Help talk:Citation Style 1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Help:Citation Style 1 and the CS1 templates page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:CS1

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96: 20 days

To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, the talk pages for all Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates and modules redirect here. A list of those talk pages and their historical archives can be found here.

Wikipedia Help High‑importance

	This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp articles
High	This page has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Academic Journals

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles

Magazines

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

I would like to add a free-to-read publisher to the DOI prefix list in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration: Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration needs the 10.xxxx/... part of the DOI associated with the publisher. All the publications of the publisher must be free-to read. Once that is done, the xxxx part can be added to the list under local function build_free_doi_registrants_table(). Also leave a note at User talk:Citation bot.
I would like to add a free-to-read journal to the DOI prefix list in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration: Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration needs the 10.xxxx/yyyy part of the DOI associated with the journal. All the articles associated with that DOI pattern must be free-to read. Once that is done, the xxxx/yyyy parts can be added to the list under local extended_registrants_t = { with the format ['XXXX'] = {'YYYY'},. If there are multiple journals with the same DOI prefix, they can be grouped together with the format ['XXXX'] = {'YYYY', 'ZZZZ', '...'},. Also leave a note at User talk:Citation bot.
I would like to add a geo-dead/geo-access URL keyword: Previous discussions have come to the conclusion that this is not workable. Websites change which regions can access them regularly, and these websites are regardless not fundamentally dead.
I would like support for PDF page numbers: The specific page of a specific PDF may change between clients with the same file or files with the same client. Consider using a |chapter= or |quote= instead.
I would like my change done now: Local consensus is that these modules sync from their sandboxes approximately once every 3-6 months. This is due to complexity of changes, the number of transclusions these modules have, and to be sure sufficient consensus exists for a change.
I don't like (identifier) in the links to identifier pages: This is done to differentiate identifier links (... lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.^{<ref>Linden, David van der. (2015) ... doi:10.18352/dze.10126</ref>} ... ) from prose links (... the digital object identifier was introduced in 2000 by ... ) in Special:WhatLinksHere.

Feature request: enable manual title-linking of open access stable identifiers in Cite book

{{Cite journal}} automatically links the title to a freely available external resource when it is marked with |ident-access=free; {{Cite book}} not only doesn't do this, but doesn't support manual title-linking to open access resources. There are plenty of open access books these days, and plenty of books with DOIs, free and subscription both. Can this functionality be enabled for this template? Could cut down on unnecessary URLs and their attendant archival and rotting. Folly Mox (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

chapter-archive-url

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Should there be a chapter-archive-url parameter for dead chapter-url? Tule-hog (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite book |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=//example.com/chapter |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org |archive-date=2024-09-02}}

"Chapter". Title. Archived from the original on 2024-09-02.

If we are to support |chapter-archive-url= we must also support |chapter-archive-date=, and |chapter-url-status=.

Give an example to show how a template would render with |archive-url=, |archive-date=, |chapter-archive-url= and |chapter-archive-date=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus all the other *-url parameters. It's complex and messy. For those rare instances of ambiguity about which URL the archive-url is attached to, use {{webarchive}} with |format=addlarchive. -- GreenC 22:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use archive.org-esque convention of archive.org/<url> for clarity, omitting the date component. I'll keep close to your example.

{{cite book |chapter=Chapter |chapter-url=//example.com/chapter |chapter-archive-url=//archive.org/example.com/chapter |title=Title |url=//example.com |archive-url=//archive.org/example.com |archive-date=2024-09-02 |chapter-archive-date=2024-09-03 |chapter-url-status=dead}}

"Chapter". Title. Archived from the original on 2024-09-02, the section on 2024-09-03.

Example display is just a mockup, I'm not passionate about any particular method. Presumably chapter-url-status omitted by default would use chapter-archive-url, similar to url-status and archive-url. Tule-hog (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 translator feature request: addition of empty trans-title param

Can we add an empty trans-title param to the output of Module:CS1 translator, either always, or under control of a new, optional param?

I invariably try to follow up the module action by adding |trans-title=. Having that empty param added by the Module would simultaneously be a time-saver, as well as provide a quick check (via search-on-page + highlight) of how much work I still have left to do translating titles, and where they are located on the page. If this is accepted and implemented under parameteric control, please don't call the param 'trans', out of possible confusion with the whole purpose of the module; maybe something as simple as |_extra=y or |_expand=y or something.

The field even has utility empty: if I forget to come back and fill them in, some editor may come along and do it if they see the empty params, but may not look for the param in the doc if they don't know it exists.

Optionally, if additional languages such as Russian or Arabic or other non-Latin scripts are supported in the future, that same function or param could output the original title as |script-title= and add empty params |title= and |trans-title= ready for supplying romanization and translation. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized we have {{Cite journal/Arabic}}; does it do that? Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to make this change primarily because some editor may come along and do it if they see the empty params whereupon, they grab the title from |title= and slap it into google translate, paste the translation into |trans-title= and claim: success! atta boy! job well done! Likely though, nothing will happen and the empty |trans-title= will remain empty; such is my experience.

If you want to find templates that Module:CS1 translator has translated, you can do an insource search for this:

For example, this search for Arabic translations. Once you have visited a translated template and added/fixed as appropriate, delete the comment.

The purpose of the module is to (more-or-less accurately) do the grunt work of translating non-English template and parameter names to their English equivalents. Except for simple, mostly robust, month-name translations, that is all that the module does or should do.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another Generic Title

Hello, another Generic Title to be considered is "Unknown" or "unknown". Keith D (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feature request: author suffixes

Currently, an author name containing a comma-delimited suffix, e.g., George B. Thomas, Jr., generates the maintenance message CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). This can be avoided by omitting the comma, e.g., |first1=George B. Jr or by wrapping in double parentheses, e.g., |first1=((George B., Jr)). A |suffixn= parameter would be a cleaner way to handle this.

Alternatively, the documentation should state that generational suffixes should not include the comma even if printed with a comma in the cited source. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this already covered by MOS:JR? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is |last=Thomas+|first=George B. Jr to give Thomas, George B. Jr (2022). "Article of stuff". Journal of Things. 1 (2): 34–56. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I incorrecly remembered Using Jr., Sr., or other such distinctions, including in the lead sentence of an article, is only for cases in which the name with the suffix is commonly used in reliable sources. as applying to the format of the suffix when it actually applies only to its existence. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linking restrictions

Several parameters, e.g., |publisher=, allow wikilinks. The documentation should note that "|" must be escaped as {{!}} and that the pipe trick does not work, although normal piped links do. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation is not protected. If you believe that improvements can (should) be made, please do so,

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've seen the text that you added to Template:Citation Style documentation/publisher, I gotta ask why? Are you seeing some sort of problem with properly piped wikilinks in |publisher=? For me, both of these work:

{{cite book |title=Title |publisher=[[Random House|Random]]}}

Title. Random.

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000034-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. [[Random House|Random]].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.pub=Random&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1" class="Z3988"></span>

{{cite book |title=Title |publisher=[[Random House{{!}}Random]]}}

Title. Random.

'"`UNIQ--templatestyles-00000038-QINU`"'<cite class="citation book cs1">''Title''. [[Random House|Random]].</cite><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=book&rft.btitle=Title&rft.pub=Random&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fen.wikipedia.org%3AHelp+talk%3ACitation+Style+1" class="Z3988"></span>

Can you explain why you think it necessary to escape the pipe?

I suspect, though I haven't tried it, that the pipe trick can be made to work outside of <ref>...</ref> tags. But, since it won't work inside <ref>...</ref> tags, I don't think that we should bother to 'fix' it until MediaWiki fixes their end.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I had seen it fail. And, yes, the pipe trick works outside of <ref>...</ref>. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errors at line 2083

Countless Lua errors at Gabrielle Baker: "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2083: attempt to index a boolean value." Even if it is an error in the article, it shouldn't give this error message I think. Fram (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I don't see any error messages at Gabrielle Baker. It could be an artefact from the 2024-08-17 module suite update. During an update there is a brief period when new and old modules coexist; attempt to use the module suite in that brief period will show as lua script errors. Another possibility is that en.wiki could not interwiki to Commons to fetch identifier limits because of a fault at MediaWiki. The usual fix when there are many upon many of these sorts of error messages is a null edit or purge your cache.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked through to see if anything was wrong, and made a couple of unrelated changes and the issue went away. It appears it needs a dummy edit for some reason. There are a few articles with the same error[1], one was Florida Man and a dummy edit cleared the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All but a few of the search results where already cleared, I've purged the others. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's a brand new article so an old update to this module couldn't here be the reason, a link issue to Commons or so is of course perfectly possible. It would be nice if there is a way to make the error more meaningful, but no big deal if that is impossible (or too much work for the few cases it would be needed). Fram (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More generic titles

Hello, another generic title which is not very useful is |title=x.com about 450 of them at the moment. Keith D (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Line feed characters in quote within a citation

The article Electoral fraud in the United States had a really horrible citation added, which I removed in this diff. In the form I removed it, it didn't work because it ignored line feeds which were in both the wikitext and in the original document. I tried to make it work with {{cite report}} but couldn't figure out a way to make line feeds work. Any suggestions? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be this thing?^[1]

Replace the linefeeds with {{pb}}. Rewriting it with {{pb}} we get this:^[2]

This also works in |quote=.:^[3]

But, if that quote is truly needed for the article (I don't think that it is – the source is free-to-read) then put it in <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags and cite it. Quotations require citations; citations do not require quotations.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I worked out a version in my sandbox.^[4] In my version, I put a double quote at the beginning of each middle paragraph, which is the correct in a multi-paragraph quote that doesn't use a block quote. I also used the cite report template with as many parameters as I could find from the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's a monstrosity. I mentioned this discussion in the talk page of the relevant article. I'll leave it to the proponent of the quote to find this discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree it was way too much before Superb Owl (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about just the last paragraph and just for the parts not already in the text but could merit inclusion based on their coverage in reliable sources for easier context? Something like this ^[5] Superb Owl (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this content should be summarized in the article, not quoted, and certainly not quoted with multiple paragraphs. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge (June 2024) "Beyond ID to vote, this survey also measured if voting-age American citizens have documentary proof of citizenship documents, including a US Birth Certificate, US Passport/US Passport Card, US Naturalization Certificate, and US Certificate of Citizenship. Over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), either because they do not have it at all or because they could not access it easily if needed. Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, lack ANY form of DPOC. This means 3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or a certificate of citizenship. This disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups, as 3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC. Independents are also more likely to lack DPOC (4%) compared to Democrats (2%) and Republicans (1%). Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million)"
^ Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge (June 2024) "Beyond ID to vote, this survey also measured if voting-age American citizens have documentary proof of citizenship documents, including a US Birth Certificate, US Passport/US Passport Card, US Naturalization Certificate, and US Certificate of Citizenship.
Over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), either because they do not have it at all or because they could not access it easily if needed.
Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, lack ANY form of DPOC. This means 3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or a certificate of citizenship. This disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups, as 3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC. Independents are also more likely to lack DPOC (4%) compared to Democrats (2%) and Republicans (1%). Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million)"
^ "Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge" (PDF). Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement. June 2024. Beyond ID to vote, this survey also measured if voting-age American citizens have documentary proof of citizenship documents, including a US Birth Certificate, US Passport/US Passport Card, US Naturalization Certificate, and US Certificate of Citizenship.
Over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), either because they do not have it at all or because they could not access it easily if needed.
Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, lack ANY form of DPOC. This means 3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or a certificate of citizenship. This disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups, as 3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC. Independents are also more likely to lack DPOC (4%) compared to Democrats (2%) and Republicans (1%). Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million)
^ Rothschild, Jillian Andres; Novey, Samuel B; Hanmer, Michael J. (June 2024). Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge] (PDF) (Report). College Park, Maryland: Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement. Beyond ID to vote, this survey also measured if voting-age American citizens have documentary proof of citizenship documents, including a US Birth Certificate, US Passport/US Passport Card, US Naturalization Certificate, and US Certificate of Citizenship.
"Over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), either because they do not have it at all or because they could not access it easily if needed.
"Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, lack ANY form of DPOC. This means 3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or a certificate of citizenship. This disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups, as 3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC. Independents are also more likely to lack DPOC (4%) compared to Democrats (2%) and Republicans (1%). Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million)
^ Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge (June 2024) "...3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or a certificate of citizenship...3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC ...Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million)."

[1] Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge (June 2024) "Beyond ID to vote, this survey also measured if voting-age American citizens have documentary proof of citizenship documents, including a US Birth Certificate, US Passport/US Passport Card, US Naturalization Certificate, and US Certificate of Citizenship. Over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), either because they do not have it at all or because they could not access it easily if needed. Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, lack ANY form of DPOC. This means 3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or a certificate of citizenship. This disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups, as 3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC. Independents are also more likely to lack DPOC (4%) compared to Democrats (2%) and Republicans (1%). Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million)"

[2] Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge (June 2024) "Beyond ID to vote, this survey also measured if voting-age American citizens have documentary proof of citizenship documents, including a US Birth Certificate, US Passport/US Passport Card, US Naturalization Certificate, and US Certificate of Citizenship.
Over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), either because they do not have it at all or because they could not access it easily if needed.
Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, lack ANY form of DPOC. This means 3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or a certificate of citizenship. This disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups, as 3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC. Independents are also more likely to lack DPOC (4%) compared to Democrats (2%) and Republicans (1%). Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million)"

[3] "Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge" (PDF). Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement. June 2024. Beyond ID to vote, this survey also measured if voting-age American citizens have documentary proof of citizenship documents, including a US Birth Certificate, US Passport/US Passport Card, US Naturalization Certificate, and US Certificate of Citizenship.
Over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), either because they do not have it at all or because they could not access it easily if needed.
Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, lack ANY form of DPOC. This means 3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or a certificate of citizenship. This disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups, as 3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC. Independents are also more likely to lack DPOC (4%) compared to Democrats (2%) and Republicans (1%). Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million)

[4] Rothschild, Jillian Andres; Novey, Samuel B; Hanmer, Michael J. (June 2024). Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge] (PDF) (Report). College Park, Maryland: Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement. Beyond ID to vote, this survey also measured if voting-age American citizens have documentary proof of citizenship documents, including a US Birth Certificate, US Passport/US Passport Card, US Naturalization Certificate, and US Certificate of Citizenship.
"Over 9% of voting-age citizens, or 21.3 million people, cannot readily access documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC), either because they do not have it at all or because they could not access it easily if needed.
"Just under 2% of voting-age American citizens, or over 3.8 million people, lack ANY form of DPOC. This means 3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or a certificate of citizenship. This disproportionately affects marginalized racial and ethnic groups, as 3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC. Independents are also more likely to lack DPOC (4%) compared to Democrats (2%) and Republicans (1%). Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million)

[:3-5] Who Lacks ID in America Today? An Exploration of Voter ID Access, Barriers, and Knowledge (June 2024) "...3.8 million voting-age American citizens do not have a birth certificate, passport, naturalization certificate, or a certificate of citizenship...3% of People of Color lack any form of DPOC, compared to 1% of White Americans. Eight percent of White Americans (or over 12.9 million people) and 11% of People of Color (or over 8.4 million people) cannot readily access DPOC ...Independents are also more likely to be unable to readily access DPOC (13%, or almost 4.5 million) than Democrats (10%, or just under 9.7 million) and Republicans (7%, or over 7.1 million)."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]