On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, Jimmy Wales wrote:
This is exactly what makes it original research. You have looked at his life story, and looked at this lawsuit, and drawn the original conclusion (perhaps plausible, perhaps even correct!) that the case reflects negatively on him, showing perhaps something bad about how he presents himself to the world, etc.
But he's not trying to insert that original conclusion in the article. He's using it to make decisions *about* the article.
Decisions *about what to include in an article* can't *possibly* be original research. Otherwise, you could never say "I did a Google search and found a million hits; maybe it's notable" or "there are hundreds of journal articles on it published, maybe it's notable". We couldn't even say "we can't use that, it's an unreliable source" because the claim that something is an unreliable source is itself a conclusion drawn by a Wikipedia editor.