Q. I’m trying to directly quote a source that includes a word typed in bold lettering, but the bold word is rather distracting within my paper. Is there a way for me to unbold the word and cite my alteration of the original text?
A. Yes. Unbold the word and in a note (or in square brackets at the end of the quote) write “Emphasis removed.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am editing a text in which it is necessary to cite the source of several illustrations from an unpaginated book published in Asia. The author and I agreed that it would be useful to count the leaves and then cite the page number as a folio, for instance, “ff42v–43r.” We disagree on where to begin counting: the title page (English) or the first page with print. This first page might be interpreted as a half title page: it has just the Chinese name of the artist, who is the subject of the book. The verso might be considered a frontispiece: it has a photograph of the artist and a quotation. So which would be folio 1?
A. To leave no doubt as to how to find the page you cite, use the simplest and most obvious numbering: the first recto page is 1; its verso is 2. (Page numbers like “ff42v” are unnecessarily complicated and may give the impression that the pages are actually numbered that way.) In your citation use brackets [42–43] to indicate that the numbers are not expressed in the book itself.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do I cite a handwritten document that was originally written in 1781, but was copied in 1849? I viewed the copied version. Thanks.
A. You can add “copy, 1849” to the end of your citation.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello, I would really appreciate it if you could please explain the difference between citations plus commentary (14.37) and substantive notes (14.39). They appear to address the same issue, but 14.37 says the source should come before the substantive notes, and 14.39 says it should come afterward, following usage in 14.38. I’m finding this confusing.
A. The two sections treat different situations. The position of a citation makes it clear whether that source is in support of something you wrote in the text (in which case the citation should be the first thing in the note, per CMOS 14.37, and your extra comments should follow the citation), or whether the source is in support of something you wrote in the note (in which case the citation should follow the comment that it supports, per 14.39). In short, the citation should follow closely whatever statement it is meant to support.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hello! I’m currently editing a paper that will be submitted to a journal and have come across a very odd endnote in which the client has cited a number of authors and publications within the same note. It is not a direct reference; rather these are all sources in which a general argument has been made. I am confused as to whether this is proper endnote style. I was thinking perhaps they should all be listed separately, then the in-text endnote number could be listed as 1–5, or 1,2,3,4,5. Or perhaps an endnote is unnecessary, given that this refers to a more general philosophical argument of which there are many proponents?
A. It’s normal to list many sources in a single note, whether as direct references or general source notes. For an introduction to notes, please see CMOS chapter 14. For this matter in particular, please see paragraphs 14.28 and 14.57.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If your first footnote is a specific source, then you have another source for the second footnote, then your third footnote is from the same source as footnote 1, do you just say “Ibid. from footnote 1”? Or do you rewrite it out?
A. Two things to know about ibid. when using it in a note: it must always refer to the note immediately before it; and the note it refers to must have only one citation in it. In note 3, for example, you can use ibid. only to refer to note 2, assuming that note 2 contains only one citation. To refer to note 1 (or to refer to a citation in note 2 when note 2 contains more than one citation), you must repeat the citation (although you can shorten it to just author and a short title). Please read about the use of ibid. at CMOS 14.34. (Note that Chicago now prefers shortened citations over ibid.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When working with references in different languages when the main text is in English, do you indicate editors, translators, and so forth in English or in the language the book was written in (e.g., German)?
A. It’s best if everything is in English, but if that requires guessing at the translation of words in an unfamiliar language, it’s better to leave the citation as is.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How does Chicago recommend citing a URL that is only accessible via a paywall? I’ve noticed the practice of including a parenthetical statement “(subscription required),” but I haven’t seen Chicago address this.
A. See CMOS 14.11. We suggest giving the name of the database rather than a URL in such cases. But your approach might work also. Beware, however, that noting it in one case somewhat implies that all sources have been checked for accessibility. That might oblige you to recheck all the sources.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do I in-text cite a quote from an organization’s website?
A. It’s best not to be too detailed or technical when citing in the text. Instead write something like “According to a post on the Hyde Park Herald website on August 14, 2012, . . .” If it’s important, you can put the URL in parentheses, but if the URL is a yard long, it’s better to abbreviate to a reasonable root and let readers navigate for themselves: “According to a post on the Hyde Park Herald website (hpherald.com/category/editorials) on August 14, 2012, . . .”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When citing lines of dialogue in films and movies in the notes and bibliography system specifically, is it enough to cite only the name of the film in the footnote for a shortened citation? Or would it be in the author’s interest to include a time stamp (HH:MM:SS)? It seems that this would better reflect the citation style of articles in books wherein the shortened citation also includes a page reference. Thank you.
A. When you are trying to decide what to include in a citation, it’s less important to think about whether the styling is going to look like other citations than about what information is helpful to readers. Page numbers are included in citations because it’s difficult to locate a passage without them. Time stamps are similarly helpful: they save a reader literally hours of searching through a movie looking for the quoted material. So yes, include a time stamp when you cite a specific frame or bit of dialogue from a movie.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]