[WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV

[WJhonson at aol.com]

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 at 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=emlcntaolcom00000025)