On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Information without sources that provide a context, constitutes original research - not to the degree that it is untrue, but to the degree that we do not *know* how (un)important it is and are relying on our personal insights instead.
This all sounds about right to me.
If this is your position, then I find it unbelievable.
Any meta decision about how to edit an article and what to include in it involves the Wikipedia editor drawing a conclusion. If inserting a factual statement from a primary source is "original research" because the editor had to draw a conclusion that it was important, then Googling something to determine notability, or even saying "Sheesh, he's George Bush, obviously he's notable" or "he's published 20 New York Times bestsellers, obviously he's notable" is original research.
I do agree that information taken from a primary source like this shouldn't be included in the article, but we need to be correct about why. It shouldn't be included because it isn't notable (or perhaps because of undue weight), not because it's original research. If you call it original research, you are stretching original research to the point where it applies to everything.