` ::If you don't agree to the text you have several options: ::*Discuss on this page how it is POV.  Cited quotations of authors who present their own opinion are not POV if they clearly present the statement as being a publiched scholar's opinion.  If the opinions are not stated in an NPOV way, how can they be restated fairly? ::*Counter claims with citations discounting the opinions, or present an opposing view.  In this case, the original text you do not agree to would remain, and you would be adding additional text to balance the opinion. ::*Show how the cited work is the result of such bad sholarship and/or such an extreme fringe view that it deseves little or no mention in the article.    To do this, you have to show that the author(s) are not part of any recognized peer review, they publish POV material written for political purposes, etc... ::It is NOT enough to just say ``It is not NPOV and it advances a specific agenda``.  The question is, can the opinions be framed in such a way that their sources are clear, and are balanced by contrasting opinions.  Someone could remove the entire article by saying it is POV because it presents the opinion of the Catholic Church that Bosco was a Saint.  Certainly the Church has their own specific agenda as well.  Without the opinions and agenda of the Catholic Church, this article wouldn't have much reason to exist.   `