Thank you Just for an outside perspective let me give you an example of how I see WP SPOV being gamed already in the article I know the most about that s not saying much Editors of CRU documents controversy have repeatedly argued that the CRU researchers embroiled in the controversy as scientists represent the the scientific point of view On these grounds they have tried to push inclusion of blog postings by scientists working for the CRU as reliable sources when citing statements about the controversy without qualification e g about the accuracy of the allegations being made against themselves By the same token they have tried to remove statements from reliable sources like the NY times the WSJ and the ICO to the effect that these allegations are not entirely baseless Since scientists are not authorities on metascience this is inappropriate But it has consistently been done with reference to WP SPOV So I don t see WP SPOV as less gameable than WP NPOV So much for pragmatism And since WP NPOV is better than WP SPOV in principal the former should be a principal and the latter should not Do you disagree with this reasoning