Read on Twitter
Was reviewing the spreadsheet that records our et al. community organizing campaign and I came across a wild notation.
Someone asserted that @HarvLRev's internal style guide adopts the fair citation rule, and rejects the bluebook's own Rule on et al. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XQiDaLQUFB9NfCKQzDJs6sljg7ntP1nKQWZ-aVxOGBo/edit#gid=0
Someone asserted that @HarvLRev's internal style guide adopts the fair citation rule, and rejects the bluebook's own Rule on et al. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XQiDaLQUFB9NfCKQzDJs6sljg7ntP1nKQWZ-aVxOGBo/edit#gid=0
James Paulsen said that this was true in 1992:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1341751
But I hadn't really thought it was still the case thirty years later.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1341751
But I hadn't really thought it was still the case thirty years later.
If true, why would HLR insist that the right way to do citation for other journals was the inflexible et al rule., with its obvious consequence of erasing junior authors and people of color, while adopting the fair citation for itself?
Any HLR alums available to shed light?
Any HLR alums available to shed light?
