Fastfission wrote:
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.
It's hard to imagine a quotation from anywhere that isn't
cherry-picked. Reviewing Darwin's work to differentiate between what
was used in secondary literature, and what is an original usage is
itself as much original research as the result. Either Darwin is a
quotable author or he isn't; there's no point to creating a large amount
of weasel room that would allow us to opt out when what he says does not
conform to one's individual point of view.
Ec