Q. This has become a huge issue with our professors. I am the thesis processor for the school and have stated that “Ibid.” should not be the first footnote on a page. The cited work could be two or more pages back. Does Chicago have a rule on this? The academics state that they have never heard of this, but to me it makes perfect sense for the reader to not have to go back to see what the source was. Please help!
A. CMOS doesn’t address this issue, since it doesn’t arise in preparing manuscripts for typesetting. (That’s because there’s no way to know in advance of typesetting whether text that begins a page in a manuscript will begin a page in the typeset version. It’s not likely.) However, the standard reference for preparing theses, Kate L. Turabian’s Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (which is based on Chicago style), does say to “avoid using ibid. to refer to footnotes that do not appear on the same page” (16.4.2). Note that the use of “avoid” suggests that there may be times when it would be more awkward to avoid it than to do it.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My book has three parts, and each part contains several chapters. Here is the question: do I need to give full publishing
information in each new chapter for items cited earlier in the same part, or can I use the short version of citing (as I do
within each chapter)?
A. If you have a bibliography, you can put short citations everywhere—there’s no
need to give the full information in the notes. If you don’t have a bibliography, readers are best served
by your starting over in every chapter with a full citation upon first mention (parts are irrelevant). Otherwise, they will
go mad trying to find the original citation.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I want to cite one of George Orwell’s books in my bibliography. Given that we are dealing with a pseudonym,
does the citation go under “Orwell, George” or “Blair, Eric
Arthur [George Orwell]”?
A. Put the citation where you think your readers will look first, and use a cross- reference at the other name—e.g.,
“Blair, Eric Arthur. See Orwell, George.” Or, if you’re citing only one work, you could put the title
in both places and save the reader a detour.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. If a book I am citing is in its second edition but was originally translated from German, do I combine all the editions in
the bibliography, or do I list all three separately?
A. Cite in full the edition you are using. It’s usually not necessary to add a book’s
publishing history to a citation, but if details concerning the first edition or German edition of this book are important
or would be useful to your intended reader, by all means include them, either as separate items or as an annotation to the
one you used. It’s not practical to make separate listings for all editions of all the books in a bibliography,
but depending on your work’s level of scholarship, it might be warranted for books central to your thesis.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How does one create a reference for a work currently at press? I know the title, journal, volume, and number, but not the
pages.
A. Use the word “forthcoming” instead of the year; that will make it obvious why
you don’t have page numbers. Until a work has actually been published, it should be listed as forthcoming,
since publications are routinely delayed.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am using Bible passages in an essay and I cannot seem to understand how to properly cite. What do I do about page numbers,
as the professor will not likely use the same edition as me?
A. That’s right: in Bibles, the book, chapter, and verse numbers are for the most part the same in all
editions, whereas the page numbers are not. It’s a good idea to note somewhere in your essay which version
of the Bible you are using, and then simply cite book, chapter, and verse. In Chicago style, for example, that would be Genesis
3:1.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am assisting with the editing of a book. Several sources have been used, and the author would like to include others as
suggested reading. For the sake of space, he would like to have just one bibliographic list. Is that acceptable? If so, should
any type of notation be made indicating which books were actually used for research?
A. It’s conventional to have one list. Bibliographies often consist of works consulted plus other sources,
so there is no need to explain this or identify which books were used.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi! I am working on a white paper using results from a company survey that has not been published. We generally footnote
statistics and data (including citations from internal reports to show that we are not making the information up) in white
papers. But do I even need a footnote since this thing isn’t published and it’s
owned by my company? Is it enough to describe the survey in the body copy?
A. If by “describe” you mean to cite the source fully in the text, then no, there
is no need to add a note, regardless of the nature of the source.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When using foreign-language archival sources, what parts of the citation should be translated into English and what parts
should be left in the original language? The name of the organization where the archive is kept (Indonesian Ministry of Culture)?
The name of the archive (Dutch East India Company Archive) or the section of the archive (Police Reports)? The descriptive
title of the document (“report on the reorganization of the regional police force by Chief of Police
S. L. Scheepmaker, chapter 2”)? In all these cases, the original language can make it easier for other
researchers to find the document if they wish. But including the translation makes it easier for readers to understand the
nature of the source.
A. Exactly—so you have to decide what your readers need and provide it. In other words, it’s
something for the writer and editor to work out. (It almost goes without saying that you should not attempt translation unless
you’re certain you’re doing it correctly.)
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Note: Recently we have been swamped with questions like the following.
Q. I am summarizing a book as part of a research paper. Am I required to cite ideas at the end of every paragraph or can one
citation serve for the whole book?
Q. I am writing a history paper using three articles. If I am talking about one and source it, and then in the next sentence
talk about it again, do I just keep re-sourcing it again and again?
Q. If I have multiple citations from the same author on the same page, how do I write the footnote? Do I list each separately?
Abbreviate them?
Q. I am a history minor, and in my paper I put citations at the end of paragraphs, unless otherwise needed. A professor wants
me to cite virtually every paragraph. He even wants me to cite information that is general knowledge, saying that not citing
these things would be plagiarism. What is generally accepted when citing in a scholarly paper?
A. So let’s review the basic ideas behind citing sources. You should cite a source (including a page number
or page range) for every idea or quotation you borrow. You don’t have to cite a source in full every
time—the author’s surname and a page number will do after the first time. You
can use a single citation (with all the relevant page numbers) at the end of a paragraph if two or more quotations or statements
from that source aren’t separated by information from another source. You can cite in a single note
all the sources you used in a single paragraph; cite them in the order you used them. If you want to be more precise, you
can use a separate note at the end of each relevant statement. Don’t ever put two note callouts side
by side; instead, use one note and put both sources in it. General knowledge is not cited in scholarly work—it
would be absurd and even at times dishonest to attribute it to a specific source—but since people may
disagree on what is general knowledge, err on the side of generosity in your documentation.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]