Quoting Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>:
Alec Conroy wrote:
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?
NPOV should prevail. The recently
claimed conflict is with "No Personal
Attacks". It's hard to imagine a personal attack that's neutral.
But links themselves don't necessarily violate NPOV. That's part the problem.
The conflict is between NPOV and a section of NPA that would allow the removal
of links that contain personal attacks even if an NPOV article would
have those
attacks. If we really believe in NPOV that's problematic.