Fred Bauder wrote: The reason for differentiating original research from POV material is that original research may be removed entirely while to satisfy the Neutral Point Of View policy POV material must be included and attributed if there are reliable references which take that point of view or comment on it. It is never of question of cleverly "neutering" POV material, that would be a POV violation itself.
I realize this viewpoint is at considerable divergance with the way some folks interpret NPOV, but if you go back and read the policy, it provides for inclusion in articles of all points of view which can be established by reliable references.
"Reliable references", there's the rub. How do we establish that? Just today I've encountered someone who considered a blog to be a "reliable reference". A couple of days ago it was a "Israelis are Nazis" website. Last week it was a Holocaust Denial website. And of course, these people consider any counter websites you bring to be "unreliable", "POV", "propaganda", etc. What do you do then?
Jay.