Some students may wonder whether they should follow the Chicago Manual of Style or any other convention. My answer to such a question would be to focus on what is a bibliography meant for, i.e., enabling your readers to check your sources.

As a consequence of that, any convention will do, if only:

1. Sources are easily identifiable (“Potter 1994” will not be enough, unless there is a bibliography at the end of the paper stating title and journal (or publishing house and place in case of a book). Doing that means that you have understood the role of sources for the epistemology of testimony, which is not just a formal thing, but a philosophically relevant aspect of your research.
2. Sources are consistently listed. Listing once the title, then the author, then the date of publication and last the journal, and next the other way round, suggests that you are not familiar with the principle of an ordered classification. And classifying is primarily a logical exercise, not just a meaningless formality. Follow the Chicago Manual of Style or any other convention, but be consistent.

This being said, there are further points which need a separate treatment:

A. Because of 1., the bibliography at the end of one’s paper needs to be in alphabetic order according to the author’s last name. Put everything a person wrote or edited according to the year of publication. Don’t put all books first and then all edited volumes etc. But: First put all publications by, e.g. Ram Smith, and then start listing collaborations like “Smith, Ram and Devadatta Bhaṭṭa”. As for the alphabetic order of surnames, this is trivially easy when one only deals with contemporary Euro-American authors, but might be difficult outside of this narrow precinct. Where to put “Kumārila Bhaṭṭa” or “Dvarikadāsa Śāstrī Svāmī” or “Saint Augustine”? Let 1. guide you: Your source need to be easily identified. “Saint” or “Professor”, like “Bhaṭṭa” and “Svāmi” are not at all identifying elements. There are thousands of professors, saints and svāmins and dozens of Bhaṭṭas. Thus, chose instead the less common (and most identifiable) part of the name. If in doubt, check worldcat.org, where many of these problems have already been succesfully dealt with.

B. However, there is a point in which the worldcat.org might be irritating, namely when it comes to distinguish between the contribution of author, editor and translator. Thus, let me add my humble opinion: Saying “Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and Dvarikadāsa Śāstrī (1978), Ślokavārttika…” conveys the erroneous thought that Kumārila and Dvarikadāsa sat together and wrote the ŚV as a joint effort. This is not the case. Same with “Martin Buber, Walter Arnold Kaufmann (1970), I and Thou…”. Buber and Kaufmann did not collaborate on that book, whose sole author is Buber. Kaufmann is its translator, like Dvarikadāsa is the editor of Kumārila’s Ślokavārttika. Be sure to convey it. E.g., by saying “Martin Buber, I and Thou, translated by W.A. Kaufmann”. Similarly, state clearly whether someone is the author or the editor of a certain article or book. For instance, suppose that Rāma Miśra contributed an article called “The role of lakṣaṇā in Kumārila Bhaṭṭa” in a book edited by Kalpanā Dvivedi and called “Mīmāṃsā Philosophy of Language”. It would be incorrect to write “Miśra, Rāma and Kalpanā Dvivedi, “The role of lakṣaṇā in Kumārila Bhaṭṭa”. Rather, write as follows (adjust according to the system you follow): Miśra, Rāma, 2001. “The role of lakṣaṇā in Kumārila Bhaṭṭa”. In Kalpanā Dvivedi (ed.), Mīmāṃsā Philosophy of Language, Amsterdam: Bloomsbury, pp. 1–23.

C. In the case of websites, before citing them ask yourself whether their authors fulfil the Nyāya criteria (is the author competent? honest? desirous to communicate?). If you don’t know (e.g., in the case of Wikipedia or any other website without a precise author), DON’T USE IT (unless it’s for an anthropological research). If it has a reliable author, cite it as if it were a scholarly publication (e.g. “Kraut, Richard, “Plato”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/plato/>.”).
What about websites that are easy summaries by reliable authors, e.g., Plantinga’s videos summarizing his philosophy? Use them as an entrance gate into his philosophy, but then go the extra mile and quote his books or articles.

Since we are discussing the final bibliography, let me add a few lines about how to refer to your sources within your essay:

(i) Don’t cheat, quote. You are not looking smarter by not saying whence you know where a certain philosopher was born. Testimony is a valid source of knowledge, whereas vague hearsay is not. Thus, state your sources.

(ii) Add quotation marks when you are quoting. It is not enough to add the name of the author at the end of a passage.

(iii) Add page numbers! You can’t expect your readers to have to read a whole article or book in order to check what you said.

 

Now, for pros: What about pre-modern sources? If there is a standard critical edition, you have to refer to it. However, I would also suggest adding ways for your reader to locate the passage even if they have a different edition at hand. For instance, if you are citing a passage from the Nyāyabhāṣya, mention the aphorism it is commenting on. Thus:

—worst option: NBh, p. 121 (of a random edition)

—intermediate option: NBh, p. 131 (of Anantalal Thakur’s edition)

—best option: NBh on 1.1.2, p. 131 of Anantalal Thakur’s edition

What if your text is not a commentary on a set of aphorisms? Surely it has another internal partition. For instance, if you are quoting the Vidhiviveka, you might clearly identify the verses (they are numbered) and identify the portion of text commenting on a given verse as “VV on v. 2.6” and the like. Since the Vidhiviveka has been critically edited and the critical edition by Stern is a monumental achievement, it makes sense to also refer to Stern’s partitions of the text (e.g., chapter 11.6.1).

Colleagues and students: What can I add to make this list more helpful?