It seems to me to fall back in part on the nature of the claim.
"Interpretation" often crossed over into original research, but
quoting can go both ways. If the quotes selected are used to
illustrate a point which can be found in secondary literature, that
seems fine to me (i.e., quoting directly from _Origin of Species_ to
explain Darwin's thoughts on some point in a way which would not be
controversial to anyone), but cherry-picking quotations or using
quotations to support points not in secondary literature is original
research (i.e. quoting directly from _Origin of Species_ to support
your own, idiosyncratic and unorthodox interpretation).
If the source is published, quoting from it should be fine, as long as
the point of the quoting is not problematic and one could ultimately
find the same argument made about the source (implicitly or
explicitly) in secondary literature.
FF
On 3/17/06, Jonathan <dzonatas(a)dzonux.net> wrote:
Hello,
If someone uses a primary source, should the context be quoted directly?
If it is not, would that constitute original research? Another words, if
someone takes the primary source and interprets it to his or her own
need, it does seem like a re-creation of a primary source. It's like
original research in an attempt to make the primary source a secondary
source.
I've seen this kind of discussion before. The result was that all
scholarly work is always based on secondary scholastic sources. That
does not give an answer to the primary sources as above, but it does
shed some insight into non-scholarly source creep.
Feedback is appreciated.
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l