Inadequate Bibliographic Citations in Logos

I brought this topic up years ago when ol' George was still among us, but nothing has changed as far as I can tell. For me, as a user of Logos, I find that FL's dating of public domain titles is not just inadequate and inaccurate but entirely unacceptable. For example, the bibliographic data that is included in the citation of Schaff's translation of Lange's commentary on Matthew gives a date of 2008. It was published during the Civil War. When I say "it", I am referring to Lange's original German edition. THAT IS THE DATE THAT MATTERS. I really don't care a whole lot when Schaff translated it; I certainly don't care when FL (who was still Logos) published their electronic edition. I care about WHEN THE CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED.

Including the translation date and electronic date is certainly worthwhile, but not including the original source date makes the citation nearly worthless, particularly since establishing thought influence trails is one of the primary purposes of bibliographic data.

If I was giving FL a grade on this subject, they would get an F...pretty much the same grade anyone who quoted this Logos commentary would get if they depended on FL's faulty, misleading, and inadequate data in their citation.

Apologetic appeals to other examples of citations found elsewhere that fail to provide adequate data do nothing but demonstrate that failure and inadequacy are not uncommon.

FL NEEDS TO FIX THIS PROBLEM.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

MJ. Smith

the weekly bump for attention 4

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172065#Comment_1172065

Having posted the above example of an inadequate citation, I want to here provide an example of a Logos citation that I consider to be satisfactory.

Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians: Volume 4, Acts-1 Corinthians. Reprint of the 1859 ed. published by Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, under title: Horae hebraicae et talmudicae.; Originally written in Latin and published at intervals between 1658 and 1674. It is not known by whom the translation was made. (104). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

While this may seem wordy to some, it provides all of the relevent info, particularly the dates of ORIGINAL publication. This is the model FL should be using for all of their public domain works.

While it should be relatively easy to implement this going forward, FL should assign someone to backfill relevent necessary info where it is currently lacking in previously released public domain works.

Sean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172113#Comment_1172113

While it should be relatively easy to implement this going forward, FL should assign someone to backfill relevent necessary info where it is currently lacking in previously released public domain works.

Like links? [:P][A][:#]

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172115#Comment_1172115

Not exactly sure what you're asking, but two comments:

1) I don't feel like I should have to do FL's work for them. That said...
2) If someone at FL is reading this thread and wants to encourage a particular response from users about how to address particular cases of bibliographic inadequacy, then by all means please indicate what means and method should be employed. For instance, if this can be somehow addressed through the Typo mechanism, please explain how. If someone at FL wants to address wanting citations by having users post them here on the forum, then indicate that.

Like I said in 1, though, I feel like this should be handled with a thorough in-house sweep of PD titles in Logos. This is all the more pertinent in light of the fairly recent Logos/FL Blog post that focused on plaigerism. I get that FL markets more to clergy than to academics, and clergy oftentimes employ material from sources without giving attribution, but if FL has any aspirations for Logos to be a legit academic tool (which seems to be the case, given the cases in which colleges and seminaries include Logos packages as requisite purchases), then cleaning up and fully filling out bibliographic citations in Logos should be a major priority. Citation details in Logos should be excellent to superior, not less than adequate.

Sean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172117#Comment_1172117

Not exactly sure what you're asking, but two comments:

1) I don't feel like I should have to do FL's work for them. That said...

Just remembering older threads where you and I have been on the same page about how (chiefly, but not always) older resources in Logos lack hyperlinks in citations to other resources also in our libraries. We're always told that FL can't spare the labor and cost to go back and update them, so we just have to accept them as they are.

This seems a similar, if simpler, issue.

Also, I do agree with you here. I maintain a bibliography within Nota Bene, my academic word processor. I always look at the front pages of the books in Logos and don't rely on the citation provided in their information panel because it may be wrong or incomplete.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172119#Comment_1172119

Just remembering older threads where you and I have been on the same page about how (chiefly, but not always) older resources in Logos lack hyperlinks in citations to other resources also in our libraries.

Ah, got it.

We're always told that FL can't spare the labor and cost to go back and update them, so we just have to accept them as they are.

This is outrageous and nonsensical. Hire a couple (or even just ONE) interns and use them to correct, fix, and add appropriate links...AND DO RIGHT BY YOUR CUSTOMERS.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172119#Comment_1172119

We're always told that FL can't spare the labor and cost to go back and update them, so we just have to accept them as they are.

The part I remember of what we are always told is:

that they are slowly cutting away at the backlog but with a priority scheme that greatly mismatches my priorities
that they deprecate resources without telling us they are deprecated until we report an error - then they will tell us it is deprecated and will not be updated
that the number of errors in Factbook that are being reported through various channels has illustrated to me how much specialized knowledge of denominational vocabulary and informal ontologies is required for FL to "get it right".

While a few years back, the best plan of action was to pound it into FL's head that accuracy matters, I've come to believe that now is the time to think creatively ... not crowd sourcing which can be unreliable, but rather letting knowledgeable users trade their expertise for resources e.g. tagging letters, sermons, journal articles or making bibliographic links or . . .

Kyle G. Anderson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172161#Comment_1172161

Please continue to let us know if a resource's bibliographic citation needs to be updated.

We'll take a look at Lange and others that were mentioned.

Dave Hooton

I really don't care a whole lot when Schaff translated it; I certainly don't care when FL (who was still Logos) published their electronic edition. I care about WHEN THE CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED.

But isn't that misleading when my source is the translation by Schaff (attributed to Lange, Schaff) as opposed to the original authored by Lange? Especially when Schaff has "revised, enlarged and edited" the original German.

"The American edition, then, is to a large extent a new work. It exceeds the German, which numbers only 427 pages (third edition), by more than one-third"
Lange, J. P., & Schaff, P. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: John (p. xiv). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

"Ver. 1. There was a man.—An important incident of the residence of Jesus in Jerusalem, exemplifying what has just been said, and introduced with the continuative δέ."
Lange, J. P., & Schaff, P. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures: John (p. 123). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172247#Comment_1172247

Please continue to let us know if a resource's bibliographic citation needs to be updated.

Appreciate the response.

Here's one I just came across:

Clarke, A. (Trans.). (2014). The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes (New Edition., Vol. 5, p. 802). Bellingham, WA: Faithlife Corporation.

Adam Clarke died in 1832, so the sole 2014 date is disingenuous under any circumstance. If there are additional dates that have sufficient claim to attention, that's all fine, but the date of ORIGINAL PUBLICATION is an absolute requirement.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172247#Comment_1172247

Doubled post...delete please.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172328#Comment_1172328

I really don't care a whole lot when Schaff translated it; I certainly don't care when FL (who was still Logos) published their electronic edition. I care about WHEN THE CONTENT WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED.

For the sake of clarity, I draw attention to my statement in the OP...

Including the translation date and electronic date is certainly worthwhile

I am not against additional dates of import and impact being included in a citation; if they are worthy of inclusion, so be it. But regardless of any subsequent addenda, editing, translation, or what have you, the date of original publication is a non-negotiable necessity. I feel the same way regarding works as ancient as Plato. If the best that can be provided is a circa date, fine. It comes down to this...when I'm staring at a bibliographic citation, I shouldn't ever have to be left wondering when the work in question was originally penned.

With regard to Schaff, if his effort is worthy of note, such notation is fine, necessary even, but not to the exclusion of the date of first publication. The example from my second post in this thread (Lightfoot) shows an acceptable way of handling multiple relevent publication dates.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172642#Comment_1172642

The way the following citation is formed, it seems to indicate that Chrysostom was a 19th century figure.

John Chrysostom. (1889). Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Acts of the Apostles (J. Walker, J. Sheppard, H. Browne & G. B. Stevens, Trans.). In P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume XI: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans (P. Schaff, Ed.) (278). New York: Christian Literature Company.

Only personal background knowledge prevents this mistake...knowledge which many Logos users may not have. If an exact date is known for this homily collection, provide it. If it can only be narrowed, a date of "circa 390-400" or "early 5th century" or something of like ilk could be used.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172723#Comment_1172723

For citation styles which require only the publication date of the actual edition of the specific work being cited, there is no problem whatsoever with only including that publication date. Do you have your Logos set to create bibliographic citations for a citation style that requires (or even suggests) the inclusion of additional publication dates?

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172731#Comment_1172731

I've tried a few different styles over the years and it seems that most if not all of them leave something to be desired. That may well be due to the fact that my concerns are broader than those of the various houses of style mafias. I frankly don't care a whit what any of them say. I'm looking for better. I'm looking for complete. I'm looking for a style that doesn't force me time and time and time and time and time again to have to take a detour into the wilds of the internet to find the information that should be right in the citation itself. It wastes my time and for no good reason.

Fwiw, I'd be curious to know what particular style Lexham Press uses and/or requires. I would hope that they aren't particular or specific, meaning that they don't saddle themselves (and their clients) to one of the established yet inferior styles as a matter of course.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172743#Comment_1172743

Here's one that bucks the usual trend but still comes up short, though I personally prefer it to the typical fare.

Simeon, C. (1832-63). Horae Homileticae Vol. 14: John XIII to Acts (539–540). London.

What date is present here? Am I to deduce that Simeon died when he was 31, or is something else intended? Whichever or whatever, at least I have a fair indication of the time frame in which the material I am quoting originated. What I don't see here is any more recent dating data, such as translation date (if any...the title of the series indicates the OL was Latin, but was the text English and only the title Latin? who knows?), and if the series was published by FL from an 19th century copy, why isn't there the usual date for FL's repackaging?

All in all, while I am personally more content with this entry (as a PD resource, I at least have some idea of the original publication date), it still leaves plenty of questions & doubts, which a solid citation should not do. In fact, the more I think about it, the less confident I am feeling about having any solid sense what this citation is telling me.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172745#Comment_1172745

For the sake of clarity, the various citations that I am posting here are coming from my own Logos notes, of which there are thousands, and as I indicated above, I have changed my preferred citation style over the years, using about half-a-dozen different ones.

This brings up another question...is there some sort of metadata that is associated with individual notes that indicates what citation style is found in the notes? I doubt there is, but it doesn't hurt to ask. I realize that in theory a user could include more than one style in a single note, which could make tracking such data complicated.

Simon’s Brother

It's not just public domain titles that leave a lot to be desired when it come to citations supplied by Logos. Take the Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth.

Logos is suggesting Karl Barth wrote the Handbook on himself in 2019. In the actual citation they mention the actual editors of the resources as an afterthought. And to keep up the errors they have linked this Handbook to the Factbook entry on Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Barth, K., 2019. The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth First Edition. P. D. Jones & P. T. Nimmo, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dave Hooton

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172745#Comment_1172745

Here's one that bucks the usual trend but still comes up short, though I personally prefer it to the typical fare.

Simeon, C. (1832-63). Horae Homileticae Vol. 14: John XIII to Acts (539–540). London.

APA style is clearer - it seems to have been published before he died in 1836!:

Simeon, C. (1833). Horae Homileticae: John XIII to Acts (Vol. 14, pp. 539–540). London: Holdsworth and Ball.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1172757#Comment_1172757

Logos is suggesting Karl Barth wrote the Handbook on himself in 2019. In the actual citation they mention the actual editors of the resources as an afterthought. And to keep up the errors they have linked this Handbook to the Factbook entry on Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Barth, K., 2019. The Oxford Handbook of Karl Barth First Edition. P. D. Jones & P. T. Nimmo, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yikes. There's one for Kyle.