Citation question - sources within sources

[joane]

This is probably a really obvious answer to most, but it's something I've never quite been able to get a handle on. (And I've had different profs give different answers over the years when I have asked previously

Comments

[hollyberrie05]

This

[endxgame]

It's this (although I think it's supposed to be "cited in...", but I'm not sure).

It is definitely listed in the Chicago Manual of Style so go look at that if you want to be correct.

[joane]

I did check before posting, and what I saw mentioned sources quoted within other sources, but not what to do if you used more of/other pieces of the primary source than was referenced in the secondary source. As I understood it, anyway.

[rache_joy]

Well, there are two ways you can do it.

If you are primarily using the material that Appleseed quoted in his paper, you'd cite the letter in the book: Joe Q Apple to [daughter's name], 16 September 1682, in John Appleseed, [and the rest of his citation, book or article].

If you are using the letter and not sticking just to what Appleseed revealed, cite the original letter. Joe Q Apple to [daughter's name], [date], [and then where you found it - the online database or archive information]. If you choose this route, you can always include an explanatory portion of the citation directing people to Appleseed's work as another place they can find a discussion of the original letter. I often add things like, "See a discussion of this letter in John Appleseed, ...]

[tyopsqueene]

This is the correct answer.

[joane]

That's the distinction that was the sticking point for me, and you've cleared it up beautifully. Thanks so much!

[azhit44]

exactly.

[hawkeye7]

You can't cite a primary source without saying where you found it. Use the "cited in" form as suggested above. Normally the primary source is found in an archive, in which case you use that archive's standard form. Don't try and copy Appleseed's primary reference, as no end of things can go wrong. Remember, the purpose of the reference is to enable someone else to locate the thing.

[joane]

It's not about where I found it or copying Appleseed's citation, but whether and how I properly give Appleseed a nod for being the original place where I saw the primary source referenced, *as well as* the proper citation for the primary source itself. Which has been pretty well answered.