JAY JG wrote
Charles Matthews wrote:
When something is already unverifiable, highly partisan POV, I wonder why it needs to be labelled 'original research' as well.
Because what is "POV" is often highly contested, especially by people who aren't that familiar with the policy.
I'm not going to dispute that. On the other hand, these are the people to whom an explanation of the nature of POV writing, in WP terms, will be most helpful.
Original research is often easier to discern and prove when the person in question has no sources to back up
his
theory or belief. Not that I haven't run into the "this isn't original research, these are simply the facts" defence as well.
Trouble is, simply producing a source which agrees - for example some conspiracy theorist - and citing that, then may just sanitise the contribution, without improving the article. Getting the poster further along the learning curve of Wikipedianhood, rather than just making the point, is also very relevant. So we could perhaps agree that 'winning' rhetoric is not always the most desirable way of handling things.
Charles