When the BADSITES movement first started, I hoped that time would show that it was a policy which was fundamentally incompatible with NPOV. Time did just that, and after MakingLights and MichaelMoore, I think there's a pretty clear understanding that, in the case of notable subjects, BADSITES and NPOV can't coexist. This is what I had hoped people would eventually see. What I never even fathomed, however, was that some people, when faced with a conflict between NPOV and BADSITES, would argue that NPOV is the one that has to go! ------ So, for example, not to pick on Fred, but he seems to be in this camp. Let's assume, as we must, that he wouldn't REALLY have had us redirect Michael Moore to Clown. I'm still puzzled as to what his stance is when he says : Fred further explains,"I did not suggest it or support it. I am only noting what we did. And that the community supports it" It stills seems like Fred's basic understanding of the BADSITES situation is: 1. BADSITES (and its ilk) demand deletion of all links to harassment. 2. Michael Moore was a harasser, his link should have been deleted. 3. But, overwhelming consensus demanded, in spite of policy, that the link still be included. When asked what he learned from the Michael Moore experience, Fred said he learned,"If a powerful leftwing celebrity attacks a rightwing Wikipedia editor on his website, his supporters on Wikipedia should be able, as a practical matter, to prevent removal of links to his site." and "sometimes the bad guys win". 4. NPOV means that all the rules SHOULD be applied equally to everyone. 5. But since prominent subjects will have enough supporters to overturn BADSITES in some cases, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." This isn't consistent with NPOV, but be may as well make it explicit. It just seems like any way you slice it, NPOV and BADSITES don't get along. What shocks me, however, is that even among people who appear to recognize this, I don' see any loss of support for BADSITES. Instead, it seems like there's a grudging acceptance that NPOV is going to have to be bent a little to accomodate the more important goal of BADSITES. Am I right? I'm totally reading tea leaves here when I summarize what I think Fred's POV is. (fred, please correct my errors). But that's the impression I'm left with, after reading the discussion. If NPOV is non-negotiable, why is its application under negotiation? And if a policy or principle comes down which isn't consistent with NPOV-- which one should govern? Alec

But that's the impression I'm left with, after reading the discussion. If NPOV is non-negotiable, why is its application under negotiation? And if a policy or principle comes down which isn't consistent with NPOV-- which one should govern?