Thomas Dalton wrote:
Which neatly brings out another aspect of pushing-OR. I open my copy of "Tudor Constituional Documents", and proceed to write something like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridges_Act_1530 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_Act_1555
The problem is, all that the source contains is (a translation of?) the original text; I've recast it in a more modern style and converted from long and tedious legalese to a fairly comprehensible precis, but I've done it solely working from the original and not from any secondary synopsis of the Act.
Is this original research? If not, why not - where does "rewriting" end and "interpreting" begin? Does it depend on the complexity of the source document?
I think you're ok. You're working from a primary source, so all you can state is facts, but those facts are fine. Rewriting something which isn't open to interpretation isn't OR, however if there are multiple ways to interpret it, choosing one of them certainly is. Of course, determine whether or not something is open to interpretation is very difficult (you may simply have not noticed the alternative). It's probably best to stay as close to the original wording as possible...
If one were to take that position to its logical conclusion no translation would be allowable since they are all original research. In the case of 16th century statutes the language has certainly changed since their promulgation, and the choice of the appropriate modern terminology is not always a simple matter. So we end up with either a modern language version that you would see as original research, or an original version that no-one understands.
Ec