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).
I feel there will be very examples where NPOV and "no original research" taken together will not solve an issue; and editors should provide references whenever they can so that readers can check for themselves that the "no original research" principle was adhered to. Requiring editors to get in the habit of providing references seems to me to be the key.
Slim