In a recent posting, Jimbo stated that anything that draws from primary
sources is OR. The section is question was drawn in part from primary
sources (San Diego courts case detail, a Superior court judgement). In
reference to this, Jimbo said:
"I removed the section about the lawsuit as being (quite blatantly) original
research of the sort that Wikipedia must avoid. This is actually an
excellent example of what is wrong with original research in Wikipedia -- by
drawing selectively on sources, the section gave an impression that is
significantly at odds with the views of relevant parties to the dispute, so
that WP:NPOV was badly violated."
The assertion that NPOV is violated because the "other side" was not given
(the other side saying "this is false" on the article talkpage) may have
some merit (I'm not convinced, but that isn't the issue here)
This is very different from what WP:ATT says about original research:
* introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea;
* defines or introduces new terms (neologisms), or provides new definitions
of existing terms
* introduces an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that
argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
* introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of
published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be
attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation
to the topic of the article.
Jimbo is making the assertion that using primary source documents, like
legal rulings, is ALSO original research, despite the fact that common
practice is Wikipedia goes the opposite way. By extension, everything that
cites original sources is OR, right?