Reading the neutral point of view policy page it's plain to see that we
should never, in wikivoice, call subjects of articles disparaging names.
Even if it has been repeatedly used to describe the subject of the
article, even if the sources are reliable sources, Wikipedia must remain
neutral. It's not a matter of whether it is verifiable, nor whether
there is consensus. It's a matter of what is neutral.
Too many times I see partisans edit a page or demand an edit to a locked
page that uses disparaging language about a person, group, or event, and
their edits are reverted or demands to edit are ignored. They are told
that consensus among experience editors has decided that the
verifiability of the phrasing is supported by reliable sources.
Verifiability and consensus are explicitly not able to overrule
neutrality, per the policy on neutral point of view.
I did watch Katherine Maher's TED talk about verifiability versus truth
(it was recommended to me when I brought this subject to the IRC
channels) but this is not an issue of truth. It may be true that
somebody is a jerk. It may be true that reliable sources verifiably call
them a jerk. But it is not neutral to call them a jerk in wikivoice.
Statements of this nature, if they are of encyclopedic value, must be
attributed to the source that has made it.
This is not about any particular article, but I will point out that many
Biographies of Living Persons especially those that are politically
involved or tangentially politically involved suffer from this exact
problem. Given the guidance on those articles specifically, it seems to
me this matter should be regarded with urgency.
So what is to be done? Should we write another policy clarifying essay?
I don't think so. I think we need a task force to find and eliminate
non-neutral statements. While I think that many of them will likely be
removed entirely with an honest reading of the neutral point of view
policy, I think that it's reasonable that most of them will stand when
they are couched correctly and attributed to their sources.
I also think that we need to take an honest hard look at what has
happened to neutral point of view. I have repeatedly been told that I am
having a problem understanding verifiability not truth, but
verifiability does not overrule neutrality. When I bring it up
repeatedly I'm told that I'm being disruptive, but consensus does not
overrule neutrality. I know that my edit history is thin as many editors
are concerned, but that should not be interpreted to mean that I don't
know what I'm saying or that I can't read or understand what's being
said. I don't believe that this is stemming from any sort of genuine
bias or misunderstanding of policy, only a disagreement with how policy
interpretations have evolved over the course of the project.
--
commie