5

I want to cite a chapter in a book, hence I think I should use incollection. However I would need to specify two years:

  • one for the year the book was published
  • one for the year the chapter was written

The entry should look somewhat like this:

Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1990). „Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism“. In: The Welfare State Reader. Hrsg. von Christopher Pierson, Francis G. Castles und Ingela K. Naumann. 2. Aufl. Cambridge: Polity Press 2006, S. 160–174.

Is there a way to do this with BibLaTex?

MWE:

\begin{filecontents*}{test.bib} 
@incollection{esping-andersen_three_2006,
    location = {Cambridge},
    edition = {2},
    title = {Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism},
    pages = {160--174},
    booktitle = {The Welfare State Reader},
    publisher = {Polity Press},
    author = {Esping-Andersen, Gøsta},
    editor = {Pierson, Christopher and Castles, Francis G. and Naumann, Ingela K.},
    year = {2006}
}
\end{filecontents*}

\documentclass[a4paper, german, oneside]{scrartcl}
\usepackage[ngerman]{babel} 
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} 
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} 
\usepackage[babel,german=quotes]{csquotes}

\usepackage[style=authoryear, backend=biber, firstinits=false]{biblatex} 
\addbibresource{test.bib}


\begin{document}

\nocite{*}

\printbibliography
\end{document}
12
  • 3
    You should keep in mind though that the bibliography is for finding references. Since you used the collection version of the paper in its 2006 version this is what you cite. The fact that the original paper was published in 1990 is a nice aside, but knowledge of this particular detail does not really influence the reader's ability to find the very version of the article you cited.
    – moewe
    Apr 19, 2015 at 8:13
  • 1
    @Johannes_B @inbook and @incollection are not aliased in the standard styles (and probably in most other styles). A @book is a work where the authors share credit for the work in its entirety. @collections on the other hand, consist of separate contributions by distinct authors and the whole work often does not have authors, but editors. In this case here it, seems pretty clear to me that @incollection is the right entry type here.
    – moewe
    Apr 19, 2015 at 8:27
  • 1
    Generally, you should cite the original publication and not an anthologised version. So you almost certainly shouldn't be trying to do this at all. There are exceptions in which a reprint has become the standard (perhaps because the original is difficult to obtain), but then the relevant publication year is the reprint year.
    – cfr
    Apr 19, 2015 at 14:07
  • 1
    @cfr My understanding is that one should always cite the version of the work one actually worked with (read etc.). (If only to make sure that page references line up. Leaving aside the ethical and practical implications of claiming to have read something one has not actually seen.) In most cases, it is desirable to work with the original publication, however, I would think. (So my comment was totally pointless if by "cite" you also meant read and work with.)
    – moewe
    Apr 19, 2015 at 15:01
  • 1
    @moewe I meant at least work with in the sense that you might read a reprint initially, but then you'd get the original for checking purposes when citing. So, certainly, the page numbers should match but, also, you'd check that the reprint hadn't incorporated changes not present in the original. If you cannot get hold of the original, then you certainly cannot use it for citation purposes. (You can say that the version you use is a reprint of... but you can't cite it as as source you've used.) I think we are in agreement and I just didn't put the point very clearly - sorry about that.
    – cfr
    Apr 19, 2015 at 15:32

2 Answers 2

6

Here is a solution:

\begin{filecontents*}{origdate.bib}
@incollection{esping-andersen_three_2006,
location = {Cambridge},
edition = {2},
title = {Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism},
pages = {160--174},
booktitle = {The Welfare State Reader},
publisher = {Polity Press},
author = {Esping-Andersen, Gøsta},
editor = {Pierson, Christopher and Castles, Francis G. and Naumann, Ingela K.},
year = {2006},
origdate = {1990}
}
%
@inbook{esping-andersen_2008,
location = {Oxford},
title = {Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism},
pages = {160--174},
booktitle = {The Welfare State Reader},
publisher = {Polity Press},
author = {Esping-Andersen, Gøsta},
editor = {Pierson, Christopher and Castles, Francis G. and Naumann, Ingela K.},
year = {2008}
}
\end{filecontents*}

\documentclass[a4paper, german, oneside]{scrartcl}
\usepackage[ngerman]{babel}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[babel,german=quotes]{csquotes}

\usepackage[style=authoryear, backend=biber, firstinits=false, labeldate]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{origdate.bib}

\DeclareLabeldate{%
\field{origdate}
\field{date}
\field{eventdate}
\field{urldate}
\literal{nodate}
}

\renewbibmacro*{publisher+location+date}{%
\printlist{location}%
\iflistundef{publisher}
{\setunit*{\addcomma\space}}
{\setunit*{\addcolon\space}}%
\printlist{publisher}%
\setunit*{\addspace}%
\iffieldsequal{labelyear}{year}{%
\usebibmacro{date}}{\printdate}
\newunit}

\begin{document}

\nocite{*}

\printbibliography

\end{document} 

enter image description here

1

If at all possible, with some exceptions, you should use the original publication as your source and cite accordingly. If, for some reason, that just isn't possible, I would use biblatex's related facilities. In this case, your citations will show that you are using the 2006 version, which is true, but your bibliography will also show that this is a reprint and what it is a reprint of.

For example:

related entries

[Note that I'm assuming the German says something appropriate although I cannot tell.]

\begin{filecontents*}{\jobname.bib}
@incollection{esping-andersen_three_2006,
    location = {Cambridge},
    edition = {2},
    title = {Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism},
    pages = {160--174},
    booktitle = {The Welfare State Reader},
    publisher = {Polity Press},
    author = {Esping-Andersen, Gøsta},
    editor = {Pierson, Christopher and Castles, Francis G. and Naumann, Ingela K.},
    year = {2006},
    related = {esping-andersen_three_1990},
    relatedtype = {reprintof}
}
@article{esping-andersen_three_1990,
    title = {Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism},
    pages = {213--265},
    journal = {Some Journal},
    author = {Esping-Andersen, Gøsta},
    year = 1990,
    volume = 63,
    number = 2
}
\end{filecontents*}

\documentclass[a4paper, german, oneside]{scrartcl}
\usepackage[ngerman]{babel}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[babel,german=quotes]{csquotes}

\usepackage[style=authoryear, backend=biber, firstinits=false]{biblatex}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}


\begin{document}

\nocite{*}

\printbibliography
\end{document}
8
  • It's me again, sorry ;-). I would prefer the original not to appear as a bibliography entry on its own (maybe via options = {dataonly}, in esping-andersen_three_1990). Note that in this set-up the related entry does not display the date of the reprinted entry (I'm sure there is a modification to do that). Your assumption about the German text is spot on.
    – moewe
    Apr 19, 2015 at 15:49
  • The solution to printing the year of the related entry lies in {related:default}. By default only the bibmacro date is restored, but issue+date remains in its reduced state of only printing the issue thanks to the mergedate setting. The solution is restoring the issue+date macro to its original state as in standard.bbx via the pre-code hook of \usedriver.
    – moewe
    Apr 19, 2015 at 15:54
  • @moewe Is this because the original is an article (as I've written it)? When I use this myself with books, I get the date in the entry and no separate entry.
    – cfr
    Apr 19, 2015 at 16:06
  • I suppose so. @articles use the issue+date macro to print the date (this macro is a wrapper around \usebibmacro{date} and also prints the issue; it is modified by some mergedate options - including the default - to only print the issue, because it is assumed the year was printed after the author) this macro is not restored by related:deafult while date (which is used in a way by @books that mergedate does not interfere with if date is restored) is restored.
    – moewe
    Apr 19, 2015 at 16:11
  • I just realised my "explanation" above was a bit nebulous. With authoryear-like styles the date is moved right after the author, the exact nature of this arrangement is controlled by the mergedate option. The mergedates redefine 3 bibmacros date+extrayear, date and issue+date (the latter is only used by @articles/@periodicals). In related:default where the moving around of dates is probably not desired, those macros are restored if need be with the exception of issue+date. But because issue+date is not restored to print the date, @articles lack the year in this setup.
    – moewe
    Apr 19, 2015 at 16:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .