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