Talk:Ibid.

Styles
N.B.: MLA style isn't the same as the Modern Language Association, and APA style isn't the same as the American Psychological Association. Do we mean to link to "MLA style" and "APA style" here? - Dreamword 18:12 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

The link to the MLA style is also a bit misleading, because Ibid isn't actually used in the current MLA style ("new MLA"). MLA style now uses in-text parenthetical citations and a "Works Cited" section, while Ibid is something found in styles that use footnotes or endnotes. --24.167.65.213 23:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Latin for Dummies
Just so people know, Latin for dummies is a real book. Don't know if that makes the example more or less appropriate. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lovecraft
"Ibid" is a short story from H.P. Lovecraft, describing the (fictional) life of scholar Ibid and his masterwork, Op.Cit.

Perhaps a subtle nod to this is given when one of the example references cites the Necronomicon. 66.205.170.192 (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I very much enjoyed seeing Azif listed as the author Jay Dubya (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ditto
I think this is shortchanging the concept of "ditto." People use ditto in conversation. Additionally, most ditto marks are straight up and down, not a quote mark. If ditto marks is going to point here, the topic should have more

Yes, why does "ditto mark" redirect here anyway? 84.9.82.184 08:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization?
Should "Ibid" always be capitalized? It is always capitalized within the article (as is the abbreviation Id.), but not in the header that says "please do not use 'ibid'" in Wikipedia articles. --Trevor Burnham 06:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's that the term always comes at the beginning of a sentence (or capitalized fragment) in formal use, so you rarely see it in lowercase. The phrase "do not use 'ibid'" is one of those rare situations.  66.251.24.220 23:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Many style guides require 'ibid.' to always be lower case, even if at the beginning of (or the entirety) of a sentence (eg, OSCOLA, ASM), so seeing it lower case is not at all rare.Digitig (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right: see (lower case). --79.16.90.85 (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ibid. vs. Id.
Has anyone seen these two used academically as they are used in the example? I understand that that is how legal citations work, but the only cases in which I've seen "id" used in an academic footnote put it in place of an author's name. 66.251.24.220 23:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

When writing a thesis, I was told to use ONLY Ibid. (never have I seen Id. in my peers'); most, if not all, of them have been at the bottom of a page (as a footnote). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.123.141 (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not once seen 'id' used, as in the example given in the article. In academic papers using a style that includes it, 'Ibid' is simply repeated with, if necessary, a different page/line number, not contracted to 'id. This seems to make the article somewhat misleading as to the correct format for footnoting, and is confirmed by one of the links in the article itself here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.117.40 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As an academic, I disagree with the following:

It is no longer considered scholarly practice to use Ibid.

The above is a blanket statement. There is no hard and fast agreement across academia that "Ibid" is not appropriate. I have spoken to both the MLA and APA and neither one has any reservations regarding the use of Ibid. Diana Hacker does not even mention "Ibid" in the current manual. I would rather my students use "Ibid" through their paper to show they are using the exact same source and page than citing the exact same citation over and over again "ad nauseum." I believe as well that university professors who claim that the use of "Ibid" is no longer appropriate are voicing their personal opinion regarding the matter based on general agreement that students should be sparing of their use of Latin abbreviations in formal papers (Hacker 317). I have spoken of the matter with colleagues and there is general disagreement, as a matter of fact. Some like the use of "Ibid.," and claim papers look more "polished" with it. Some do not like the use of "Ibid." It is good that Wikipedia has added a "citation needed" marker. Yodedp27 (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've probably never been more excited about citation usage ever. (That's at least a little true . . .) I just stumbled across a paragraph with two ibid. cites. It seems, from this paragraph, anyway, that, in legal usage, ibid. follows id. when id. follows a quotation if ibid. does not, itself, follow a quotation. Yeah, I wish I had time to edit that more, too. But see for yourself. This is from an opinion written by J. O'Connor: Judge Edmondson, although stating that he believed “good reason exists to doubt that the ADEA was (or could have been    properly) enacted pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment,” id., at 1430, rested his opinion on the ADEA's lack of unmistakably clear language evidencing Congress' intent to abrogate the States' sovereign immunity. Ibid. He noted that the ADEA lacks any reference to the Eleventh Amendment or to the States' sovereign immunity and does not contain, in one place, a plain statement that States can be sued by individuals in federal court. Id., at 1430-1431. Judge Cox concurred in Judge Edmondson's ultimate conclusion that the States are immune from ADEA suits brought by individuals in federal court. Id., at 1444. Judge Cox, however, chose not to address “the thorny issue of Congress's intent,” id., at 1445, but instead found that Congress lacks the power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity under the ADEA. Ibid. *72 He concluded that “the ADEA confers rights far more extensive than those the Fourteenth Amendment provides,” id., at 1446, and that “Congress did not enact the ADEA as a proportional response to any widespread violation of the elderly's constitutional rights.” Id., at 1447. Chief Judge Hatchett dissented from both grounds. Id., at 1434. That case is Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents 528 U.S. 62, 120 S.Ct. 631 (U.S.Fla.,2000). Sorry I don't have time to format the cite. I can find NO support for this usage, but it makes sense, I think, to use ibid. to broaden the reference beyond a quotation.

I'll bet if someone, and I might just do it, searched Westlaw for id. w/20 ibid., we could see how it's being used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.116.76 (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed this is quite exciting. Good show, what? Jay Dubya (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

'''The above information is quite wrong. Ibid., in legal writing, and elsewhere, is used to show that a citation is being taken from the exact same page or paragraph (whichever unit is being cited) as is pinpointed in the source directly preceding it. So if the preceding footnote was "Johnson, p. 47" then using ibid. in the next footnote would indicate not only that the book being cited is Johnson's book, but ALSO that the page number being cited is 47. On the other hand, Id. is used to denote that the preceding source is being used, but a different page or paragraph within the source is being cited. Hence, Ibid. always stands alone in a citation and Id. always is followed by a page number or paragraph number. It is never correct (although Chicago Style Guide stupidly says otherwise) to have "ibid., 47" and it is never correct to just have id.''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.133.175.219 (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Modern day usage
I added a statement saying that it is no longer considered proper scholarly practice to use ibid. Obviously, I should cite this claim per wikipedia standards, however I cannot find a good source- I learned it from a number of my University history professors who have told me as much. Please weigh in on appropriateness of contribution to article, I will bow to the general will. Rudy Breteler (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My history profs support and encourage the use of Ibid. Glandrid (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. segmarian 12:03, 7 Feb 2011 (GMT)

Removed
I have removed the part about ibid no longer being scholarly practice. From reading the discussion and my own experience there are a lot of academics who prefer the use of ibid and its use down to personal preference. With no citation except somebodies lecturers I thought it would be better to remove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.121.38 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto mark - further details
Why does ditto mark redirect here? The article states that it is "similar to ditto marks". The concept of using Ditto Marks should either be fully elobarated in this article or split into a separate article completely. Gwolfe28 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What about another ibidem?
If there was another ibidem with the same page as the last ibidem in the example, would it need the reference of the page?

512upload (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Reference
By the by, this is just a note, the H.P. Lovecraft reference is beautiful.Sir Ian (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Example in image doesn't have full stop (period)
I noticed a note saying since "Ibid." is an abbreviation it should always have a full stop (period), yet the example in the image omits them in all instances. Should the image be replaced or the note be removed/further explained? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.152.6 (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)