We ve gone through it many times before A previously unpublished interpretation of a primary source is considered original research You know that at least you should know that You can argue that your original research was right but of course original research is original research The reasons why your original research doesn t convince me were included in the second paragraph of this You can call me anything vilify me devalue my writing and evoke the image of a snake pit but that won t change a thing about the subject You shouldn t view it as a fight in which there is a winner and a loser