[WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR

[Thomas Dalton]

> 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...