To give credit where credit is due I strive to make it clear where ideas of others, which I use/refere to in my papers/work, are from. For this I cite and quote and this question is about the correct form to do so. Unfortunatelly I lack the words to describe the problem and like to give two examples.

1.

There is this idea (Person(s) 1984).

It has been this idea of Person(s) (1994).

While I know that it is possible to use (1.) form I often also encounter the cases in which I would rather prefere to phrase it in the style of (2.) in which the Person(s) cited appear as an actual word of the sentence. Now this is where I am lost what to do with the year of the actual cited paper/book/etc of this Person(s).

The question therefore: Is it possible/legimate/"okay" to refere to previous works/others by telling about those people directly inside of a sentence (meaning appearing as a part of the sentence)?

additionally: if yes, how? if no, reason why not possible/"okay"?

To give credit where credit is due I strive to make it clear where ideas of others, which I use/refer to in my papers/work, are from. For this I cite and quote and this question is about the correct form to do so. Unfortunately I lack the words to describe the problem and like to give two examples.

1.

There is this idea (Person(s) 1984).

It has been this idea of Person(s) (1994).

While I know that it is possible to use (1.) form I often also encounter the cases in which I would rather prefer to phrase it in the style of (2.) in which the Person(s) cited appear as an actual word of the sentence. Now this is where I am lost what to do with the year of the actual cited paper/book/etc of this Person(s).

The question therefore:

Is it possible/legitimate/"okay" to refer to previous works/others by telling about those people directly inside of a sentence (meaning appearing as a part of the sentence)?

additionally:

if yes, how?

if no, reason why not possible/"okay"?