This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

NO NPOV

Wikipedia and many of its members contend that a neutral point of view (NPOV) is both desirable and possible. This contention guides most of the contributors and writers in Wikipedia. But not everyone currently participating in Wikipedia agrees with these fundamental assumptions.

For many people, the concept of NPOV is impossible and undesirable. The reasons underlying their position are many and varied. For some, NPOV is a myth that deludes both writers and readers. No NPOV thinkers may argue that it is better to state a point of view and be responsible for it rather than seeking to gain some sort of "objective" consensus which is destined to change later on. As an example, it has been argued that beauty is neither universal nor objective. Therefore, trying to impose, or at least create, a unified meaning for beauty is a hopeless task. Beauty does not derive from the object, but from the viewer. Thus, the number interpretations on what is beautiful depends on the number of viewers. To hold to the view that a "neutral" standard for beauty exists is seen as mistaken, and, such a standard would possibility inhibit the many voices and definitions that fall outside such a standard.

Certain issues (justice, beauty, criminality, among many others), states No NPOV, need direct reference to individual and group contexts. Markers such as national identity, gender, age, geography, religion, etc. mean "neutrality" is never more than a localized, temporary consensus, and is not a universal and permanent form of knowledge. Meaning does not derive from an object, meaning is subjectively assigned to objects by people.

As stated by John Berger in Ways of Seeing, "out of true with the present…assumptions obscure the past. They mystify rather than clarify. The past is never there, waiting to be discovered, to be recognized for exactly what it is." The No NPOV view is that history is, however, waiting to be constructed for what people want it to be.

No NPOV and Wikipedia

The No NPOV arguments raise direct concerns for the level and style of discourse and definition of "what is acceptable" with Wikipedia. For Wikipedians, and other people, who contend that people who adhere to No NPOV should think about removing themselves from Wikipedia since they do not share its "highest ideal," a contradiction appears. Wikipedia seems to justify its existence partly through the argument that a person need to agree any group's "highest ideal" inorder to speak. Wikipedians have often stated that the purpose of Wikipedia is to invite discussions. The asking for the departure of No NPOV adherents directly undermines that ideal.

Inherent problems in arriving at a NPOV

NPOV, takes as one of its premises that "neutral" means no side of an argument is omitted and all may be included. No NPOV questions such a stand by asking questions such as these: Who is to say when all arguments have been included? And if even one argument is excluded, is it still NPOV? How is everyone to decide what is to be included and what is to be excluded? Is not the very act of deciding the criteria for inclusion/exclusion "non-neutral"? How does a group go aboout deciding whether "neutrality" has been achieved and once achieved would future changes risk be "un-neutral"?? Are such decisions made using a simple majority? What if the majority states one article is NPOV one day, but either the group in the majority or the views of the same majority, shift?

For example, if the majority of a population were to democratically decide that the earth is flat, are "the world is round" arguments to be excluded since they are considered to be far fetched?

NPOV also seems to contend that the goal of each article is not to reflect a particular point of view on the topic, but to include various facts and opinions without showing bias towards or against any of them. No NPOV questions whether this is always possible. When mutually exclusive views are housed within the same "argument" the argument runs the risk of becoming self-contraditory. Or, the article maybe little more than a collection of mutually contradicting assertions that generate more confusion than it does understanding.

As one example, some historians contend that on June 25, 1950, North Korean armed forces invaded South Korea, thereby beginning between two separate nations a war intended to spread global communism. Yet, other historians (especially those in North Korea) may argue that the June 25, 1950 was an only extension of conflicts that had been going on for years earlier, that the war was a civil war between two domestic rivals in the same nation, and that UN forces were the foreign invaders who illegally sent troops into the Korean peninsula.

When multiple mutually-exclusive points of view are housed within the same article and no "resolution" is allowed, says the No NPOV, then readers may very well be unable to achieve an understanding of the issues involved.

Moreover, No NPOV argues that the real process in Wikipedia is not simply about inclusion. It is equally (or more) about exclusion. No NPOV states this so as to bring attention to an important part of the process of debate within Wikipedia and to help foster even more careful discussions among members. No NPOV fully supports open debate and the exchange of views so as to enable members to participate, learn, teach, and change. Stated simply, No NPOV is less concerned with answers than it is with the process of questioning.

Links to Existing Debates on NPOV and Wikipedia

1. "In the continuing debate on the merits & problems of Wikipedia, David Shariatmadari writes in openDemocracy of a group project to fix the imbalance in its coverage reflecting "the concerns of your average white, male, 'technically inclined', developed world 20-40 year old": "Wikiproject: Countering Systemic Bias" http:// *** tinyurl.com/n9wu3 (Note: I added "***" since tinyurl is on Wiki-spam list. Sorry.)

2. "Robert McHenry, former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica, counters that the real problem with Wikipedia is that it lacks planning & "a clear vision of what the goal is: http:// *** tinyurl.com/lnlef" (Note: I added "***" since tinyurl is on Wiki-spam list. Sorry.)

3. "Jaron Lanier writes critically of online collectivism in general & Wikipedia in particular in "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism" [1] ,

4. "This triggered responses from various renowned digerati including Esther Dyson & Howard Rheingold [2] "

5. "Robert Y. Eng, Prof. of History/Dept. Chair, Univ. of Redlands Annotated Directory of Net Resources on E & SE Asia: [3]"