"Andrew Gray" wrote

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?

A fair summary is clearly not any kind of original research. Collation of material is not in itself original research. These are the fundamental processes of encyclopedia production, rather.

I think I'm in the clear - but I'm curious to know where we would draw a line on this sort of thing.

Basically the material should not carry any degree of spin; spin and interpretation should be added only by citation of some authority. But it seems often to happen that the apparent OR is a wording difficulty: i.e. it is not a clear-cut case of original research having happened, but rather than the conclusion is overstated. Saying 'OR' in such a case is somewhat lazy shorthand, I think, for 'UR', or unencyclopedic rhetoric. Really tendentious material, crank or conspiracy theory stuff, has a different profile; and cannot possibly be salvaged by toning down how it is phrased.

Charles

----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information