Q. Does CMOS have an opinion or suggestion on how citations should occur within PowerPoint slides and in similar presentation software? Many classes and research presentations now rely on these types of presentations, but it’s not clear what the expectations for citations are. Are references at the end sufficient, or should there be a version of footnotes throughout? Perhaps only for direct quotes and the like? Thanks!
A. In most cases, a slide or two of references at the end of the presentation would work well. These could be formatted like a bibliography or reference list at the end of a book or article. But if the slides won’t be made available to consult after the presentation (e.g., as a handout or as a downloadable file), consider using footnotes on individual slides instead.
In the case of a direct quotation or specific data points, it’s usually best to credit whoever is responsible for the words or data on the applicable slide—for example, in a brief attribution complemented by a fuller source citation at the end of the presentation.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Editing an anthology of academic nonfiction, I find a source citation for a video on YouTube. When I paste the URL into my browser, I get the “This video isn’t available anymore” page. General searches on the associated subjects of the video don’t turn up anything, and the author can’t find it, either. What should I do? Can we cite a ghost source, with a note indicating that it has vanished? Or do we have to jettison the source citation and associated quotations?
A. You say it’s an anthology, which would generally mean that the article or essay or whatever would have been previously published. In that case, we’d recommend leaving both the text and citation as originally published; then, to save readers the trouble of chasing after a bad link, you could add “[video no longer available]” or the like in square brackets after the original citation (see also CMOS 2.49 and 6.105).
If, however, you were editing a previously unpublished document, then it would be better to revise the text to eliminate any reliance on the video (or ask the author to do so). To avoid this unfortunate scenario, authors should always save a copy of any source that might be subject to disappearing—for example, via the Save Page Now feature at the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am citing an author who has two last names. The first is her maiden name, and the second her married name. I am aware that, ordinarily, one should go by the second surname. However, I am citing articles by this author from both before and after she was married, meaning that some of her articles only have the first last name and some have both last names. In this circumstance, what is the best way to cite her in both footnotes and in the final bibliography?
A. In the bibliography, cite the work as it was published; to help readers find both versions of the same name, you can include cross-references from one form to the other. For example, if you were to cite a book and an article by Hillary Clinton, you might include the following entries:
Under C:
Clinton, Hillary Rodham. It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us. Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Clinton, Hillary Rodham. See also Rodham, Hillary.
Under R:
Rodham, Hillary. “Children under the Law.” Harvard Educational Review 43, no. 4 (1973): 487–514.
Rodham, Hillary. See also Clinton, Hillary Rodham.
That’s the form for a bibliography. In a note that cites the earlier source, you could clarify for readers (parenthetically or otherwise) that it was published under the name Hillary Rodham.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am citing a specific tweet according to the guidelines in CMOS 14.106. But if the tweet was published before July 2023, should I list the website as Twitter or X? Thanks!
A. Whether it’s a book from the 1970s or a post on social media, sources are generally cited as published. For books, that means recording the publisher’s name as listed on the title page, even if that name has changed or no longer exists. But when you cite an older tweet, the URL in the citation will direct readers to that same tweet (if it hasn’t been deleted) but on what is now called X (and whether the domain is twitter.com or x.com).
To make the situation clear even for readers who may not be aware of the change, add “now X” in parentheses after “Twitter” in your source citation: “. . . Twitter (now X) . . .” A post published after the name change would be cited as having been published on X (no need to add “formerly Twitter”).
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. After years of using Chicago citation form, I have begun to wonder: What about all the folks who get left out of the citations, who go unrecognized for their work? For example, in a magazine article accompanied by striking and thoughtful illustrations or graphs or pictures, shouldn’t those workers get credit as well as the people who wrote the text? Often it’s those images that stay with us; often they are the only part of an article that people even take in. I guess I can freestyle my citations, but I wondered what your policy on this is. Thanks.
A. Though it’s nice when a footnote gives credit explicitly to one or more creators, the primary purpose of a source citation is to identify—concisely and unambiguously—the source of a quotation or other idea that is not your own. The responsibility for crediting the contributors to such a source lies with the source itself (as on the title page of a book or at the head of an article—or in a credit line that accompanies an illustration).
As you suggest, you can always name additional contributors if you want to. But unless the work of a particular illustrator or other contributor is essential to your reason for having consulted and cited the source—in which case the best place to give credit may be in the text rather than in a source citation—it’s usually best to stick to the basic citation format. Unnamed contributors, including anyone obscured behind et al. (“and others”), will simply have to take comfort in the fact that a source they’ve contributed to has been cited (and, one would hope, consulted).
See also CMOS 14.6, which includes an example of how to credit an illustrator.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello, editors! How would you cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from this web page: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights? Thanks!
A. As the text introducing the document at the United Nations website says, “The Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations.”
Accordingly, and with a little more digging at the UN site, we’d cite the document as follows (in a note):
1. UN General Assembly, Resolution 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A/RES/217(III) (December 10, 1948), https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
The identifier “A/RES/217(III)” comes from the information provided by the UN General Assembly Resolutions Tables (3rd session, 1948–49) and locates the UDHR within the text of Resolution 217 (III), the International Bill of Human Rights (to which the UN text quoted above links directly). If the resolution is mentioned in the text, the note may begin with the abbreviated form “G.A. Res.” See CMOS 14.207 for more details and examples.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Are footnoted source citations (not explanations or descriptions) included in the word count?
A. Most publishers would say to include source citations in your word count. Publishers use the word count to estimate how much time to allot for editing and how much space will be required in print or PDF. But if you’re an author, make sure to check with your publisher just in case.
If you’re a student, your instructor may have a preference. Otherwise, count everything. In Microsoft Word, the Word Count feature is under the Review tab; make sure to check the box next to “Includes textboxes, footnotes and endnotes” in the Word Count dialog box (if it isn’t checked already).
If you’re using Google Docs, that program ignores words in footnotes, but you can use Docs to download the document in a format that will allow you to count all the words, including MS Word (.docx). If you don’t have Word, you could try LibreOffice Writer, a free program that can open Word docs and that will count footnotes and endnotes; Writer comes in versions for Windows, macOS, and Linux. Or download your document as plain text (.txt) and open it in a program like Notepad++, the free and open-source Windows-only text editor (word count is under View > Summary).
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When referring to the title of an article that incorrectly uses single quotation marks around the name of a movie or book, is it OK to silently change those to italics (in text, bib, and notes)? Thanks!
A. Quotation marks within an article title are normally retained when that title is mentioned or cited. For example, you might refer to the New Yorker article by Lauren Michele Jackson that was published online on March 26, 2024, with the following title:
We’d refer to this title by putting the whole thing in double quotation marks: “Percival Everett’s Philosophical Reply to ‘Huckleberry Finn.’ ”
Note that we’ve made two adjustments in our version of the title: (1) the all caps of the original have been changed to initial caps according to the rules outlined in CMOS 8.160, and (2) the double quotation marks, which follow New Yorker style for setting off the title of a novel (where Chicago specifies italics), have been changed to single—but we didn’t delete them.
And in some cases, quotation marks are added to a title within a title—even for titles of books and movies and the like, which would normally get italics in Chicago style. For example, a title page in a book might read as follows:
Title of a Book on Shakespeare’s Hamlet
But when mentioning or citing this title, we’d do this (see CMOS 13.96):
Title of a Book on Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”
In sum, don’t assume quotation marks are always wrong for the title of a book or the like, even in Chicago style. See also CMOS 6.11.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Sorry I’m so confused, but what is the difference between a bibliography and a reference list?
A. Generally speaking, a bibliography and a reference list are the same thing: a list of sources that appears at the end of an article or a book or at the end of a chapter or other component in a book or other work.
But we reserve the term reference list for sources that have been cited using Chicago’s author-date style; each source in a reference list corresponds to at least one parenthetical reference in the text.
Text (parenthetical citation plus page number):
The study concluded that the example was nonliteral, or “for illustration only” (Smith 2024, 33).
Reference list entry (note the position of the date):
Smith, Emily. 2024. A Mock Guide to Invented Prose. Big Name University Press.
Sources listed in a bibliography are like the sources in a reference list, but they’re in notes-bibliography style, not author-date.
Bibliography entry (again, note the position of the date):
Smith, Emily. A Mock Guide to Invented Prose. Big Name University Press, 2024.
The text will typically cite that same source in a footnote or endnote (or in the text itself). If the citation is in shortened form, readers can consult the alphabetically arranged bibliography for the full form of the citation.
Text and note:
The study concluded that the example was nonliteral, or “for illustration purposes only.”¹
1. Smith, A Mock Guide, 33.
Another difference is that bibliographies may list sources that haven’t been directly cited in the text; conversely, sources cited in the text don’t always need to be included in a bibliography. For more details on this subject, see chapters 13 and 14.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I believe there is an errant dash in the example citation at CMOS 14.21, following “1992”: Armstrong, Tenisha, ed. To Save the Soul of America, January 1961–August 1962. Vol. 7 of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., edited by Clayborne Carson. University of California Press, 1992–. Huge fan of CMOS!!
A. Though it does look kind of odd, that 1992 followed by an en dash and a period is Chicago style for citing the date of an unfinished project; see CMOS 6.84. And according to the project’s publisher (as of June 9, 2026), volume 7 is only the latest in what is projected to be a fourteen-volume collection of King’s papers; see “King Papers Publications” at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute (via Stanford University).
Note that Chicago style doesn’t require a comma before “Jr.,” but we retain one in the project title and the name of the institute to reflect the publisher’s usage. Note also that the citation in the question can be reordered to put the collection before the individual volume, in which case only the year for the volume would be cited (as in the first example at CMOS 14.21).
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]