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@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=emlcntaolc...)