Delirium (delirium@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.