Delirium (delirium(a)hackish.org) [050125 05:26]:
I'm not too familiar with standard practice in
encyclopedias, but in
journal and conferences papers, it's considered fairly standard to cite
the secondary source if that's where the quote or other information came
from, even if the secondary source itself cites a primary
source---citing the primary source is taken to be an assertion that
you've personally gotten the information from the primary source, or at
least verified that it's there. If it were discussed in running text
(as something particularly murky or controversial often would be), it
would be with phrasing along the lines of "Smith (1997) places the
population of Moscow during this period at 2,321, citing a census of
1854 consistent with various other reports." If the census of 1854 is
completely undisputed, then it could be simply mentioned directly, but
the citation would still be something like "The census of 1854 placed
the population of Moscow at 2,321 (Smith 1997)"---citing the census
itself would be inappropriate unless you've personally looked it up.
That looks like a very good way of dealing with it to me. What's a concise
format for footnoted reference use?
(I'm asking this with a view to something to add to [[Wikipedia:Cite
sources]]. Being mindful of [[m:Instruction creep]], of course.)
- d.