Citing Citations

[myprotagonist]

This is my first post here, so I apologize if this is trivial or has been addressed before. I am very much a baby academic

Comments

[rimrunner]

Just cite the sources you used. What you're doing is standard research practice and totally acceptable; it's one of the reasons reference lists exist.

[cpl593h]

yep, that's what citations are there for. just cite what you use.

[cpl593h]

and you should feel very, very guilty indeed for interrupting the end of the semester trollfest.

[chatnoire]

It's hardly been a trollfest. It's been mild and tame these days!

[cpl593h]

quite frankly, i'm missing the "my professor wants to sleep with me and everyone is jealous" aspect.

I don't get it...

[poldyb]

Why do continental philosophers make better lovers?

Re: I don't get it...

[myprotagonist]

I must confess that even though my icon says this, I've never really had it independently verified. That is, I have never been in the company of someone who has had both continental and analytic lovers. Presumably, the continentals are great lovers because they are mostly European, and Europe is famous for its lovers. It is also possible that they're good lovers because of their creativity. Nevertheless, casting doubt on my icon's claim, one could make the argument that analytic philosophers are more rigorous and thorough, thus making better lovers. I some day hope to test these claims.

Re: I don't get it...

[poldyb]

I see. So it was a comparison to analytic philosophers. Set the bar low, don't ya.

Incidentally, these expressions usually are some sort of pun, e.g cartographers are the best lay in the land. Continental philosophers make better lovers is sort or, well, lacking in imagination.

Re: I don't get it...

[sensaes]

Something involving incontinental philosophers might be more imaginative...

[a_priori]

I have a slightly different answer. It is okay for you to just borrow all of the citations without citing the place from which you got them. But a slightly classier move would be to drop a footnote reference to the place from which you got them, acknowledging that fact obliquely. e.g. "Smith (1995) has a useful discussion of related issues, and a number of helpful references."

99.99% of all readers will just ignore this. But if Smith happens to read your paper, she will appreciate that you read her work (rather than dislike you for stealing all of her references). If Smith is dead, then it depends on whether there are Smith-scholars who take personally any treatment of the great mind.

[magdalene1]

Yes, this was going to be my suggestion. You don't have to cite the article, but throw it a bone of good manners.

[bungo]

The formulation I often see in mathematics papers is "(see Smith [99] and references therein)", although I find this terse. It would be nicer if you took a few lines to tell me why Smith's references are so dandy.

[coendou]

Cite the works that you actually draw on in writing your paper. I troll articles for citations all the time, and generally don't remember after the fact what citation I originally got from what article. When I'm writing the paper, I cite what I use.