Hi everyone, this is my first post. I've been reading the archives about NPOV and "no original research" with interest, as I feel they're the backbone of Wikipedia. It seems to me that, taken together, they provide a solid policy base, with no inherent contradiction. NPOV only refers to Auntie Gertie's views on relativity if those views have been published in a reputable, and for academic subjects this means peer-reviewed, journal. The same goes for non-academic subjects. The views must have been published in a reputable newspaper or other publisher, where articles go through a system comparable to peer review by being checked by writers/journalists, editors, lawyers (or, at least, they're supposed to be).
The problem I've run into is that partisans on different sides of an issue will insist that the sources brought by the other side are "biased" or not reputable. Is CNN reputable? Fox? Al Jazeera? The Jerusalem Post? How about Al Ahram (which, though the oldest daily newspaper in the Arab world, has its controlled by the Egyptian Ministry of Information)? What about even less well known sources?