I've posted on this a few times, and have, as I work through it more, found the problem more and more glaring. As it stands, WP:NOR contradicts WP:NPOV.
Here's the problem - the clause that says that claims about primary sources that require specialist knowledge cannot be made without secondary sources.
Here's the problem - there is a very famous debate that went on over three essays between Jacques Derrida and John Searle. Searle's attack on Derrida - the second of these three essays - is clearly a significant point of view on Derrida, and NPOV requires reporting it. Furthermore, as it is a secondary source, it can be summarized with impunity, as there is no specialist knowledge rule on secondary sources.
Derrida's response is equally self-evidently a significant view, as Derrida responding to significant attacks is clearly something we need to report under NPOV. But Derrida's essay - which is long and technical - requires specialist knowledge to explain. Thus it cannot be summarized.
The real problem is that this is not an isolated case - any time there is a debate in an advanced, specialist topic, we are going to run into this problem - criticism can be summarized directly, while the subject's response to the criticism cannot. This is a flagrant violation of NPOV, stacking the deck in every single specialist topic on Wikipedia. This is positively disastrous for BLPs - poison pen critics can sandbag a subject left, right, and center, and if the matter is technical, the subject's responses often cannot be included in articles, or, if they can, can only be included inasmuch as they are discussed by others, while the critics are under no such restriction. Absurd, and clearly a violation of NPOV.
The prohibition on summaries of primary sources that require specialist knowledge absolutely has to be removed. It is, flat out, a violation of NPOV.
-Phil