Q. How would you cite Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, Question 65, Article 4? Thank you.
A. If you are using Chicago style, follow the form at CMOS 14.243 (“Identifying numbers in classical references”):
Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.65.4.
Note that you need a part number as well as a question and article number.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We publish books in the water and mining industries. Authors list many references, and we’re finding that in-text citations are becoming more and more excessive. For example, one simple sentence lists seven sources, which seems unreasonable. One chapter is 158 pages long, of which 49 pages are references. Do publishers set some kind of limits on the quantity of citations? Of course it is necessary to avoid plagiarism, but 49 pages of citations seems to be too much! How would you suggest we address this with our authors?
A. It’s the job of the acquiring editor to assess the source citations in a book or article (or send the manuscript out to experts who can assess them), and if they are excessive, it’s his or her job to work with the writer to bring them under control. Our own books vary dramatically, ranging from almost no notes or bibliography entries to tons of them. It wouldn’t be right to set a limit, however, because writers must be free to document their work fully. Unless you’re publishing books with no oversight or development, someone must be in charge of judging the quality of each book, and this person should decide whether the source citations are really necessary.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I found some phone conversations between Richard Nixon and some other people in office, and I’m not sure how to cite them. Should I cite the transcript and include the website that they came from, too? They came from the National Security Archive, George Washington University.
A. Yes, cite the transcript and give the name and URL of the website where you found them. You can find examples to follow at CMOS 14.211 and 14.229.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am copyediting a lengthy family biography, and the authors are calling for what they call “trailing phrase” notes as a documentation method. Rather than a superscript number in the text with corresponding source information in endnotes, they want to use no notes in text and a “trailing phrase” and page number with each source citation in the endnotes. What do you think?
A. Please see CMOS 14.53, “Notes keyed to text by line or page numbers.” This system is useful to writers who fear that their readers would be intimidated by note numbers or who simply don’t want the flow of text to be interrupted.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My author is citing biblical scripture references in the text, but using footnotes for all other citations. It is important to him to keep the scripture references in the text. My question: should he also cite them in the footnotes, for consistency? That is, should all citations be either only in the text or only in the notes? This is a scholarly work.
A. There’s no need for all citations to be in the same place. When a source can be easily integrated into the text (“We read in Psalm 42:8 that . . .”), it makes sense to do so for the convenience of the reader. And there is no reason to repeat in a note a source that has just been mentioned in the text. Many scholarly books have endnotes (for full citations), footnotes (for discursive asides and some citations), and in-text citations (for short references). Please have a look at the opening paragraphs of chapter 14 in CMOS.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I see nothing in CMS about indicating the language a book is translated from, which seems shortsighted. Thanks.
A. In any context where readers might not be able to guess the original language of a title and would find the information helpful, the writer or editor can annotate the citation (e.g., “Translated from Incan”). Usually, however, in notes and bibliographies many or most of the translated works are either from familiar languages or from unfamiliar languages that have been discussed and identified throughout the text. In that case, it would be tiresome and patronizing to repeatedly point out the obvious.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. CMOS 15.20 says, “Two or more works by the same author in the same year must be differentiated by the addition of a, b, and so forth (regardless of whether they were authored, edited, compiled, or translated), and are listed alphabetically by title. Text citations consist of author and year plus letter.” “Conga Line” is a sequel to “Jazz Madness”—published separately but in the same year. My author insists the sequel appear second in the reference list rather than alphabetically. Nothing in the titles indicates that these are companion volumes, but the author is getting petulant. Advice, please!
A. Since the author feels strongly about the matter, if you have the power to show a little flexibility, it would be the gracious thing to do. I can’t think of any way in which this would confuse or inconvenience readers, although if in doubt, it would be easy enough to clarify by annotating the citation, e.g., “(sequel to ‘Jazz Madness’).”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. A book in my bibliography is an extended interview with philosopher Jean-François Lyotard done by an editor, Jean-Loup Thébaud. The title page identifies the authors as Lyotard and Thébaud (in that order), but the Library of Congress CIP data lists only Lyotard on the main card. The book is translated from the French edition. According to WorldCat the first edition (1979) is titled Au Juste: Conversations, but a later (2006) edition is simply titled Au Juste, and WorldCat lists both Lyotard and Thébaud as authors for both French editions. How should I cite this work in my text and bibliography and why?
A. Cite whichever edition you consulted for your work, because documenting your sources is the primary purpose of providing citations. Or, if you are merely including the book as recommended reading, cite it in the form (or forms) your readers can locate most easily, because directing readers to sources is another purpose of citing. If the latter involves adding “Sometimes cataloged under both Lyotard and Thébaud” or “First published in French as . . .” to the end of the citation, there’s nothing wrong with that.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m editing an entry in a list of references. We are asked to provide the date of access. The date the writer accessed the material was the very same day it was published; however, it was published in the Philippines, but it was accessed in the United States. So we have an access date that is one day before the date of publication. The publisher/client thinks this looks weird. Which option do you like best/dislike least:
(1) Keep the access date as is (one day before the publication date)
(2) Change the access date info to something like “Accessed on the date of publication”
(3) Change the access date to the date of publication
(4) Something else entirely
A. Your question is a new one for us! Answer 2 looks best, with the addition of the US date, in case it matters: accessed on the date of publication (May 6, 2012, in the US).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have an author who wants to use a quote about the subject of his book by a famous, now deceased news anchor on the cover, but it turns out that the quote is something he heard at a speaking engagement. Do you think it would be OK to use a paraphrase on the book jacket? Would you recommend citing it in the copyright page as “overheard at a dinner speech”? I really want to tell him no, that it’s not appropriate to use something he heard for promotional copy, but I don’t know, and he’s not the easiest person to deal with. Thanks!
A. Although this kind of quote might be salvaged as an anecdote in the text of a book, we would not use it on a book jacket, since it can’t be reliably or succinctly sourced, and it might give potential buyers the impression that the book is gossipy and not carefully documented. (Of course, for some books that could be a plus.) It’s not usual to explain jacket sources inside the book, since jackets and covers can change with new printings and buyers often separate the jackets from the book in any case. So a thumbs-down from Chicago! Good luck with your author.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]