On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, John Lee wrote:
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.
Basically, as I understand it, the reason we ought not to have included the lawsuit is not because it's a novel interpretation of the facts, but because the facts have not been published by a secondary source. In theory, we could have articles about every lawsuit ever filed, but I think many people, even inclusionists, would balk at that - and for good reason. Like it or not, "notability" still plays a role (albeit a rather undefined one) in how we think about the encyclopaedia. And although we may not say it outright, it seems the present established status quo is that we establish sufficient notability by the existence of secondary sources.
Basically, as I understand it, 1) you're correct. Information from a court document that hasn't been published in a secondary source isn't notable. 2) Jimbo didn't say it wasn't notable, instead, he stretched original research to claim that even mentioning that A sued B is an "interpretation".