[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Jimmy Wales]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> A WP editor just happens to find a copy of the original suit and
>> writes about it in Joe Foo's article. Nobody anywhere else is writing
>> about Joe Foo getting sued.
>>
>> Since nobody else has written about Joe Foo getting sued, the suit
>> itself is non notable and therefore the information in Joe Foo's
>> article about the suit is removed by Jimbo.
> 
> No. Jimbo never mentioned notability. He removed it on OR and NPOV
> grounds. (Mainly NPOV, I think, the comments about OR were just to
> explain where the writer had gone wrong.)

To clarify then: we should avoid OR, and one of the reasons is that it 
leads to cases like this: where a one-sided interpretation of events, 
hotly disputed by the subject of the biography, events that are probably 
not notable, is included in the article with a plethora of statements 
which are documented by footnotes.

It is probably GOOD original research.  But it is still original 
research. And it is still problematic.

--Jimbo