My position has always been that quoting can never be original research.
It's source-based research. You, as an author, are not creating the words
you're typing, you're repeating them.
So it's not original.
Now if you use those words to refute a secondary-source argument, then
that's a bit more of a borderline position.
But it's not because you're quoting that it's an issue. Rather, it's
because you are casting a new interpretation up against an older one to try to
dispel it.
That's not really our job here as editors.
Will Johnson
In a message dated 12/28/2008 4:01:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com writes:
And the concern that quoting the letter
directly is original research is also very real. Interpretation of the
meaning of what someone has said can be very tricky.
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail,
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now.
(
http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaol…)