The second sentence of your third paragraph negates the objection that forms your second paragraph.
I don't think so. If I cite something as coming from, say, English Literary History, I mean that I am citing the version published by Johns Hopkins University Press in the journal of that name, which I may consult in paper form or on JSTOR (between which two versions there will be no difference, because one is simply a scan of the other). The fact that other versions of the same article may exist elsewhere (e.g. on the author's university site) doesn't introduce ambiguity, because those other versions are not ELH articles.
If, however, one did wish to mention that one had read the article in JSTOR (and I don't object to that, I just think it otiose), then I agree that a URL should be unnecessary - just as it would be unnecessary to mention which shelf my physical library keeps their copy on.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-10-16 03:35 pm (UTC)I don't think so. If I cite something as coming from, say, English Literary History, I mean that I am citing the version published by Johns Hopkins University Press in the journal of that name, which I may consult in paper form or on JSTOR (between which two versions there will be no difference, because one is simply a scan of the other). The fact that other versions of the same article may exist elsewhere (e.g. on the author's university site) doesn't introduce ambiguity, because those other versions are not ELH articles.
If, however, one did wish to mention that one had read the article in JSTOR (and I don't object to that, I just think it otiose), then I agree that a URL should be unnecessary - just as it would be unnecessary to mention which shelf my physical library keeps their copy on.