottom of my hypothesis and prove it or disprove it. If giving a couple of extra titles gives someone some food for thought on further study, hey great!
Tripler
To my chagrin, “Master’s in Aeronautical Science” is not the same as “Master of the Skies.” :smack:
I’d sue that academic counselor if I were you…