JAY JG wrote
However,
most of the original research inserted in these articles is more on the
order of "George Bush knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, but he lied to the American public and invaded anyway, in order to
finish the job his father started, and to restore his family honor".
When something is already unverifiable, highly partisan POV, I wonder why it
needs to be labelled 'original research' as well. That's not what OR was
initially about, really, i.e. personal speculations/crank theories. The
cited instance is more naturally treated just as POV; it can be 'neutered'
by a specific citation of someone writing the thought (which we've all read
100 times) somewhere.
In any case, concentrating on contentious politics/contemporary history in
the making is not necessarily going to produce a good set of general
encyclopedia-building principles. NPOV rules; otherwise one is back to
source-criticism and imputing motives.
Charles