Q. I am using Chicago style for the first time. I am totally confused! Can you explain to me when to use footnotes (which my professor wants at the end of the paper) and when to use a bibliography? I am under the impression that she wants both used for this particular paper, and I can’t figure out how to distinguish when to use each. Help!
A. Notes (which are called “footnotes” when they appear at the bottom of the page and “endnotes” when they are collected at the end of the paper) tell the reader exactly where they can verify something that you wrote. As you write your paper, each time you quote something or use a fact that you borrowed from an article or book, create a note that includes the author, the title, and the page number of that source. A bibliography is more general, and you can pull it together after you finish writing your paper. It lists in alphabetical order (by the authors’ last names) all the sources you read for your research, whether or not you mentioned them in your paper or in the notes. Bibliography entries give complete information for each source: author, title, city of publication, publisher, and date. A note can give less information, since the reader can look in the bibliography for the full citation. If your professor wants full information to appear in both places, include the exact page number only in the note. You can omit page numbers from the bibliography, because its purpose is to list works as a whole. If a bibliography item is a single article in a journal or a chapter in a book, however, you should give the range of pages for that article or chapter in order to help the reader find it in the larger work. You can find examples of how to cite various sources at our Citation Quick Guide.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello. How do you document pseudonyms which appear in online discussion groups? In these situations, you only have the nickname
or pseudonym as a reference (e.g., “Shelly,” “Peaches”),
and no proper name to link it to. Is it sufficient to put the nickname or pseudonym in inverted commas in the body of the
work, and in the endnote too?
A. Yes, that’s a good way to do it. After using quotation marks at the first mention of a nickname in
the text, you can drop the quotation marks for subsequent mentions. In the notes, however, use the quotation marks for every
citation.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m trying to complete a bibliographic entry for a chapter in a multiauthor book. The chapter was translated from Korean into English. (The rest of the chapters have many various other translators.) How would I cite it? Where do I put the translation credit in the Chicago style citation? After the article title or after the book title?
A. When you have a special instance not covered in CMOS, fish around until you see something similar and follow the pattern. You might base your citation on CMOS 14.104 (“Editor or translator in addition to author”), 14.107 (“Contribution to a multiauthor book”), and 14.122 (“Authors and editors of multivolume works”). You don’t want to imply that the translator of the chapter was the translator of the entire book, so put the translator’s name after the chapter title:
13. Author’s Name, “Chapter Title,” trans. Translator’s Name, in Name of Multiauthor Book, ed. Editors’ Names (Place: Publisher, Date), page numbers.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m puzzled over the correct treatment of the edition number of a title being used in text. Would “second
edition” be set off with commas before and after, or just before? Would it be italicized and capped
with the title? They were reading The Mysteries of the Cosmos, Second Edition, in class.
A. Because the edition number is not part of a book’s title, we lowercase it and leave it in roman type.
You could also reword to fit it more smoothly into the syntax of the sentence: They were reading the second edition of The Mysteries of the Cosmos in class.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am the copyeditor of my college newspaper. My question concerns incorporating elements of The Chicago Manual of Style into the college newspaper’s stylebook. To what extent, if any, does the copyright prevent the incorporation of Chicago’s style and usage guidelines into the house rules of individual publications?
A. Thank you for asking! We appreciate your use of CMOS. Any time you use paragraphs or verbatim examples from another source, you should put them in quotation marks or style them as block quotations and cite the source in notes. It just goes against the scholarly grain to do otherwise. There are also ways to acknowledge the use of CMOS more casually, once it’s been cited. For instance, you might write, “All examples in this section are from CMOS 17.” Or “All examples in blue are quoted from CMOS.” Even though you aren’t planning to publish your in-house guide, you should resist the temptation to use unattributed borrowings, which, after all, would be plagiarism. And you never know where your guide will end up—it could be emailed outside your college, scanned, or posted online.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have multiple volumes to cite in my reference list which have (a) different dates per volume, (b) different copyright dates for “translation and editorial matter” and “additional editorial matter,” and (c) a series of dates for each in some cases, e.g.,
Freud, Sigmund. 1964a. “Instincts and Their Vicissitudes.” Translated by James Strachey. On Metapsychology: The Theory of Psychoanalysis. Edited by Angela Richards. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Vol. 11 of The Pelican Freud Library. 15 vols. 1973–1986.
A. Don’t worry about the publication history (its copyrights and editions) of the series and all its volumes; just cite the ones you used. You’ve made a good start on this one, but you should move Strachey’s name to indicate that he translated the entire volume. And add page numbers. Here’s a version that conforms to Chicago style, cobbled together from examples in chapters 14 and 15 of CMOS:
Freud, Sigmund. (1964a) 1984. “Instincts and Their Vicissitudes.” In On Metapsychology: The Theory of Psychoanalysis, translated by James Strachey; edited by Angela Richards, 000–00. Vol. 11 of the Pelican Freud Library. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When an author is quoting a source in a foreign language (in this case German), is it permissible to translate the quote
into English without making mention of the fact that it has been translated? Or would it be sufficient to simply have a notice
at the end of the article that says something to the effect that all quotations have been translated into English from German?
A. Translations must be identified as such; otherwise you are implying that the English version appeared in the book you cite
and that the original author is responsible for something you actually wrote—including your mistakes
or misinterpretations. It’s fine to make a blanket statement that all quotations have been translated
by the author, preferably at the beginning of the notes or in the first translated note.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m applying the author-date system in my Ph.D. dissertation. When I have several references to the same source within the same paragraph, I have been attaching the date only for the first citation. For example: “. . . was introduced by Nasberg (1985). . . . The basic formulation in Nasberg’s model is . . .” Is this policy okay? A pre-examiner of my work disagrees on this.
A. Although Chicago style would allow the method you are using (please see CMOS 15.25), perhaps your university doesn’t. You should check with the dissertation secretary of your institution.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do I introduce a quote in a research paper if I am going to say: Randolph states that “blah-blah-blah
(Randolph 2002).” Would this be right, or can I just say: Randolph states that (if I put it in my own
words) slavery was unethical (Randolph 2002). With no quotes? With quotes? HELP!
A. If you use Randolph’s exact words, then you must use quotation marks. Don’t
put the citation inside the quote—after all, Randolph didn’t say “Randolph
2002.” If you use your own words, don’t use quotation marks. In either case,
include the page number you're quoting from.
Randolph says, “Blah-blah-blah” (2002, 32).
Randolph (2002, 32) states that the blah was blah-blah.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am still trying to grasp the whole idea of footnotes using CMOS. Do I put a footnote after everything that I use out of a book even if it’s not a quote? For example,
I am writing a paper on Thomas Jefferson and in one of the books I’m using it states that he had six
sisters and a younger brother. Do I need to cite that in a footnote?
A. Not necessarily, if you believe that the information about Jefferson’s siblings is generally known
and mentioned in many sources. You should footnote information that you borrow from someone else that isn’t
common knowledge, whether you quote it or not; and if any of the information is disputed (for instance, if some sources say
that Jefferson had seven sisters), it’s a good idea to footnote the version that supports your statement.
Even if you don’t footnote general information about Jefferson in your text, you should list the source
you learned it from in your bibliography.
The idea of footnotes is to acknowledge where you got your information, both in order to give credit to the researchers who
did the work and in order to tell your readers where they can find the information. Everyone knows that George Washington
was the first president, so even if you read it somewhere, there are so many sources that say so that it doesn’t
make sense to give credit to a particular one.
It’s not always clear whether something should be cited or not, so until you develop some confidence,
be generous in your citations, without being silly.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]