Jimmy-
Apply the same logic above to any particular _text_ in Wikipedia. Should we have a policy that no text should be deleted, because it is inherently POV to say "Look at *this* text, but don't look at *this* text"?
No, because the question is not about whether the image of Nick Berg's head, or any other, should be removed *per se*. The question is whether it should be removed or hidden because of the *offense* it may cause. We may still argue to remove it for other reasons - copyright, usefulness, context, quality .. (I think aside from its offense, there is a significant lack of usefulness in case of the Nick Berg image, for example.)
The same of course applies to text. It would be inherently POV to say "This text must be moved to a separate page because I find it highly offensive" unless the offense is so obvious and so blatant that everyone shares it or respects it. But it would be perfectly legitimate to say about the same text: "This has nothing to do with the subject of this article. It should be summarized and expanded elsewhere." Or: "This particular phrasing, while correct, is needlessly offensive. I have suggested a different wording which is also correct and doesn't have that problem." In fact working towards finding compromises here, as long as they don't have a negative effect on the neutrality of the article, is a requirement for working together.
It's my general sense of this discussion, and a prediction based on what I know of Wikipedians generally. Perhaps I'm wrong. In reading all the comments so far, I think that most people seem to think that in borderline cases, an acceptable compromise is to keep the image, but behind a link.
So far no additional options have been offered in these discussions, such as the technological ones which I have suggested, and the fact that people support such compromises does not mean that they wouldn't support a policy which effectively does not require them.
NPOV is not about majorities, but it *is* a social concept. (I note that my original exposition of NPOV, which I still regard as policy, has been edited out of the Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View article.)
Not by me, but I appreciate that. I think you are mixing different concepts and that this isn't beneficial to the discussion. It's typical for you - when you send out your "Let's all be nice" messages, they are often a blur of different ideas in your head, the idea to create an encyclopedia, the idea to work together in peace, the idea to not endorse specific points of view .. Other people have since taken these ideas, which are all brilliant, and have developed them into coherent, separate policies and goals which all need to be met when working on articles.
The need to work towards compromise *is* an essential component of Wikipedia policy, but it has its own name - Wikiquette. By blurring the concepts we risk sacrificing one for the other. I hope that you won't make an official proclamation to enforce such a blurring of different goals. There are enough problems with NPOV as it is (the policy is unclear on many key points). It would effectively be a step backwards in the evolution of Wikipedia.
While I think that the NPOV policy does not allow for "objective truth", I strongly believe in a puristic interpretation of the policy itself and yes, in the goal (the ideal, as Cunctator put it) of reaching true *neutrality* on issues. That does not mean that I want to abandon Wikiquette, not at all, but I want it to be treated as a separate goal which can often be reached by different means. If only one of them can be reached (which will rarely but sometimes be the case), I believe our mission as an encylopedia requires us to go for being neutral over being nice.
Ideally we should reach a state of stability on an article not through attrition (as in the case of MT) but through being able to say: "Look, this is our policy. If these facts about Scientology / the Mormons / Martha Stewart are correct, they can be included. We may try to find ways to present them in such a way that they are more acceptable to you, but only if this does not have an impact on the neutrality of the article." If people can't work within such a framework, I think they shouldn't work on Wikipedia at all. Let's not forget that we are first and foremost an encyclopedia.
Regards,
Erik