[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Ken Arromdee]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> >> Ultimately, I think we should wait until we have some external sources
> >> *for the importance of the case*.  As it stands, it looks to me as if
> >> only Langan, the Mega Society pushers and a few Wikipedia editors
> >> actually give a damn about it.  And that says "undue weight" to me.
> 
> >Sure, it's undue weight.
> >Undue weight isn't original research, just like poor notability isn't original
> >research.  Call it what it is.
> Except that it *is* original research, because it's documented only in
> primary sources.

Being documented only in a primary source is not original research.  The NOR
policy says that they can be used when anyone without specialist knowledge
who reads the primary source can verify that the Wikipedia article matches
the source.  Clearly, anyone who reads the court document can tell that a case
has been filed; a statement that the case has been filed isn't OR.