1. starhorsegrl
    Offline

    starhorsegrl New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0

    Turabian vs. Chicago Manual of Style

    Discussion in 'Word Mechanics' started by starhorsegrl, Nov 1, 2010.

    I am aware that Turabian offers her Chicago Style for Students and Researchers, but isn't it true that this is a different format and style than the Chicago Manual of Style? Someone once told me they were two in the same thing. I have a feeling that they are not and I unfortunately can't be the better of judge of the question because I haven't investigated Turabian's style in thoroughness.

    Also, what is the Chicago Manual of Style format to provide a Quote within a footnote (not in the text)? Does one list the source first with page, then a period and then the quote? Or do you list the source first, period, quote, and then the page number at the end? Consider that the sources is sited for a book as the following: Author, Title, Date.

    Thank you!
     
  2. mammamaia
    Offline

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,316
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    i've never heard of turabian... if no one here has a copy or doesn't have time to look it up for you, you can check the cms yourself, at the library, or here:

    http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html
     
  3. digitig
    Offline

    digitig Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,502
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Orpington, Bromley, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
    Turabian is a style for citations, so it won't come up much in fiction. It's based on the CMS, but I think there are subtle differences.
     
  4. erik martin
    Offline

    erik martin Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    I had a prof who wanted our citations in Turabian and I had to pick up CMoS. I have always heard the format in CMoS simply referred to as 'Turabian.' Here is how one of my citations looked in Turabian:

    de Roulhac Hamilton, J. G., ed. “King’s Mountain: Letters of Colonel Isaac Shelby.” The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 4, No. 3 (August, 1938), pp. 367 – 377. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2191295 [Accessed 03/07/2009 17:59].

    The indentation should be hanging, which did not come through when I pasted it and I'm feeling too lazy to figure out how to do a hanging indent in the comment box, so just picture it in its hanging glory.
     
  5. starhorsegrl
    Offline

    starhorsegrl New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thank you, Erik. In the citation where you list the Journal title, is it supposed to be italicized as well? In CMoS, it is italicized; in Turabian, it is not, correct?
     
  6. erik martin
    Offline

    erik martin Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Journal entries in Turabian and CMoS are italicized. I went back and checked my original document, I did not have it in italics, but had it underlined. That was because of a picky professor that wanted all title underlined, whether books or journals. But both styles, when done correctly, use italics for journal titles. I did a little more research and found something that indicated that Turabian based her style on CMoS but attempted to simplify it, so the two are remarkably similar. (I am uncertain how adding yet another way of citing a reference is simplifying anything when there are already too many.)
     

Share This Page