Q. When an author refers to his own book, how should it be capitalized and/or punctuated? E.g., According to the list in Appendix C . . . ; in the Glossary . . . ; discussed more fully in Chapter 25 . . .
Q. In my essay, I have referred to a couple of articles passed to me by an interviewee. They are photocopied, and the article
titles and dates are either blurred or missing. How should I footnote and biblio the photocopied materials?
A. These are not proper sources and you must not quote them. I’m sorry—it would
be very sloppy scholarship. You might as well write, “I overheard this on the subway.”
You might take the photocopies to a library and ask the reference librarian if she can help you find some clues as to their
origin. Or try typing a distinctive phrase from the pages into a search engine and see if the article appears online.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am copyediting a short report that makes reference to Wikipedia. In citing this, is it necessary to put the specific date the article was accessed, as the article may later change?
A. Yes, it’s a good idea to note the date of access for web pages that change constantly. Citations of pages that are records of a static print version, like those of many published journals, don’t necessarily require the date of access. In the case of Wikipedia, more useful than an access date is the last-modified date posted with the article. For examples, see CMOS 14.207.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a question about the place of publication (country) to be included for a book in a reference list. The Chicago Manual of Style says to use the place that appears on the title page or copyright page of the book cited. My question is, if you need to
specify the country but the name of the country has changed, do you use the name as it appears in the book, or do you use
the current name? For example, if “Soviet Union” is shown on the title page, do
you change it to “Russia” for the reference list entry?
A. Cite what is printed on the title page. Readers who are searching for a book need the details as they are printed and recorded
in library records. Changing these details would be contrary to the purpose of a bibliography, which is to record sources
and help readers locate them. (And aren’t you glad you don’t have to research
political developments in every country in your reference list?)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What should I do if I’m missing certain bits of information for the bibliography? For example, I have many instances where I wrote down the date of a publication, but I can’t find the volume and issue numbers. The same goes for the page numbers of the entire article; for example, I jotted down the number of the page I’m citing from but not the pages of the entire article. This is problematic, as I’m a historian completing my PhD dissertation on materials from the 1930s, and the sources I use are not available online.
A. I’d say you’re in something of a pickle. First, try again online. Even if the text of an article isn’t available, it’s possible that you can find references to it that will include the missing information. Search for the article title and whatever information you have (journal title and year). Sometimes if you search for the journal, its year, and a page number (not the article title, which would limit the search), you will get hits that include the volume and issue numbers. Consider carefully whether to trust what you find. Try to confirm the information at more than one reputable site, keeping in mind that misinformation tends to replicate quickly online.
If you can’t locate the information you need online, you’ll have to dig it up the same way you did originally. Visit the libraries or archives where you did your research and find the sources. You might be able to ask a reference librarian by email or phone to help you.
In some cases, it won’t be disastrous to omit some information—for instance, if your note citation gives the year, volume, issue, and page number of the material you are quoting or referencing, the bibliography can do without the page range of the entire article. Unfortunately, even if a citation includes the year, page numbers alone aren’t always helpful without an issue number. In that case, unless you are certain that the page numbers for that year number straight through without starting anew in each issue, you should consider dropping the source.
And need I scold you about not taking thorough notes on your sources?
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Sometimes articles in periodicals—particularly in magazines—skip several pages. Typically, most of the article is contained on several adjacent pages, but then it finishes somewhere toward the back of the periodical. When citing such an article, how should the page numbers be listed? Should the very first and the very last pages displaying the article be shown, as in 25–62? Or should only the actual pages be indicated, as in 25–32, 62, 65, 66?
A. Neither solution is ideal; the first is misleading, and the second is just annoying. Please see CMOS 14.188: “Weekly or monthly (or bimonthly) magazines, even if numbered by volume and issue, are usually cited by date only. . . . While a specific page number may be cited in a note, the inclusive page numbers of an article may be omitted, since they are often widely separated by extraneous material.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I need to cite a quotation I took from a text which was originally reproduced in a book (“book 1”)
that cites the archival source of the text in question. The book I am taking the quotation from cites book 1. How should I
cite the quotation? How far should I go in citing, knowing that the original text is an archival document that has been reproduced
several times? When citing in footnotes, can I write “Transcribed in . . .”?
A. The more intermediaries between you and the original text, the further you are from actual evidence and the closer to rumor.
If you can’t consult the original archived document, you owe it to your readers to convey the chain
of transmission. It won’t necessarily be pretty. “Transcribed in”
is a fine way to start.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m writing a book review and am not sure how I’m supposed to cite quotes from
the book I’m reviewing—are they footnoted, and if so, are they traditional footnotes,
even though all of the quotes are from the book I’m reviewing?
A. Since the book review should give the publication details somewhere at the top or bottom of the review (author, title, city,
publisher, date), in the text of the review all you need to cite is the page number of the quotation in parentheses (p. 54).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Much of my research is based on semi-structured interviews. How do I reference these in-text so that the reader can distinguish interview refs from book/article refs, for example, if a point has been made by an interviewee as well as in a secondary text? An interview clearly has a different “authority” than a secondary text—how do I best convey this using the Chicago author-date system?
A. Although interviews don’t automatically have less authority than secondary materials, if you wish to distinguish them in short citations, you can do it in any number of ways. The best approach is to cite the interviews in the text only—assuming that the interviews are unpublished. To do this, you would specify in the text that the information is from an interview: “In Davis’s interview with Hamilton (April 23, 1981) . . .” Other possible forms include (Thomas interview 1989) and (Thomas 1989, interview). For more information and examples, see paragraphs 15.53 and 14.211.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello. I’ve been charged with editing the illustration credits for a new history textbook, but I’d
like to know what you think should be done for crediting montage photographs. This is where two or more photographs have been
morphed into one image for printing. Putting all the illustration credits on one line without some sort of distinguishing
mark or word would make it difficult for interested persons to tell which part of the montage came from what company or photographer.
What solution or alternative do you suggest?
A. Sometimes the pieces of a montage can be identified with terms like “clockwise from upper left”
or “top, left to right; center, left to right; bottom, left to right.” An alternative
is to make a small line drawing of the components and number them so the credits can be keyed to the numbers. For elements
superimposed or blended beyond distinction, there’s not much point in trying to sort them out; just
list the credits in alphabetical order. If it’s essential to match each credit to its original, you
might have to print thumbnail images of the original art as a guide.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]