For the FAO of clever academic people: please help!

I’m proofreading and ironing out the essay I need to hand in tomorrow, and I’m faced with one little quandary. Basically, I’m quoting a section of a book that itself contains a quote – would I be in trouble if I didn’t reference the quote within the quote as well.

So, for example, if I’m quoting “As Manches-Brute said: ‘Roscoe is essentially an amalgam of 20th century foreign policy’ to which I fervently dance around in agreement” (Aristotle); would I have to reference the genius Manches-Brute in-text and in my bibliography? Or would I be OK just referencing Aristotle?

Thank you! :smiley:

Just reference Aristotle, if anyone argues say you didn’t want to superheat the quote in case your essay exploded on contact with air


I’m not entirely sure- it there a reason you’re quoting the secondary source rather than the primary? Does the book add something to the quote, or is it just the bare Aristotle quote?

1 Like

I would change what I’m saying so I only reference the one person at any one time. E.g “person X says . Person Y argues that this is…”

and reference them both

The secondary extrapolates on the primary. Basically to say what it actually is, he’s referencing a William Gibson quote “the street finds its own use for things” and relating it to turntablism - and it’s the most fitting thing on that subject I can think of to cite.

I might just cite both anyway to be safe; though it might fuck around with my word count.

Coming from a history background, I would cite the secondary source then, as you’re not directly referring to and haven’t read the primary source- and the focus is on later interpretation of William Blake rather than what was contemporary to his time if that makes sense. Perhaps other people disagree with me though.


I can definitely get this. Thank you! My three year absence from academia has made me super-paranoid about all this stuff.

Why can’t you just say ‘cited in…’?

Why can’t you just chuck em the book and tell em to find the fucking quote themselves?

if you resubmit something to Turnitin, it’s just the new one they receive, right?

The most important thing is always to just be super clear about what it is you’re actually doing. The example you’ve made up looks sound to me.

The question hear is around sense and readability, rather than referencing. You’re not citing the source from which the embedded quotation has come. You’re citing the person who cites it. As long as your reader can work out who’s citing whom, and can track down the source that YOU have cited, there’s no need to provide ref details for the embedded citation.

Of course, a good student/writer/researcher WOULD provide those details anyway. E.g. (Aristotle Ethics; citing mute-branches Some Old Shit)

The question hear. Do you hear it? Hear it, question! Hear it!

I’d say the goal of citation is so that other people can find, if necessary, where you took the quote/information from. So you want to cite the secondary source:

As Marilyn said: “If you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best” [1]

[1] Monroe, Marilyn ‘Some Like it Hot’, cited in mute-branches [2016] ‘Another thread’, page 3 (DIS).

That was meant to be a general thread reply, not a reply to rob.

Idiot dickhead, etc. (me, not rob, obviously)

is it that obvious?