Part of the problem is the "authority and endorsement" issue.
Robert (RK) appears, in the eyes of some Wikipedians, to be making the following argument:
* Palestinians say they want peace, but * Here is the proof that they really want to destroy Israel.
Thus it appears that Robert is trying to get Wikipedia to endorse /his personal POV/ that the Palestinians are lying. Hence the complaints that he's "engaging in original research" or "writing from a POV".
I have occasionally had a similar problem with Sheldon and William. One of us will try to find "proof" that scientists or politicians "really" support or oppose a particular scientific hypothesis. Then one of us will complain that it's just POV.
Well, the Wikipedia will never be a place to resolves political or scientific disputes. Not until we depose our Philosopher King and eliminate his NPOV policy.
Whatever the dispute is, the solution has always been -- and always will be -- to /identify/ the advocates of the various sides and /attribute/ their stated POV to them.
If it's a dispute over whether a quote is authentic, then we can say:
* UPI quoted Arafat as desiring peaceful coexistence with Israel * Jayson Blair, a reporter for the New York Times, hired an Arabic translation who says Arafat's recent speech to Hezbollah and Herbrestah is filled with repeated calls for the immediate and total destruction of Israel.
That leaves the reader with the choice of believing UPI or Jayson Blair. Wikipedia isn't going to tell him whom to believe.
Or if a contributor doesn't think UPI has any credibility, then how about CNN or Fox News or the Washington Post or Al-Jazeera? Or how about an historian or legal scholar? Or any other published source? I don't care who says it, as long as you provide the identity of the speaker. I'll decide for myself if I agree with them or not.
This issue keeps coming up, but the solution is always the same:
LET THE ARTICLE SAY THAT X REPORTS Y ABOUT Z.
Uncle Ed