On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I do not agree that stating that A sued B, when you have a court document stating that A sued B, is a "matter of interpretation involving original research." In fact, I find this to be quite strange.
Probably because you are thinking about it the "wrong" way. Wrong in the context of a project which is explicitly conceived as a tertiary source verifiable from reliable secondary sources, that is. How hard will it be to find a newspaper report and cite that? If you can't, then it probably *is* trivial.
Fine, it's trivial. Trivial isn't the same thing as original research.
If the source makes a statement, repeating the same claim made in the statement is *not* a matter of interpretation. Stretching the definition of original research and "interpretation" to claim that repeating something verbatim or near verbatim is "interpretation" makes about as much sense as saying that growing wheat for your own use is interstate commerce. You end up with a policy that has no relation to what the words actually mean, and which can be used to cover anything and everything without limit.