That Weird Citation Headache: How to Handle Chicago Style for “What Even Is This?”
We’ve all been there. Deep in the research trenches, you stumble upon something perfect for your paper. A forum thread solving a niche historical debate, a quasi-official memo from a local organization’s website, or maybe even a fascinating but legally ambiguous document someone uploaded. You grab the information… and then freeze. How on earth do you cite this thing? Especially in Chicago style? The frantic search begins: “No clue if this is where to post, but does anybody know how to cite this in chicago/what to cite it as. I am not sure if its considered a legal document or something or other?”
Sound familiar? That moment of citation confusion is a universal academic experience. Chicago style, with its detailed Notes and Bibliography system, is incredibly powerful but can feel overwhelming when faced with sources that don’t fit neatly into categories like “book,” “journal article,” or “government report.” Let’s break down how to tackle this common dilemma.
Understanding Chicago’s Core Philosophy
First, remember the fundamental goal of any citation style: to provide enough information for your reader to find the exact source you used. Chicago style prioritizes clarity and consistency. When faced with an unusual source, focus on these key elements Chicago always wants:
1. Who? Who created the content? An author? A username? An organization? “Anonymous” is a last resort.
2. What? What is the specific item called? A thread title? A document title? A descriptive title you create?
3. Where? Where was it found? A specific website URL? A physical archive location?
4. When? When was it published/posted? When was it accessed (especially crucial for online sources)?
Your job is to represent these elements as accurately as possible, adapting standard formats when necessary.
Decoding “What to Cite it As”
The heart of your confusion (“what to cite it as”) is identifying the type of source. Here’s a practical approach:
1. Don’t Panic About Perfect Labels: Forget finding the “one true category.” Focus instead on describing the source accurately using the core elements above. Chicago often uses generic terms like “website” or “online source” when needed.
2. Analyze the Source’s Context and Purpose:
Forum Thread / Discussion Board Post: This is one of the most common “weird” sources. Treat it as an online discussion. The author is often the username. The title is the thread title. The “publication” is the forum name and URL.
“Legal Document or Something or Other?”: This is tricky. Ask:
Is it published by a recognized government body (federal, state, local court)? Then it is likely a legal/public document. Look for standard citation formats for statutes, court cases, or agency reports.
Is it an unpublished document found online (e.g., a scanned lease, a memo uploaded to a personal blog)? Cite it as an unpublished manuscript/document found online. Focus heavily on where you found it (the specific URL or database).
Is it a draft, internal memo, or something without official status? Cite it as such, again emphasizing where you accessed it. Clarity about its non-official status is key.
Social Media Post: Treat it like a micro-publication. Author = username/handle. Title = the post text (often shortened). Publication = Platform name + URL.
Organization Website Page (Not a Formal Report): Cite it as a web page. Author is often the organization itself. Use the specific page title.
Document in a Digital Archive/Repository: Cite it as a specific item within that collection, including the archive name and the item’s unique identifier if available.
Chicago Style Examples for Common “Weird” Sources
Let’s translate that analysis into actual Chicago Notes (N) and Bibliography (B) format examples:
1. Forum / Discussion Board Post:
N: 1. HistoryBuff23, comment on “Re-evaluating the Causes of the 1848 Revolutions,” European History Forum, comment posted May 15, 2023, 4:23 p.m., https://www.eurohistoryforum.net/threads/re-evaluating-causes-1848.12345/page-2post-67890 (accessed July 10, 2024).
B: HistoryBuff23. Comment on “Re-evaluating the Causes of the 1848 Revolutions.” European History Forum. Comment posted May 15, 2023, 4:23 p.m. https://www.eurohistoryforum.net/threads/re-evaluating-causes-1848.12345/page-2post-67890 (accessed July 10, 2024).
2. Unpublished Document Found Online (e.g., a scanned letter on a blog):
N: 2. John Smith, Letter to Mary Brown, March 3, 1892, scanned manuscript, Smith Family Archives Online (blog), entry posted October 22, 2020, https://smithfamilyarchives.wordpress.com/letters/1892/smith-brown-march-3/ (accessed July 10, 2024).
B: Smith, John. Letter to Mary Brown. March 3, 1892. Scanned manuscript. Smith Family Archives Online (blog). Entry posted October 22, 2020. https://smithfamilyarchives.wordpress.com/letters/1892/smith-brown-march-3/ (accessed July 10, 2024).
3. Internal Memo Accessed Online:
N: 3. Greenville Community Center, “Internal Memo: Summer Program Funding Concerns,” May 10, 2024, PDF, Greenville Community Hub, https://www.greenvillehub.org/files/internal/memo_2024-05-10.pdf (accessed July 10, 2024).
B: Greenville Community Center. “Internal Memo: Summer Program Funding Concerns.” May 10, 2024. PDF. Greenville Community Hub. https://www.greenvillehub.org/files/internal/memo_2024-05-10.pdf (accessed July 10, 2024).
4. Social Media Post (Twitter/X example):
N: 4. National Archives (@USNatArchives), “Today in 1964: President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act. Explore related documents: [shortened URL],” Twitter, July 2, 2024, 10:00 a.m., https://twitter.com/USNatArchives/status/1234567890123456789 (accessed July 10, 2024).
B: National Archives (@USNatArchives). “Today in 1964: President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act. Explore related documents: [shortened URL].” Twitter, July 2, 2024, 10:00 a.m. https://twitter.com/USNatArchives/status/1234567890123456789 (accessed July 10, 2024).
Key Strategies When You’re Truly Stuck
1. Prioritize Author/Creator: If there’s any identifiable person or organization responsible, list them first. Use a username if no real name exists. “Anonymous” should only be used if there is genuinely no attribution whatsoever.
2. Craft a Descriptive Title: If the source lacks a formal title, create a concise, accurate descriptive title in square brackets `[ ]`. Example: `[Photograph of Main Street, circa 1910]` or `[Transcript of oral history interview with Jane Doe]`.
3. Be Specific About Location: “Available online” isn’t enough. Provide the full, direct URL (or DOI if available). For physical items in an archive, give the collection name, box number, folder number, etc.
4. Include Access Dates: Crucial for online sources due to link rot and content changes.
5. Add Clarifying Notes: If the nature of the source is ambiguous (like whether it’s a draft or official), add a brief explanatory note in your citation or in a footnote if needed for clarity. E.g., `… (draft document) …` or `… (unpublished internal memo) …`.
6. Consult the Manual (Briefly!): The Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition is current) has sections on “websites and blogs” (Sec. 14.205-14.209), “social media” (Sec. 14.210), and “unpublished materials” (Sec. 14.221-14.235). Use the index! Don’t read it cover-to-cover for one source.
7. Consistency is King: Once you decide on a format for a particular type of unusual source (e.g., all forum posts), stick to that same format throughout your paper.
Should You Even Use These Sources?
This is critical. While Chicago tells you how to cite, it doesn’t tell you if you should.
Evaluate Rigorously: Unusual sources often lack peer review or editorial oversight. Ask:
Who created this? Are they credible? Qualified? Biased?
Why was this created/published? What’s the purpose?
Can the information be verified? Are there corroborating sources?
Use Appropriately: Such sources are often best for:
Illustrating public opinion or discourse (forum/social media).
Providing primary source material (scanned letters, internal docs).
Offering unique, hard-to-find perspectives.
Avoid Over-Reliance: Build your core argument on established, credible sources (scholarly books, peer-reviewed journals, official publications). Use these “weird” sources as supplementary evidence, illustrations, or starting points for further research, not as your main foundation.
The Bottom Line
The next time you find yourself muttering, “No clue… what to cite this as?” in the context of Chicago style, take a deep breath. Shift your focus from finding the perfect label to accurately conveying the essential information: Who made it? What is it called or described as? Where did you find it? When was it created/accessed? Apply standard Chicago principles as best you can, adapt formats logically, and prioritize clarity. It’s okay if your citation looks slightly different from a standard book citation – the goal is enabling your reader to track down your source. And when in doubt about a source’s credibility or appropriateness for academic work, lean towards caution and supplement with stronger evidence. Happy (and slightly less stressful) citing!
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » That Weird Citation Headache: How to Handle Chicago Style for “What Even Is This