# How to cite a paper I didn't read?

The problem I have is that a paper that is cited by other papers I've read is not to be found. I've read only its abstract. I understand that what I want should look like

Featherstone et al 1900 (as cited in Thomas and Cullen 2002)

but I have no idea how to do it in LaTeX or BibTeX for that matter. I have no idea how to Google it either. I hope there's a way to do it.

-
Oh damn, I thought this was about how to avoid reading stuff and still citing it :D –  benjaoming May 31 '13 at 23:08
I don't think you need a Q&A site to know how to do that :) –  Aleksandar Savkov Jun 1 '13 at 8:05

Using biblatex, the solution would be similar. In in-text citation could be \textcite{featherstone1900} (assuming that's the .bib entry) and the parenthetical reference could be \parencite[as cited in][]{thomas-cullen2002} (again assuming that's the .bib entry).

Note, however, that biblatex offers a lot more in the way of citation commands, including especially \autocite and \smartcite, which are really clever at doing things 'right' given the citation style you have specified. If that's not enough, there are several dozen(!) variations of \*cite* commands. No other package matches this level of flexibility for bibliographies and citations.

-
Thanks, that seems like the way to go. I need to migrate my whole bibliography though :) –  Aleksandar Savkov Jul 16 '12 at 23:03

In LaTeX, you can try \citet{featherstone00} (as cited in \citealt{thomas02}) or something similar. Read the natbib manual or check http://merkel.zoneo.net/Latex/natbib.php.

-

This sounds like a secondary source. For APA style the primary source referenced by the secondary sources is not included in the bibliography, only the secondary source is listed. This means you could do something like:

Featherstone and colleagues \citep[as cited in][]{TC2002}

-
This way the citation will not appear in the reference section because it was not used. Or at least I think so... –  Aleksandar Savkov Jul 16 '12 at 23:02
@AleksandarSavkov you are correct that the primary source will not show up in the reference section. That is exactly my point. Your format with "as cited in" looks like APA style to me and APA style says that the primary source should not be included in the reference section. MLA has a slightly different in text citation style, but also only includes the secondary source in the reference section. Chicago includes both the primary and secondary source in the reference section, but has a substantially different in text style (primary source only). –  StrongBad Jul 17 '12 at 8:02
Thanks, I wasn't entirely sure on the specifics of different styles. –  Aleksandar Savkov Jul 17 '12 at 13:58