"Alec Conroy" wrote

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?

Please note two major policies concerned with editors' intentions. Intention to harass is the basis of WP:HARASS. Intention to skew articles is what makes failure to observe NPOV actionable (this isn't really too simplistic). Editors who feel some conflict about this should ideally point out the POV problem they see , and leave it at that. It is always supported by policy to address and correct failures of NPOV, but the idea that it must be corrected within the next 60 seconds has never been policy, and is not our way.

Charles

----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam