Yury Tarasievich wrote:
This one of five pillars, how is it enforced, exactly?
It's important, but it's not one of the five pillars. In fact the rule
mongers try to expand it to well beyond it's original intent. If it can
be verifiably sourced it's not original research.
Many a vocal "defender of faith" feels safe
to put forward one's own
perception, oft mythologised, as a basis for contention of
"unconvenient" sources, no matter how fundamental.
I had this impression that sources are to be countered only by other
sources, not by somebody's own claims?
Yes, but some would be amazed by that idea.. ;-)
And if not countered, sources fall under the NPOV
policy — all major
academic POV are to be represented, with balanced language?
Sure, all major POVs (not necessarily academic, and some minor ones
included too) are to be includible. Balanced language does not mean
that all POVs get a balanced amount of space. Having only one POV is
common in the early stages of an article. The absence of a differing
POV (assuming one exists) is not an excuse for removing what's there;
it's an encouragement to add the missing material. If a differing POV
exists, and you know that it exists, it would not be very fair-minded to
insist that material be deleted.
Ec