Original Research versus Point of View, was Re: [WikiEN-l] The3RR policy sho

[Tony Sidaway]

JAY JG said:
>>Fred Bauder wrote:
>>The reason for differentiating original research from POV material is
>>that original research may be removed entirely while to satisfy the
>>Neutral  Point
>>Of View policy POV material must be included and attributed if there
>>are reliable references which take that point of view or comment on it.
>>It is never of question of cleverly "neutering" POV material, that
>>would be a POV violation itself.
>>
>>I realize this viewpoint is at considerable divergance with the way
>>some folks interpret NPOV, but if you go back and read the policy, it
>>provides for inclusion in articles of all points of view which can be
>>established by reliable references.
>
> "Reliable references", there's the rub.  How do we establish that?
> Just  today I've encountered someone who considered a blog to be a
> "reliable  reference".  A couple of days ago it was a "Israelis are
> Nazis" website.   Last week it was a Holocaust Denial website.  And of
> course, these people  consider any counter websites you bring to be
> "unreliable", "POV",  "propaganda", etc.  What do you do then?
>
I think you're missing the point somewhat.  If I want to represent a point
of view on Wikipedia, say something attributable to Fatah, then of course
the best source for a reference would probably be http://www.fateh.org/ ,
and if I want to represent a point of view that I attribute to Mr Sharon I
might cite some Israeli government website as my reference.  At the same
time the text must be NPOV so that it should draw a clear line between
reporting a point of view and endorsing it.
Similarly, holocaust denial websites are pretty useful for reporting the
views of holocaust deniers, and websites avowing that Israelis are nazis
are useful for reporting the views of people who believe that Israelis are
nazis.
One wouldn't use any of the above sites as authorities on the facts of the
situation, and indeed where the facts are credibly disputed it would be
inappropriate to represent the contentions of any one party to the dispute
as wholly factual.