::::::::::::::We are an objective source, so we absolutely need to have clarity without judgement of what their stance is, regardless of how "wrong" the predominate POV says that stance is.  This doesn't have to be clarity to be repeated in the article (particularly if there's no RSes to work from) but a baseline that editors working on the article understand as to be able to place other content in place around it. Articles may be based primarily on content from RS, but it is extremely important to keep in mind when using those RSes what exists beyond that "garden wall" to write effectively about it; in our case, our breakdown of GG is a novel approach compared to all other sources, but that's our ability as a tertiary sources to look at the big picture and organize and incorporate the best sources to our ability, but that can't be done with ones' head stuck to only the given RSes.