User:GRuban/NPOV, a detailed breakdown

Neutral point of view is one of the three or five most important policies on the project. It's one of the Five pillars, it's one of the Trifecta. It says: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

In March 2022 I was reviewing the article REI worker organization for Did you know (DYK), in Template:Did you know nominations/REI worker organization. I failed it on one of the DYK criteria, specifically #4, "Within policy – ... Articles must meet the neutral point of view policy... Articles and hooks that ... promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." I wrote that it did not meet the DYK criteria of NPOV as (italics indicate key terms from the rules):
 * it clearly promoted the union organizers' side of the dispute, which was an ongoing dispute since the organizers were trying to establish unions throughout multiple if not all REI stores and hadn't yet done it except in one store.
 * it did not proportionately represent the views of the reliable sources that were being used, as the sources were much more balanced between the different sides of the dispute than our article. I gave examples.

The article author initially didn't understand, then modified a few of the sentences and said that he was done. So I'm writing this page to give a specific explanation in detail. Great detail. Painful detail.

"But George", someone may ask, "does NPOV mean we need to give equal space to the views of both sides? To the union organizers and the company? Should the astronomers get the same space as the flat earthers?" No. NPOV, as it says right in the quote, means we need to represent the views of the reliable sources. As a rule, what we call Reliable sources give noticeably more space to the views of the astronomers than the flat earthers, therefore so should we. As to how much space we give to the views of the organizers and the company, see below.

Article breakdown
Here is the first section of the article at the time of my writing, with each sentence broken down into 3 classifications:
 * favorable to the organizers - gives the views of the organizers, that could be disputed by the company
 * favorable to the company - gives the views of the company, that could be disputed by the organizers
 * neutral - gives a statement of fact, that would not be disputed by either the company or the organizers


 * 2016


 * In 2016[1] a group of REI employees, and former employee Alpine Anderson, in Seattle, Washington, where REI is headquartered, calling themselves "REI Employees for Real Change" created a Facebook page, an Instagram account,[2] and started a petition with Coworker.org, a nonprofit labor group that assists workers in organizing. neutral - both the company and the organizers would agree this was what happened


 * The workers claimed that following a rise in the city's minimum wage, the raises they got were not commensurate with the hike, and many had their hours cut and scheduling was "erratic". - organizers - the company would dispute the raises were not commensurate and scheduling was erratic. "But George", someone may ask, "doesn't the fact we say "claimed" make the sentence NPOV?" Not for the purpose of measuring the NPOV of the article as a whole. It means we, Wikipedia, don't endorse those claims, but still, an article that gives all the views of one side and none of the other would clearly be favorable to that side, even if it said "claimed" with every sentence. This is a sentence that favors the views of the organizers, because it gives their statements that would probably be disputed by the company.


 * In May 2016, at the consumer co-op’s annual members’ meeting, a worker asked then-chief executive officer (CEO) Jerry Stritzke why retail workers hadn't gotten a raise for the prior year in spite of record revenues, saying, "Can we get the signal that we matter too?" - organizers - an emotional statement, and the company would clearly dispute the implications of what the worker says, that the workers don't matter


 * Strizke said that the co-op could not afford to pay all its workers the $15 minimum wage they were asking for, but that he considered them REI's "most important asset".[1][3] - company - the organizers would dispute what Stritzke says here


 * A few months later, in July, the workers organized a union forum at Seattle's city hall with the assistance of the United Food and Commercial Workers and Kshama Sawant, a Seattle City Councilmember and member of Democratic Socialists of America, to advocate for better working conditions and pay, which the group said hadn't kept up with the success of the business. - organizers. If this were broken up into two sentences at "of America", the first part would be neutral, as presumably neither company nor organizers would dispute the forum was organized or the characterization of Sawant. But the part after that is clearly the views of the organizers that the company would contest.


 * At the forum, Anderson alleged she had been terminated on December 12, 2015, from a Portland, Oregon store after she led 55 of her colleagues in organizing around increases in hourly wages and better scheduling. organizers, the company would dispute the reasons for the termination, it may even be illegal


 * One employee, Ash Crew, asked at the forum, "Why does the company that we all love so much, that makes billions of dollars in revenues, not give us enough hours so that we can afford food and rent with our wages, let alone health care and other benefits?" organizers, emotional statement that company would strongly debate


 * Workers alleged that rising living costs in the city had driven workers into food insecurity and homelessness. organizers, likewise


 * The employees further alleged the company of union busting, after sending a company-wide memo discouraging them from unionizing. organizers, "union busting" is a negative emotionally charged allegation the company would dispute. (Also "alleged the company of" is a grammar error - sorry, not relevant to NPOV, but couldn't resist pointing that out.)


 * The memo said, "We just don’t need [a union] at REI." company - clearly the organizers debate this


 * Workers who spoke at the forum were adamant that they were proud to work for REI, and wanted to continue working for the retailer. company - presumably the organizers wouldn't actually dispute these statements, but still, clearly favorable to the company.


 * REI stated that the company believed the full picture was not being properly represented by Councilmember Sawant, reiterating its pay and benefits packages were highly competitive with the market, and that the company diverts 72% of its profits to employees, co-op members, and philanthropy.[4][5][6] - company


 * The workers also sent a letter to management, asking for cost-of-living increases, in addition to the forthcoming minimum-wage increases in the city, access to full time hours, and if enough signatures were collected to file a union petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), unopposed acknowledgement of the union. - neutral or organizers ... debatable, gives the views of the organizers but it's also a factual statement of what is in the letter.


 * The company raised wages in seven cities the following month, including in Seattle, and promised it would implement new scheduling mechanisms to improve the consistency of hours the following October,[5][7][8] which reportedly did not materialize.[9][10][11] - Ehhh - neutral or organizers the first part, up to "October," would be company, but the second part completely reverses the meaning, which is a powerful writing technique to make a point so ... debatable.

Anyway, we have here 7-9 sentences favoring or giving the debatable views of the organizers, 4 of the company.

Source breakdown
Here is a similar breakdown of This is the first source used in the article, the [1] used in that section. It's from The Seattle Times, which is a highly reputable newspaper, it's over a hundred years old, it has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the northwest of the country, it has won 11 Pulitzer prizes, it's a model Reliable source. I can't quote every sentence here for copyright issues, but I'll give the lead few words of each paragraph. Please refer to the archive link above for the actual paragraphs. I'm also going by paragraph rather than by sentence both to reduce the amount I need to quote, and for proportion, because it has noticeably more paragraphs than the article section quoted fully above has sentences. As a news article, the paragraphs are often one sentence anyway.


 * A group calling itself - neutral or organizers, the company would agree that's what the group calls itself, but there is a bit of debatable claim at the end


 * REI enjoys a solid reputation - company - again, the organizers would agree to the reputation, but they could argue whether it was justified


 * But some - organizers, the company would dispute the employees' complaints


 * A group of those - neutral


 * Also there will be - neutral


 * Joe Earleywine, organizing director for UFCW - neutral or organizers, the company would not dispute this is who he is, and might not even dispute his statements as they are surprisingly close to neutral


 * Whether the employees will - neutral


 * The issues - neutral or organizers, not clear whether this is a statement of fact or the company would dispute that it has the same issues as Starbucks, I don't know what issues that refers to specifically


 * The Seattle City Council - neutral


 * Collin Pointon, a sales clerk - neutral or organizers note Pointon isn't saying the company is bad, just that he wants it to be better, not clear whether the company would dispute


 * Pointon, who’s worked - company, shows he likes the job and the hours were reasonable for most of it


 * But since about January - neutral, statement of fact


 * He’s been finding - neutral or organizers, might just be a statement of fact, perhaps the company might like to dispute it, but I'm guessing it can be documented


 * “It makes things really difficult" - organizers, emotional statement


 * He says he was given raises - company


 * But he says - organizers


 * Pointon also wonders - organizers, company not only might dispute that, but does, in the very next sentence


 * REI denies that - company statement


 * The co-op, in response - company statement again


 * “We are aware" - company, describes company statement debatable by organizers


 * “Today REI offers" - company, as above


 * “Last month," - company, as above


 * In the past months - neutral, undisputable statement of fact


 * REI has - neutral, undisputable statement of fact


 * Some petition signers - organizers, disputable claims


 * “After nearly 7 years" - organizers, disputable claims


 * Another wrote: - organizers, disputable claims


 * In May, a longtime worker - organizers, disputable claims


 * “Can we get" - organizers, emotional rather than factual, disputable claim


 * The co-op reported - neutral, undisputable statement of fact


 * Strizke replied - company official statement that the organizers would likely dispute


 * He said - company, as above


 * “We can’t" - company


 * But, Stritzke - company

So, we have 12 paragraphs favoring the company or giving the company's views, somewhere between 9-13 favoring or about the organizers' views.

Conclusion
So the reliable source is roughly balanced between giving the company's views and the organizers' views. Our article section gives roughly twice as much space to the organizers' views. (Which is already an improvement, as one or two of the sentences in that section supporting the company were only put in since I initially failed the article!) But still, it should be clear that our article is not "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", which is what WP:NPOV calls for.

"But George", someone may say, "you only looked at one section of the article, and one source. Isn't it possible that the rest of the article is more reflective of the rest of the sources in the article?" Yes, it's possible, I am using the single section and the single source as representative of the rest of the article and the rest of the sources (mainly because there is a limit to the amount of work I can be expected do for one DYK review here! I've already written as much or more here than in the whole article!) If the single section and the source aren't representative, then that judgment might change. But I read the rest of the article and skimmed several of the sources, and think they are, in fact, representative. I do think our article is not reflective of the views of the reliable sources on this topic. I think it fails WP:NPOV.

"But George", someone may ask, "is this really the way to measure NPOV - count the views by sentences and paragraphs? It's not specifically spelled out in our policy." No, it's not the only way, but it is a way. If someone suggests another way, that might also be a reasonable measurement. But there needs to be some reasonable measurement, otherwise claiming an article is or is not in compliance with NPOV is meaningless, and comes down to "yes it is"; "no it isn't".