I've posted on this a few times, and have, as I work through it more,
found the problem more and more glaring. As it stands, WP:NOR
contradicts WP:NPOV.
Here's the problem - the clause that says that claims about primary
sources that require specialist knowledge cannot be made without
secondary sources.
Here's the problem - there is a very famous debate that went on over
three essays between Jacques Derrida and John Searle. Searle's attack
on Derrida - the second of these three essays - is clearly a
significant point of view on Derrida, and NPOV requires reporting it.
Furthermore, as it is a secondary source, it can be summarized with
impunity, as there is no specialist knowledge rule on secondary sources.
Derrida's response is equally self-evidently a significant view, as
Derrida responding to significant attacks is clearly something we need
to report under NPOV. But Derrida's essay - which is long and
technical - requires specialist knowledge to explain. Thus it cannot
be summarized.
The real problem is that this is not an isolated case - any time there
is a debate in an advanced, specialist topic, we are going to run into
this problem - criticism can be summarized directly, while the
subject's response to the criticism cannot. This is a flagrant
violation of NPOV, stacking the deck in every single specialist topic
on Wikipedia. This is positively disastrous for BLPs - poison pen
critics can sandbag a subject left, right, and center, and if the
matter is technical, the subject's responses often cannot be included
in articles, or, if they can, can only be included inasmuch as they
are discussed by others, while the critics are under no such
restriction. Absurd, and clearly a violation of NPOV.
The prohibition on summaries of primary sources that require
specialist knowledge absolutely has to be removed. It is, flat out, a
violation of NPOV.
-Phil