It seems to me to fall back in part on the nature of the claim. "Interpretation" often crossed over into original research, but quoting can go both ways. If the quotes selected are used to illustrate a point which can be found in secondary literature, that seems fine to me (i.e., quoting directly from _Origin of Species_ to explain Darwin's thoughts on some point in a way which would not be controversial to anyone), but cherry-picking quotations or using quotations to support points not in secondary literature is original research (i.e. quoting directly from _Origin of Species_ to support your own, idiosyncratic and unorthodox interpretation).
If the source is published, quoting from it should be fine, as long as the point of the quoting is not problematic and one could ultimately find the same argument made about the source (implicitly or explicitly) in secondary literature.
FF
On 3/17/06, Jonathan dzonatas@dzonux.net wrote:
Hello,
If someone uses a primary source, should the context be quoted directly? If it is not, would that constitute original research? Another words, if someone takes the primary source and interprets it to his or her own need, it does seem like a re-creation of a primary source. It's like original research in an attempt to make the primary source a secondary source.
I've seen this kind of discussion before. The result was that all scholarly work is always based on secondary scholastic sources. That does not give an answer to the primary sources as above, but it does shed some insight into non-scholarly source creep.
Feedback is appreciated.
Jonathan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l