When your blog gets cited for the first time, and that citation is in the Harvard Law Review, it's pretty exciting. Enough to make you look past the fact that the citation forgot your name. Unfortunately, that same forebearance doesn't extend for citation #2 (as grateful as I am), found at Maurice R. Dyson, De Facto Segregation & Group Blindness: Proposals for Narrow Tailoring Under a New Viable State Interest in PICS v. Seattle School District, 77 UMKC L. Rev. 697, 736 n.139 (2009). It's not like my name isn't prominently placed in the upper-right corner of the blog. And it's also not like proper citation form for blogs (as mangled as it is in the blue book) does not include the author's name. What, does it smell bad or something?
To add insult to injury, the proposition it is cited for is incorrect (probably a typo): "Although Justice Thomas finds nothing problematic with racial balancing and thus concludes it is not a compelling state interest...." Justice Thomas finds a lot problematic with racial balancing -- he finds nothing problematic with racial imbalance.
Geez, I'm turning into a total grump, aren't I?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
no. if we are going to make such a huge deal about citations in general then its perfectly fine for you to be a little peeved about them omitting your name. if i write something for publication and can find a way to cite you ill include your name.
Hey, I got a nameless citation this month too! Granted, it was for an album review, and the source citing me was the Denver Daily News, but they quoted my review directly but cited it to "Slant Magazine" and not to me specifically.
Really I'm just jealous because some of our film critics were getting quoted in the NYT.
Hey still ... rock on!
Post a Comment