Compiled from the real world and updated for online research projects.
by RC Rath, UH Mānoa.
Update12/9/17
Not Chicago: See the Citation Guide for the principles and basics of how and why you need to cite. Use Zotero, Chicago Full Notes style, but correct the Zotero entries for punctuation, place, year, caps as needed in Zotero, not your document. If you correct it in your document, Zotero will overwrite your changes with whatever is in Zotero next time it updates the document.
Italics: The publication gets italics. An item in the publication goes into quotation marks. An unpublished item goes in quotation marks. SO: Book Title; but “Article Title,” Journal Title; or “Article” in Book; and “Unpublished Item.” note caps and order of punctuation. See the Citation Guide.
Short title after first cite: see web guide on footnotes for examples. Zotero does this automatically. Do not repeat the whole citation after first use. See the Citation Guide.
URL: If you used one of the scholarly journal databases, do not bother with the url. Usually it will only work from your account and I am not going to type five lines of random characters! Just cite the published version. I'll know if it is a proper journal from the databases. If you are writing in an online platform like Moodle, Wordpress, or Scalar, Connect to the permanent URL (not the long one your browser gives use). You can usually find the permanent url on the article's home page. Don't just dump the URL in. Make a link from the tile in your online citation.
Dictionaries, Encyclopedias and Wikipedia: These are valid starting points, but should not appear as citations in papers. Dictionary definitions are not needed. I have a dictionary. The only exception is if you want to do research in one of the historical dictionaries like the Oxford English Dictionary (was thirty volumes or so before it went online). You can start your research on Wikipedia but it is often wrong, and despite its intention to be objective and neutral, it is often biased toward its mostly white, geeky, male authors. Many of the sources used are outdated, and better ones usually exist that the volunteer author did not know of. Nonetheless, you can use it as a starting point if you keep all this in mind by seeing what sources they used and following the citations to get started. Whatever you do, do not end your research with Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia, and don't bother citing it. get the actual sources.
Online Notes: You need a note for any sources used. You will need to put your references, one each, in note files, formatted correctly (Zotero’s copy function is your friend here, but you will need to look in the help to find out how to copy a full note in your citation format (Chicago full note). Regular Ctrl-C won’t work. If you use a reference on more than one page, you can reuse them.
Links in Online Notes: Where you can, create a link to the piece being referenced. Make sure the link is accessible to people who are not logged in as you! Usually articles have a permanent public access url somewhere on the article site. Don’t use any superlong urls since they include info that makes them only work for you at that specific time. You can create your notes using the notes function in the edit toolbar of Scalar. See Nalani Roe’s piece for examples of how to do this.
Online Media: For all media (video, audio, images, etc.) you also need to flesh out the citation and description to be more informative. Who made the media file? What is it about? where was it made? What is its title? What is the source of the image? The source url should point there, not to a page in your project, even if you imported the media file. Incorporate a point or two from the video into the text to reinforce its meaning.
Video and Audio in Scalar: Embed the video on a regular Scalar page and then annotate it to play just the part that makes your point, and then introduce and reinforce that point using text too. See Scalar help pages on embedding media and annotating it. For a good example of an annotated audio file (applies to video too), see this Scalar project, Black Avatars, by David A.M. Goldberg.
Online Hypertext See if you can make multiple paths through your project that emphasize different things rather than just having a single linear path, which might as well just be a traditional paper then. You might want to chart out your paths and nodes (pages) and links on a VUE map to clear things up.
“punctuation first, quotation marks next, footnote last.”1
Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks. Long quotes are indented with no quotation marks.
1. Footnote after period and quotation marks.
PAGE NUMBERS! I hate counting pages for you. Only applies for offline documents.
Past tense for past events. If it happened in the past, use past tense. Do not use historical present (then Custer attacks but fails ==>then Custer attacked but failed). If you are talking about your secondary source's take on things, present tense is usually ok unless the secondary source is fifty years or more old or so, in which case you should probably look for a more up to date source (e.g., so as historian Rath argues , Custer attacked but failed). It is crucial to proofread. I have to correct this stuff in my own writing all the time.
Passive constructions are to be avoided in most cases. Sloppy arguments are too easy in a passive allowing who is doing what to be hidden (both the sentences are passive, here are the active versions: You should avoid passive constructions. You can hide who is doing what and other sloppy arguments too easily in a passive construction. BTW, this is why the thesis exercise makes you avoid the verb to BE). Example where it matters: Passive: “Taking Native American lands was thought to be a good thing.” BY WHOM? Active: “Many colonists and later, white Americans, thought taking Native American lands was a good thing.”
Among, Amongst: Thou shalt avoideth amongst unless ye be over a hundred years old or British. Wouldst thou talk like that? Then thou shalt not writeth in such manner as this!
Affect, effect: affect is almost always a verb. Effect is almost always a noun.
Plurals vs. possessive. “Custer's last stand” (possessive) “Cherokees fought back” (plural), “the captives' only possessions” (plural possessive).
Contractions: Don't use contractions.
Spell out: centuries and numbers below one hundred. “Nineteen people survived jumping off Niagara Falls in the twentieth century.” “In the 1940's 40s forties 1940s only two lived.” Higher numbers that are rounded off are also spelled out (a million, fifteen million).
Its: The possessive of “it” is “its” with no apostrophe. The contraction is “it's” and it's never used (see contractions). It's very confusing.
You: You should never use “you” in a formal paper.
Than/then: use “more than/ less than” (comparison), then you will have it right (conditional, temporal order)
Ellipses: avoid “etc.” – if it is important, say it, if not don't. In a quote, no need for “...” unless it is in the midlle of the quote. Don't use it at the beginning or end.
Very: Very often, Very can be deleted with no change in the meaning except to make your writing clearer.
Dashes: to use dashes to set off a phrase – like this one – use two hyphens with a space on either side but not between them (like this -- including the spaces). Your word processor may or may not change it into a real dash (called an “em dash” as opposed to the shorter “en dash” used as a hyphen and for everything else).
Their there now: One is place, the other is a third person possessive pronoun. Neither is a contraction for “they are.” Figure it out. I still make this error when I write, but fix it when I proofread.
Hear here now: As a historian of hearing, I mess this one up regularly. So do students.
On the other hand: should be preceded by “On the one hand” otherwise the other hand is not other. Can usually use “In contrast...” or something like that.
That which is whom: These are the main relative pronouns, pronouns that set off a relative clause like this part in italics. “That” can also be used as an indexical – something that points, like that over there, ya know? People usually have no problem with indexicals though. Use “who” or “whom” when referring to people, not “that.” Although there is a man that got away with it once. The reason you need to be careful is that when you use “that” in reference to people who happen to be women, slaves, Indians, working class, gay, trans, or whatever, it leaves open the implication that they are objects rather than human beings, so be careful that you use who or whom whenever possible when referring to people.
That or Which: For referring to things: pay attention to the commas. If commas are setting off the clause, don't use “that.”
Bill found a dollar, which was lying in the street, right when he needed it most.
*WRONG: Bill found a dollar, *that was lying in the street, right when he needed it most.
Bill found a dollar that was lying in the street. (no commas setting off the relative clause)
*Works in England but not so well in the US: Bill found a dollar which was lying in the street.
Who and Whom: think of these as “person X” or “someone.” If person X is the subject of the relative clause, use “who”, if the object of a clause, use “whom.”
The woman who escaped yesterday is sitting over there (Person X – Someone – escaped. X is the subject.)
The woman *THAT* escaped yesterday is sitting over there (You are objectifying him/her. And you are probably Racist and Sexist!!!! (just kidding, sort of))
The woman whom I saw is sitting over there. (I saw Person X/someone. X is the object)
The woman that I saw is sitting over there. (ok in speech, but do you really want to go there after I just called you a racist?)
These distinctions are seldom made in speech, but are part of formal written English, which you are learning.
Prepositions in relative clauses:
Tanya is someone whom I know very little of (this is neither informal nor correct because the preposition “dangles” at the end and it is supposed to be in a “pre”-position, which it certainly isn't, hanging out there at the end. The person who says this is probably trying to impress someone with his education but failing.)
Tanya is someone of whom I know very little. (This is the formally correct way)
Tanya is someone who I know very little of (Would be heard in normal speech since the middle ages, which indicates that the grammarians are wrong, but have had their way with the rules. Dangling prepositions are increasingly ok in more formal writing, and I won't fuss about them).
Tanya is someone I know very little of. (if we allow the dangle, we can finesse the who/whom thing by just dropping it.)
Bottom line: dangle them if you wish to.
Agreement: Does this go with that?
Countable/uncountable: *"numerous amounts" is wrong because numerous implies countable, but amounts is not (How many amounts do you have?)
Number: *We was going to the movies. "We" is plural, "was" is singular. One possible exception: the pronoun "they" and its relatives are now being employed in some cases by non-cisgender people. In that circumstance, "They is going to the movies" is grammatical if the "they" in the sentence is one person who prefers that pronoun.
Principal/Principle: The principal of my school does not understand the first principles to running a school.Who, What, When, Where: Make sure you tell us these things (when is particularly important for historians) as you go along. Just because you know does not mean your reader does.
"History has shown:" No it has not. This is always cover for a sloppy overgeneralization, and history could also show whatever the exact opposite is by using this flawed logic. Solution: Be specific. Cite the source for your belief. If you do not have one, you need to get at least one, which will no doubt change your assertion to something more specific and sustainable in the process of learning.
History starts when the white people get there: This applies across the board in the Americas and in West Africa and probably anywhere in the world white people went and colonized. One example would be calling the Americas the "New World." New to whom? Not to the folks who lived there for thousands of years already.
There can be regional and nationalist variants. Let me use two examples from the first English colony to successfully survive for a century or so, Jamestown, which was pretty much abandoned in the nineteenth century and serves as a giant archaeology museum today. Of course it was not the first attempt at a colony by the British, but the others had failed. There were however many other colonies in the Americas, settled by the Spanish in North America, along with French trading posts (not really settlements) in Canada.
Example one, Anglos-Saxon American version: Many North American colonial histories and histories of slavery begin their analysis when the Dutch sold twenty or so enslaved Africans to the English in 1619. Of course, slavery had already existed in North America for a century, and even the English had a colony with about two hundred enslaved people, Roanoke. Of course, that colony failed, so it doesn't count. But tell me, if you were one of the enslaved Africans, did it make any difference whatsoever that you were sold to one brand of white people rather than another? It is only from an Anglo-Saxon white perspective that 1619 is an important date.
Example two, nationalist variant: This is one of my favorites. The first professional US historian, George Bancroft, wrote a magisterial multi-volume History of the United States of America, from the Discovery of the American Continent, which in its title ("Discovery of the American Continent") makes the main error -- after all, it is hard to call it a discovery when the Indians already knew about it for a few thousand years. But he also commits the nationalist version in the title to chapter three of the first volume, which is about the founding of the precarious little Jamestown Colony in 1607, the same colony the twenty or so enslaved Africans would arrive at a decade or so later: "England takes possession of the United States." England existed, but the United States did not. and Jamestown's little toehold on a swamp in Virginia was hardly the grand claim of a nation.
This particular mistake has a name, "anachronism" which means taking something from one time -- in this case the United States -- and putting it in another time where it would not have existed, such as Jamestown in 1607. For the record, none of this besmirches Bancroft's good name, he was a man of his time, so it would be anachronistic for us to to apply our standard here to someone writing in the 1840s! In the present, we are trying to undo the multigenerational trauma and erasure of non-white people that this sort of thinking illustrates.
See this excellent guide from the government of Canada to using proper names and pronouns in a respectful manner. It explains how to use gender appropriate pronouns and respectful proper nouns. It also helps explain why.
Native Americans:
Tribes: They were not called tribes until the nineteenth century anthropologists needed a way to talk about nations that were not made by white people. They were and are nations. The only exception is that you can talk about twentieth and twenty-first century US federally recognized Indian nations as “tribes”, but you can also still call them nations too. If in doubt, say nation. The best practive, however, is to be specific and use the actual nation name where possible.
Plurals: Among the student, it is common practice to use singular when a plural is meant for Native American nations, such as “among the Navajo” or “the Cherokee then moved west” (which one?). This is not so common amongst the German as among the Christian. Right way: “the Navajos” “the Cherokees” “the Germans” “the Christians”...but note, if you use it as an adjective, it has no plural: “The German people,” “the Cherokee language.” Lots of authors, some of them current and even very good, will still use the singular, so this is more my pet peeve. Nonetheless, humor me, or I'll send the White after you.
Indians, Native Americans, Indigenous: The best policy is to use the nation name. If that is not known or appropriate, “Indians,” while it was a mistake, is used commonly, even by Indians. “Native Americans” is fine. Canadian Indians are officially called “First Nations people.” “Indigenous people” is also ok , but “indigenous” as a noun is not. Besides avoiding the noun, recent practices of Indigenous people is to always capitalize Indigenous, like you would for any other group of people. Avoid “the natives” like you would avoid “the savages.” Only use it if you are quoting someone else using it. The word “native” is ok when used as an adjective though, as in “native language.”
The New World: New to whome? Certainly not to the people native to the continent who had been their for thousands of years. This is a variant of "history starts when the white people get there." Avoid unless quoting, then make sure it is clear you are quoting.
African Americans: African Americans is fine. No hyphen, even if using it as an adjective. “Black” is sometimes used as an adjective (but not so much as a noun anymore) too, but avoid “the Blacks.” “Black” should be capitalized when referring to people. Actually, if you find yourself generalizing about a whole racialized group, to quote teh internets,“ur doing it rong.” Do not ever use “Negro” or “Colored” unless you are quoting. Same with the “n” word no matter what you self identify as. If you want to know why the names are important, look up Geneva Smitherman, “‘What Is Africa to Me?’: Language, Ideology, and African American,” American Speech 66, no. 2 (July 1, 1991): 115-132. I guess I just looked it up for you. Read it.
The White Man: If you say this, I'll personally come get you and revoke all your white privilege if you have any. I can do that you know. Even if you don't have any, I'll still come get you. Avoid. It is always followed by sloppy thinking and stereotypes, just like if you started talking about “the Black Man,” "the Red Man," or "the Yellow Man." Which one? If you want to be sneaky, you can just use “white” as an adjective and not capitalize it, while capitalizing “Black.” Very subversive, and really bugs the heck out of the white man, but there is nothing he can do except keep on oppressing you.
US, United States, America: America includes North, South, Central America and sometimes the Caribbean. When you say “American” do you mean the United States? Or do you mean “white Americans from the United States?” or do you really mean to include all Americans. Since there is no “United Statesian,” you use "US" as an adjective for the US people, but be careful of your imperialist tendencies in doing so, especially when you really mean white US citizens. If you need to you can talk about all Americans with the adjective “pan-American.” The more specific you can be, the better though.
agr: agreement, usually in number or gender: “We is are.”
pt: past tense.
ptpe: past tense for past events.
tense: verb tense
wc: word choice
awk.: awkward phrasing, rewrite.
anything circled: ur doing it rong. Figure it out and fix it.
etc. or …: do it to all the other ones like this too.
=>: block indent (see above)
ital.: fix italics (or less often, Rastafarian for “crucial to I and I's life force”)
caps: FIX CAPITALIZATION.
trans. transition
ttl: title.
ppl: people or population.
rep. It repeats something, or says it again, or is redundant over and over. Remove all but one.
lc: use lower case
frag: sentence fragment.
UG: It are ungrammatical.
sp. speling misteak
squiggly sideways”Z” or mirror image “S” between two characters, words, or phrases: reverse the ordre of them.
ref.: means reference, usually an ambiguous reference, meaning a pronoun could refer to more than one previous noun: “John told Bill to eat dinner in the car, then he ate it.” Who ate what?
agr: Agreement, most often of number: John eat two cars, but they eats all the rest.
Non seq: non sequitur, Latin for “does not follow.” It means that the second part of your argument does not follow from the first part. Non seq: John drank the orange juice. The dog got angry. Seq: John ate the dog food and the dog got angry. Seq: John drank the orange juice instead of feeding the dog, so the dog got angry. Often times the correction for a non sequitur is more information. Other times it is because you are not thinking straight and need to think through your argument better. From wikipedia: “an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.”
taut: tautology, when something causes itself. The cause of the Civil War was the fighting between the states.
ln: last name (use instead of first name after first use, where full name should be given)
LOL: laugh out loud. Less often: LMAO, ROFL: Laughing my A... off., Roll on floor laughing
re: about, in reference to.
:^) smiley face: I'm making a joke. Do not take comment literally. LOL.
Anything nice I will write out completely since it so seldom happens.:^)
colloq: colloquialism. Informal language not to be used in scholarly writing. Jeez. You kids.
For every rule there is an exception: (except this one).