Citation, Documentation of Sources

A. Record the place of publication as printed in the source itself. The cities you mention are still known in German as Pressburg and Straßburg, so the differences may depend not only on the date of publication but also on the language. If the name of the city as it is officially designated today is relevant in some way to your reason for citing it or might be helpful for your intended audience, you can add it (and any other relevant details) in square brackets: e.g., Pressburg [Bratislava]. But in most cases, the year of publication will supply sufficient context. See also CMOS 6.99 and 14.131.

[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]

A. You would attribute the article to both. For example, here’s how you might cite the article “Don’t Reward Deceitful Writers” (as in a note):

1. Samuel G. Freedman, “Don’t Reward Deceitful Writers,” USA Today, March 24, 2004, on the author’s website, http://www.samuelfreedman.com/articles/ust03242004.html.

That should work for most purposes. But if your research depends on finding the original source—or if you’ve come across the article on some random site rather than, as in this case, a website hosted by the author—it’s best to track down the article itself. For example, if you have access to a library, you might find the article via one of the full-text databases from EBSCOhost:

1. Samuel G. Freedman, “Don’t Reward Deceitful Writers,” USA Today, March 24, 2004, EBSCOhost Newspaper Source.

Note that this citation differs from the automatically generated Chicago-style citation offered with the article by EBSCOhost, which renders it as follows:

Samuel G. Freedman. “Don’t Reward Deceitful Writers.” USA Today. Accessed December 3, 2021. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=J0E355433453204&site=eds-live&scope=site

That citation isn’t a total loss, but it has some problems: (1) The author’s name would be inverted in a bibliography entry (Freedman, Samuel G.). (2) It’s missing the date of publication. (3) Chicago doesn’t require access dates for sources that include a date of publication. (4) The URL is not only littered with ugly syntax, but it’s unhelpful for anyone who isn’t logged into a network with access to EBSCOhost. (5) Finally, a formal bibliography entry isn’t necessarily required for a newspaper article cited in the text or in a note. See also CMOS 14.11 and 14.198.

[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]

A. Include the URL, which will be helpful for some readers and may encourage others to find out if their library has a subscription to the resource that would give them access through their library membership. This isn’t much different from citing a printed book, which readers would usually be expected to find at a library or bookstore.

[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]

A. For a passing mention, you’ve cited the Mayflower Compact simply by giving it a name and a date; it’s a famous document, and it’s the only one from 1620 known by that title (which you’ve styled correctly; see CMOS 8.80). To cite it more formally, you’d have to specify which version of the text you consulted. The original document was lost, so you’d need to rely on a transcription. The earliest versions were transcribed by William Bradford, a signatory to the original compact who went on to serve as governor of Plymouth Colony. But you don’t have to go that far.

Yale Law School offers a transcription of the Mayflower Compact online. You could cite that page as your source (see CMOS 14.207), but it would be better to consult the source relied on for that text, rather than assume that it’s been transcribed correctly. Fortunately, the source is cited at the bottom of the page: The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America, a book compiled by Francis Newton Thorpe and published by the US Government Printing Office in 1909.

Most books by the US government are in the public domain, as are many older books. The Internet Archive and Google Books can be good places to find and consult scanned reproductions of such out-of-copyright works; these can be cited as if you consulted the physical object. A little digging at the Internet Archive for the book cited at the Yale page will reveal that it was published in seven volumes, organized by US states.

The first volume includes a table of contents. There you’ll find, listed under Massachusetts, “Agreement between the settlers at New Plymouth—1620” (the original name of the compact). Massachusetts is covered in volume 3. Click through to page 1841 (the page listed in the table of contents), and there it is:

At the bottom of that page, an asterisked footnote cites “William Bradford’s Plimouth Plantation” as the source of the text; a lettered footnote explains the circumstances under which the compact was written and signed. Again, you don’t need to track down Bradford’s original transcription. Instead, you could stop here and consider your work done. Here’s what the citation would look like:

“Agreement between the Settlers at New Plymouth—1620.” In The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America, compiled and edited by Francis Newton Thorpe, vol. 3, p. 1841. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909.

Note that we’ve used the abbreviation “p.” (page) to make sure “1841” isn’t mistaken for a year. This is usually unnecessary in a Chicago-style citation, but it’s never wrong to provide clarity where needed. Note also that we’ve added a comma after “Constitutions” in the title of the book; that comma doesn’t appear in the source, but it’s clearly intended (on the book’s title page there’s a line break instead of a comma). See also CMOS 8.165 (for permissible changes to titles) and 14.107 (for citing a contribution to a multiauthor book).

[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]

A. Students would cite their own work as if they were referring to themselves in the third person—or as someone else would cite them. Assuming these previous papers or essays are unpublished, follow the format for citing an unpublished manuscript (see CMOS 14.216). For example,

Smith, Jamelle. “Bartleby’s Refusal as Gen X Flex.” Unpublished manuscript, August 3, 2021.

In the text, however, the student would use a form of the first person to refer to or quote this earlier work:

In “Bartleby’s Refusal as Gen X Flex,” I suggest that . . . [not Smith suggests that]

[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]

A. Let’s assume you’re citing The Life of Queen Victoria, which was published in 1909 with the following title page:

At a minimum, you would stick to the information on the title page, resulting in the following listing in the bibliography:

Argyll, Duke of. The Life of Queen Victoria. London: George Bell and Sons, 1909.

This leaves out the initials for the Order of the Garter (“K.G.”) and the Order of the Thistle (“K.T.”), per CMOS 14.73 (and we’ve also omitted the “The,” which isn’t an important part of the name). To specify which duke, start by adding his name in square brackets (as you might do for a pen name):

Argyll, Duke of [John Douglas Sutherland Campbell]. The Life of Queen Victoria. London: George Bell and Sons, 1909.

If you were to cite several works by that author, including works that were published before he became a duke, you could provide a separate listing under any different name in the form of a cross-reference. For example,

Lorne, Marquis of [John Douglas Sutherland Campbell]. Our Railway to the Pacific. London, 1886.

———. See also Argyll, Duke of.

A similar cross-reference would be added under “Argyll.” See CMOS 14.80, 14.81, and 14.82 for additional considerations and examples. (For citing city and date only for works published before 1900, see CMOS 14.128.)

Finally, if you did want to include the duke’s number—for example, because you’ve cited works by the duke’s father, the 8th Duke of Argyll (George John Douglas Campbell, also a prolific author apparently)—use square brackets: “Argyll, [9th] Duke of.”

[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]

A. A blog post is different from a research paper or a historical monograph. In the latter formats, it’s generally important to record URLs in such a way that they might be assessed as such—and turned into links for a published version as needed. In an online forum like CMOS Shop Talk—unless the subject is URLs—it’s usually a bit more reader-friendly to take this:

Saller, Carol. “Gender-Neutral Pronouns in Creative Writing.” CMOS Shop Talk, April 20, 2021. https://cmosshoptalk.com/2021/04/20/gender-neutral-pronouns-in-creative-writing/.

and turn it into this:

Saller, Carol. “Gender-Neutral Pronouns in Creative Writing.” CMOS Shop Talk, April 20, 2021.

Readers can follow the link in that second version without having to face an eighty-character string whose main function is to tell a network where to go.

[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]

A. You’re facing two possible scenarios: (1) The owner of the copyright has given you formal permission to quote from a particular song or poem. In that case, they may specify the wording they want you to use when giving them credit. Such wording should be followed within reason (see CMOS 3.32). (2) You’re quoting no more than a word or two or simply mentioning or alluding to the song or poem or have otherwise determined that you don’t need permission (see CMOS 4.84–94). In that case, you simply cite the song or poem as you normally would.

A song can usually be mentioned in the text (with attribution) rather than formally cited; if you need something more formal, you’ll find examples at CMOS 14.263. A poem can likewise simply be mentioned in the text. But if it’s part of a collection (as in a book or on a website), cite the larger work. For example, you might mention “Still Life,” by Emma Hine, while citing Stay Safe (Louisville, KY: Sarabande Books, 2021)—the book of poems by Hine where that one is included.

[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]

A. According to CMOS 14.29, a source that’s cited in full in the bibliography need not be cited in full in the notes, even the first time it appears. So yes, in a work that features a bibliography, URLs included there may be omitted from the notes—even if a note appears in full rather than shortened form.

Note that this advice applies mainly to works intended for publication, where space is often at a premium and where readability is a primary consideration. If you’re a student, you should clear it with your instructor, who may prefer not to have to shuttle back and forth between notes and bibliography to double-check URLs and track down sources cited in your paper. See also “Taming Messy URLs” at CMOS Shop Talk for some strategies for making URLs more manageable.

[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]

A. If you have room to include them, and if the URLs are relatively user-friendly, then it is best to do so. For example (in a numbered note):

1. United Press, “French Troops Seize German Cities,” Daily Free Press (Kinston, NC), April 6, 1920, 1, https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/75779563/.

It’s true that readers who don’t have access to Newspapers.com will be locked out. But the convenience of being taken directly to a preview of the cited page will outweigh the fact that readers may not have access to the full content without paying for it (or visiting a library that has access).

An alternative is to name the site without providing a direct link (as in this bibliography entry):

Oakland Tribune. “Visions of ’49 Come True in Opening at Gate Bridge.” May 26, 1937, 9. Newspapers.com.

The advantage is a cleaner citation, but the burden is then on the reader to find the article at Newspapers.com using the publication details. For some additional considerations related to URLs and subscription databases, see CMOS 14.9, 14.10, and 14.11.

[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]