![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I assume this is clearly the correct thing to do, but in case someone doesn't get it. "Watergate" is not an example of the "-gate" suffix being used to label a scandal. It's the original name of the scandal itself, and its notoriety led to "-gate" becoming the suffix it is today.
As such, it is impossible for "Watergate" to be used as an example of a case where widespread usage has eliminated the contentiousness of referring to what happened as a "scandal". "Contragate" seems to be the best known scandal with a genuine "-gate" suffix. Choor monster ( talk) 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
One busy day and a half of grading later ...
Neither "Watergate" nor "-gate" are neologisms, so your remarks make little sense. They are established parts of the English language, and pretty much universally understood. Worse, you have been obsessing with dictionaries in a completely irrelevant manner. Dictionaries have their own agendas, and you are letting those agendas direct your arguments. For example, dictionaries—even the OED—hold back terms that are floating around. See " argle-bargle morble whoosh" for my favorite example.
This MOS entry is about the use of certain potentially contentious words in WP. The words are chosen by WP editors, with the presumed goal of communicating to WP readers. Among the expectations is fluency in the writing so that the reading goes down clearly and unambiguously. We do not have to wait for dictionaries to catch up. Mutual understanding is the requirement. There is probably not one U.S. reader who does not instantly understand "Benghazigate", and I'm pretty sure most non-Americans get it too. Nowhere is there a WP requirement that language be restricted to words that have made it into at least one major dictionary. In this case, "-gate" is in every dictionary, and the idea that WP is limited to the dozen or so X-gates that are listed in at least one major dictionary is nonsense.
The OED lists "Irangate", for example, and it cites a British newspaper. I suspect the Iran aspect was recognizable to the British but not anything regarding the Contras, but I do not know. I don't think the term ever caught on here in the US. (And if Contragate never caught on overseas, I'll certainly agree it's a poor exemplar for WP on those grounds.)
Moreover, dictionaries for the most part keep their distance from proper nouns. "Watergate" has become not just the name for a certain scandal, but a term for any career-ending political scandal, so on those grounds it makes it into the dictionary. The only other X-gates I see in dictionaries are examples illustrating "-gate" itself, since no other scandal has entered the language that completely. "Waterloo" has similarly entered the language beyond the name of a town and battle and song. (Too bad "-loo" didn't catch on.) Few battles enter the dictionary, but we don't need an MOS permit to use them. Meanwhile, the MOS isn't requiring a "-gate" word to have achieved this level of language penetration. It is simply requiring that it reach a level where its use isn't contentious, as verified by widespread usage.
Actually, the description as written needs to be changed. "Benghazi-gate" is widely used, as a quick Google search reveals (you already know who uses it, of course, pre-emptive proof that the term is contentious). Yet the 2012 Benghazi attack article does not mention the word, even as an alternative name, and there is an extraordinarily stupidly pleonastic Benghazigate scandal redirect, from something that began as a short-lived obviously POV-pushing article. (Nothing links to it; I think it should just be deleted, or at least moved to Benghazigate.) The term pretty much does not belong on WP, because it is inherently contentious and POV-pushing. That's the message of this MOS. Dictionaries listing it or not listing it are completely irrelevant: its meaning is completely clear, so while at the level of its literal meaning, "Benghazigate" is acceptable, at the higher level of what the real meaning of the word is, the word is unacceptable.
And this is another part of the message that I believe is not illustrated by "Watergate". Because Watergate is in the language for uses having nothing to with the actual scandal, so many uses, in fact, that it had to be contracted into a suffix, it fails to illustrate our concerns with X-gate in general.
Let me introduce an example, never before seen in the English language, yet I think every reader will know exactly what I mean: Sologate. I believe it's perfectly clear I'm referring to Han shot first, if not, it would be clear in any relevant context. We might oppose this usage as a ridiculous neologism, but that's not the point of this section of the MOS. No, our concern is that such a term prejudges Lucas and his artistic taste and his attitude to his fans and so on, and we don't do that on WP. Of course, "Han shot first" also makes potentially contentious judgments (not as strongly, and not actually saying "scandal"), but it has become the phrase—I'm assuming the relevant editors have reached a consensus from reliable sources (not dictionaries!) on this—and so in this case the MOS says we give in and allow the contentious phrase. (Note too the article uses "controversial" right away, despite our MOS warnings. It seems acceptable: the article spells out the controversy.)
I'm sorry this has run on so long, but you have been focusing on dictionaries and neologisms, which are mostly irrelevant to the issues here. Choor monster ( talk) 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it pov to refer to a political movement as "reform." For example, I may wish to change a number of basic Wikipedia policies. So I call them "Wikipedia reform" because it suits my agenda (but maybe not yours :)! Somehow, this (theoretical movement along with other editors with their own agendas) makes it into the encyclopedia. Is it proper to term it "Wikipedia reform?" Student7 ( talk) 19:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The section on unsupported attributions leaps straight into, and is pretty much confined to, a discussion on 'weasel words'. Weasel words are not a necessary ingredient of unsupported attributions, nor is the use of weasel words confined to unsupported attributions. Perhaps a longer explanation, with a paragrapgh on weasel words as a type or example?
There is also a need to clarify the definition of weasel words. In particular, the stipulation: "when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated" needs to be clear that the claim referred to is the claim of authority, otherwise it leads to the possibility that: "Some observers state that 14.265% of cats (Felis Catus) are entirely black" is OK, because the (second) claim in the sentence is neither vague nor ambiguous.
Finally, all of the other sections in the article use examples of weasel words/wording.
Wayne 05:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
(To be placed under the Expressions that lack precision section)
very —, really —, quite —, somewhat —, ....
Additional thoughts on the word "very"
- "So avoid using the word very because it’s lazy. A man is not very tired, he is exhausted. Don’t use very sad, use morose. Language was invented for one reason, boys – to woo women – and, in that endeavor, laziness will not do. It also won’t do in your essays." ~John Keating, Dead Poet's Society
- "Substitute ‘damn’ every time you’re inclined to write very; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." ~ Mark Twain
- "Very is the most useless word in the English language and can always come out. More than useless, it is treacherous because it invariably weakens what it is intended to strengthen." ~ Florence King
Intensifiers like very (or not very, etc.) used to "magnify" the following word should together be replaced with an appropriate single-word verb, adjective, or adverb. [refs 1] [refs 2]
some ---, several ---, a number of ---, numerous ---, many ---, few ---, ....
Quantifiers like several, some, many, few can be imprecisely interpreted, both in value and in POV. It's preferable when possible to give a precise numerical value ("99 bottles of beer"), a range ("5-6 days"), or an upper/lower limit ("over 15 members", "nearly 50 speeches"), or just leave off the quantifier completely ("has written several articles about" -> "has authored articles about").
I boldly added this. Someone reverted it within seconds screaming "WP:CONSENSUS! WP:CONSENSUS!". I think it reflects straightforward, good practices that are taught commonly in writing classes. Now I leave it here until someone cares to add a version back. -- Netoholic @ 10:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: More reverts on this matter are here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like this discussion might benefit from an outside opinion.
I don't understand where the proposal relating to intensifiers is coming from. They're used all the time and they make perfectly good sentences (sorry, I couldn't think of a single adjective that would properly capture the sense of "perfectly good"). The source given in support of this idea actually only covers the word "very", and it is from a creative writing blog, so not necessarily a very reliable guide to what we should do on WP (sorry, again, I don't know what "very reliable" would be as a single word - it's harder than you might think, isn't it?).
The second proposal is easier to understand, but I'm not very sure ("Certain"! This one's "certain", isn't it? Did I get it right?) about it all the same. If a precise (or approximate) number is known, then it would be better give that. But, then again, I'm not sure most editors need telling this. We tend to use vague quantifiers when they are all we have, and you can often (sorry, I mean "between 25 and 35 percent of the time") make a phrase less precise, or even inaccurate, by removing one. For example, "Many people eat in restaurants" may be preferable to "People eat in restaurants", because the latter might be taken to mean that all people eat in restaurants, or that people in general do so, neither of which is what is intended. Unless you can get your hands on a survey, I don't think there's an easy way around this. Formerip ( talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you made me regret using a specific example. Those
changes you made are not all examples of improved style. You changed There are several guard stations and work camps throughout the forest.
to Guard stations and work camps dot the forest.
Dot the forest? You changed "too many restrictions" to "undue restrictions" which is a change of sense; "too many" means "more than needed in quantity" not that all restrictions are not due. A headscratcher that directly undermines your advice is where you replaced There are many trails throughout the forest
with There are abundant trails throughout the forest
. I don't think we should have MOS guidelines asking people to specifically avoid "many" just because some people prefer the word "abundant". Some of your deletions were improvements, but we shouldn't ask people to wrestle sentences away from common words to match the example of other changes there.
__ E L A Q U E A T E
23:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Rooftop swimming pools are unsuitable for very tall buildings.
If the source we're using for the above phrase says "very tall" in it, we want to avoid direct plagiarism (since we're otherwise using the exact words from the article without proper indication), so then we should be saying:
Rooftop swimming pools are "unsuitable for very tall buildings" according to ''Rooftop Pools Magazine''.
But what if the source does not use "very tall" but gives a height measurement or comparison or doesn't give a clear indication? We need our editors to avoid putting arbitrarily lazy intensifiers like "very" into the articles, since the resulting statement can never be objective, and so cannot be verifiable. "Very" has no place in our encyclopedia unless we're doing a direct quote. All other uses are editor interpretation of sources (OR or SYNTH) by applying an imprecise and lazy intensifier. If anyone can think of a legitimate use of the intensifier "very" when the sources do not also use that word, let's discuss. -- Netoholic @ 09:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Usually these two words/phrases or some variation thereof are used to describe a person's death from a disease such as cancer or something of the sort. Would these words be considered neutral? Connormah ( talk) 13:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I've come across either of these words a few times, particularly in reference to the release of a song or music video. For example, take a look at this excerpt from the article about a song called " In Your Words" by Rebecca Black:
Filming for the video was finished in October 2012, and behind-the-scenes photos for the video were released less than a week after the video was done shooting. A teaser of the video was uploaded on November 9, 2012, and the video was officially released the same day as the single.
In that context at least, I'd consider the word official (or officially) as an adjective (or adverb) a peacock term, though I don't see the word explicitly listed there. The word does have other meanings different from this context (e.g., government official, in which case it's a noun). Official supposedly denotes "authenticity", but from the over-use I've seen, the meaning has become obscured. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 19:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Stated" is a universally-agreed-upon neutral verb, but we use it so much that prose can suffer, so neutral synonyms are desirable. When somebody states that "X is like Y", I assume it's also neutral to say they're "describing" X as Y, or "characerizing" X as Y. Does either of these seem problematic? (Context: this was reverted, which surprised me. But the topic area is highly fraught.) Thanks. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 10:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
On inspection, this isn't primarily a dispute over word choice, but about neutrality: to what extent does Wikipedia assert that acupuncture is pseudoscience (flavouring it so with words such as "found" or "noted") or suggest more that this is an opinion ("characterized", "described", etc.). I suggest that this perma-discussion is better continued on the Acupuncture article's Talk page. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree this would have been better at Talk:acupuncture (with perhaps a concurrent fork here), and with minor refactoring, have moved it there [1] -- see Talk:Acupuncture#.22Stated_it_is_X.22.2C_.22described_it_as_X.22 -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 12:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Are being added as a "contentious" label, which is obviously rubbish. If sources call something a human rights abuse then so would an article, there are nothing contentious about it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The
WP:LABEL section currently includes reference to the use of "pseudo-". We need to make a clarification regarding the term, "pseudoscience." The reason for this, is that the content guideline,
WP:FRINGE (which has equal authority with this guideline) specifically discusses pseudoscience (in
this section) and in general, obligates editors to "call a spade a spade", supported of course by reliable sources. Additionally, there is an
Arbcom ruling on pseudoscience topics that explicitly authorizes use of the term "pseudoscience" in specified contexts. Therefore, I suggest that we add the following to this section:
"As per Per With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy,
Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such." Per the content guideline,
Fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. In addition, there is an
Arbcom ruling on pseudoscience topics that explicitly authorizes use of the term "pseudoscience" in specified contexts."
Is this OK with everyone? Very open to suggestions for improvement. Thanks.
Jytdog (
talk) 01:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (amended, per below
Jytdog (
talk) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)) (added reference to NPOV policy which also authorizes use of the term. Missed that Facepalm
Jytdog (
talk)
13:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC))
moving this into the guideline now. thanks again all. Jytdog ( talk) 23:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you've solved that!
My question most often comes up in a personal context: "pseudoscientist. Material in article, cites, categories (!), etc. Let's assume that WP:BLP as been solved. Yes, astrology has been derided since the 19th century and before. Does that make, for example, Nancy Reagan, a "pseudoscientist"? I am annoyed by personal labels more than "objective" ones. Let us assume, for the moment, that the person did not spend but a fraction of their time on the pseudoscience; one-time, or peripheral occupation. I can even tolerate "Category: People who practice astrology". My annoyance is with "astrologist" for someone for whom that wasn't a fulltime occupation. Student7 ( talk) 13:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The guide uses the word "claim" in "Claims about what people say..." but then later says that "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." Why isn't the guide following its own prescription and using "Statements" instead of "Claims"? I think we should resolve this contradiction by dialling back the assertion that "said" etc is "almost always neutral and accurate". if the claim is outrageous/contradicted etc in my books using the word "claim" would be more "neutral and accurate" than use of a word that would imply a false parity with better evidenced statements. In my experience WP:CLAIM is used to argue that "claim" may never be used. This should be left to case-be-case considerations.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 23:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
X said 'Y'. This other reliable source doubts 'Y'.than it is to have the fuzzier
X claims 'Y'. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether I mean to fault American public prudishness or WP editors' strong aversion to euphemisms, but it occurs to me that "became romantically involved" is one of several euphemisms for "had sex with." Madonna (entertainer) gives this example: "... Madonna became romantically involved with musician Dan Gilroy." a search reveals another two thousand usages, only a few of them not euphemistic. -- ke4roh ( talk) 02:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed in Theocracy, that the use of the negative with "claim" seemed useful, even effective! I don't want to mess with the wording in the MOS policy, but did want to point that out. e.g. The pope/Caliphs did not claim that everything they did was directed by God. That sort of thing. Student7 ( talk) 19:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I propose to remove "ethnic cleansing" and "collateral damage" from the section "Euphemisms" as neither term "lacks precision" (see the previous sections listed above in the talk page archives for more details on this. -- PBS ( talk) 14:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
See Ethnic Cleansing#Definitions
In reviewing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Bosnian Genocide Case in the judgement of Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights quoted from the ICJ ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case to draw a distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide.
It [i.e. ethnic cleansing] can only be a form of genocide within the meaning of the [Genocide] Convention, if it corresponds to or falls within one of the categories of acts prohibited by Article II of the Convention. Neither the intent, as a matter of policy, to render an area “ethnically homogeneous”, nor the operations that may be carried out to implement such policy, can as such be designated as genocide: the intent that characterizes genocide is “to destroy, in whole or in part” a particular group, and deportation or displacement of the members of a group, even if effected by force, is not necessarily equivalent to destruction of that group, nor is such destruction an automatic consequence of the displacement. This is not to say that acts described as 'ethnic cleansing' may never constitute genocide, if they are such as to be characterized as, for example, 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part', contrary to Article II, paragraph (c), of the Convention, provided such action is carried out with the necessary specific intent ( dolus specialis), that is to say with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region. As the ICTY has observed, while 'there are obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as 'ethnic cleansing' ' (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 562), yet '[a] clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide. |ECHR quoting the ICJ. [1]
The Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 defined ethnic cleansing as "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas."
Ethnic cleansing is not an euphemism for genocide or mass murder it is one group removing "by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas". The violence may lead to crimes against humanity and genocide but ethic cleansing is not an euphemism for either term any more than "war" is a euphemism for mas murder or genocide. -- PBS ( talk) 20:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) explanation of the distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide as quoted above has anyone any objections to removing that pair? -- PBS ( talk) 00:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The comment on seasons was recently deleted and then restored. With the delete Rjensen commented "Relative time references: seasons are fixed for the place the event happened--where the reader lives is irrelevant".
The reason why it was introduced was because people who live in different hemispheres often do not know what the seasons are in the other hemisphere. This came very clear during edits to the Falklands war. The Argentinians invade in autumn 1982 the British task force set sail in spring 1982 was it a pre-emptive strike? If it was then they were very slow getting there because the British did not arrive until late autumn early winter.
It also has affects in other places for an Indian reader reading about the Burma Campaign they know when the Monsoon season starts and ends, but does that help a Scot to understand when "the British advance in 1943 was halted by the start of the Monsoon season"?
-- PBS ( talk) 15:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The word "accidental" means, according to one definition, " arising from extrinsic causes." This is the definition used in the following quote:
"There’s no criminality," an NYPD spokesman told Metro. "That’s why they call it an accident." [2]
If we are to believe law enforcement and the dictionary definition above, accidents don't arise from negligence. But we know some car crashes do. That makes the word "accident" as used in the colloquial sense for any car crash, a euphemism that exonerates the driver from blame. So I suggest adding this to the list of euphemisms to avoid. -- Traal ( talk) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best forum for this discussion, but it's the best one I can think of for now.
What about the potential for the terms "pejorative" and "term of art" to be used as weasel words? Examples:
I don't mind so much when they're in article bodies and sourced, but they're frequently pushed into the leads - sometimes the lead sentences - and disputes ensue (most recently at Gun show loophole).
In addition, it now seems these categories may be used to similar ends: Category:American political neologisms and Category:Dysphemisms. I think many words/terms in these categories do not belong there. (There are current discussions related to these [6] [7] at the gun show loophole talk page.) -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Some users seem to be circumventing WP:TERRORIST by using the term in category and article names rather than in the bodies of articles, is this allowed? Gob Lofa ( talk) 15:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Gob Lofa, in Faceless Enemy's post of 03:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC) s/he asked, "Examples?" I know that I have developed Category:Organizations designated as terrorist and Category:Designated terrorist organizations associated with Islam although perhaps these should more accurately be moved to Category:Groups governmentally designated as terrorist and Category:Groups associated with Islam governmentally designated as terrorist organizations as per common name and re reference to the nations making the designation. If you have a problem with editor action please cite the cases and perhaps ping the editors involved. Please also specify how you think editors have been circumventing WP:TERRORIST. The title of the page is "words to watch". Greg Kaye 08:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
How do the principals of avoiding words like claim apply in topics about supernatural events? Do we assume that the credibility of experts of supernatural things is in question due to the nature of the paranormal?-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 23:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
One of the usual disputes regarding political articles often has to do with identifying organizations or persons with political labels. Always when I've seen done as POV-pushing, it has been so that editors with a conservative slant want to mark the opponents as liberals and the editors with the liberal-slant want to mark the opponents as conservatives. A 2013 Daily Telegraph article calls these kind of labels "health warnings" [8]. The purpose is similar as with weasel words: "oh, the critics are just some liberals". It shouldn't be due to refer to a foundation as conservative/liberal on every occasion, but on the other hand sometimes labels are required for presenting a dispute in a thorough way, and the result is fine if the editor is careful. Usually when it's done in a disruptive way, there's a number of unrelated low-quality sources bundled together to make the claim for the label, i.e. "is a conservative author [1][2][3][4]".
Does anyone know has this ever been discussed at MOS, and should something about it be drafted? -- Pudeo ' 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC added on 16 March
My view is that this section (in a content on a page entitled "words to watch" and which begins with the statement "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia") is unnecessarily and unhelpfully proscriptive. It is also contradictory saying that there are no forbidden words and then labelling a certain set of adjectives as "labels" and stating that they are best avoided. For instance I would have no problem in describing, say, Nazi philosophy and motivations as being "racist". In a slightly more contentious topic there is currently a discussion at Talk:ISIL on the use of the use of the widely used description "extremist" in the lead. In other cases I think that various topics might be described as fundamentalist without any form of slur being offered. In fact in some cases, and depending on the nature of the true fundamentals of the topic, this particular wording might well present them in an unrepresentationally favourable light. In the specific title The Beatles (terrorist cell) I think that its least problematic part is the terrorist reference. The four individuals concerned are not The Beatles and there is no evidence that I know of that the four of them act as an individual cell and on this basis I have requested an article move to the title ISIL militants nicknamed the Beatles with discussion here. Otherwise I think that the terrorist description is arguably very apt as, to my interpretation, it has been the videoed killing of captives including aid workers that largely substantiated ISIL's international designations as a terrorist organization.
I think that it is very fair that the words mentioned be categorised as "words to watch" but I think that it would be wrong to be prescriptive in our approach. My worry though is that, in a minority of cases, we may lose our ability to give pithy descriptions of topics. Our main priority is to build an informative encyclopaedia and, IMO, not necessarily to pander to any politically correct agenda. Greg Kaye 09:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
*Support. I change my mind.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
20:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree . Shortcut does no harm. --
Mr. Guye (
talk) 17:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Propose adding myth and mythology to the content on "words to watch" in WP:LABEL in regard to all uses of the word. I don't intend by this that the words be excluded from use but just, if alternative presentations can be given, then these should be considered. This is in line with the general spirit of the article which begins with the text: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias."
At present the text of WP:LABEL begins, " Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
In the thread immediately above I have suggested that this can read, " Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and [may be] best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
This proposal follows a long discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities in which continued and unanimous opposition was given to the use of the disambiguation "... (mythology)".
The problem here is perceived WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in which present day faiths seem to be automatically classified as "religions", "faiths" etc. while previously practised faiths get regularly classified as "myths" and "mythologies". Words like "folklore" regularly don't even get a look in. My contention is that practitioners of present day religions have established bias by being instrumental in developing the description of prior forms of belief as myth.
According to the online Oxford dictionary definition of: myth, there seems to be no major problem with the first definition.
If this was viewed in isolation there might be no problem as the word might be considered to neutrally present a narrative on a religious theme. I am not sure when or how the second definition definition was developed/was first used but I consider this to present the problem.
The result, I think, is that present day religions are falsely differentiated from previous faiths.
I think that the problem here goes far beyond a mere #Expression of doubt but that the usage goes as far as to WP:ASSERT falsity when the same stance is not adopted with present day faiths. See the articles Creation myth (which I am not necessarily arguing against) and Genesis creation narrative for examples of this.
A positive way forward I think would be actions such as to favour links such articles as Ancient Greek religion as opposed to Greek mythology. This, I think, would reduce current discrepancy.
I will notify the religion and mythology wikiprojects of this discussion. Greg Kaye 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should only use "myth" and "mythology" when necessary and simply be more specific otherwise. Both terms are widely used in an academic, non-pejorative manner but the definition of myth can vary greatly from scholar to scholar, and it does have pejorative semantic element, especially in colloquial English. It's also often reserved for anything that isn't a "living religion". Of course, we're using the term in an academic sense, not a colloquial manner, but I think that the solution to this issue is to simply to be specific wherever possible. I don't think [DEITY NAME (mythology)] is ever an appropriate disambiguation for these reasons. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Related concern This seems part of a larger program the broadly replace the term "mythology" with the term "religion", for example the following edits (inappropriately in my view) replace "Greek mythology" with "ancient Greek religion":
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]. These are only a few of what seems to be many many more. I would respectfully ask that these edits be reverted untill we can come to consensus concerning proper usage.
Paul August
☎
15:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Egsan Bacon, Maunus, Paul August, Mr. Guye, for an illustration of the extent that the interpretation as mythology is being pushed please look at the following;
Word such as religion and pantheon are in existance and yet every sphere of practice in all these cases is defined as "mythology". In each case there were associated religious practices with such aspects as priests, temples and sacrifice. It is a vast POV push to define all of this as solely as mythology and the only way that I see it is that people here have serious issues with WP:OWN. I want to ask what you think can be done to balance things out. As far as I can see, even from the earliest of Earth mother type practice, religion comes first.
Greg Kaye 23:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not that "articles related to the Abrahamic religions keep myth[-]related terminologies at a comparative distance"; rather, some editors who really don't like those words go to extra effort to keep them from ever being applied in those articles, even when it's actually appropriate to do so. This is a WP:NPOV problem, but it's one of elevating Abrahamic religions as somehow "beyond" the concept of mythology. The last thing we need to do is escalate and spread this special-exceptionalism by effectively declaring all religions and purported religions magically immune to this terminology, rather than instead doing the right thing, which is insisting that it be used consistently. I've already referred above to the Christian myth of Joseph's flowering staff; if we have an article on this, it should refer to it as mythological. It's not even, technically speaking, apocryphal.
An additional consideration is that for many ancient religions, or purported religions, we have nothing at all but mythology. We have no other vestiges, except perhaps a few ritual objects from alleged sacred sites (see postprocessual archaeology and its detractors for why such interpretations can be controversial, or see the book Motel of the Mysteries for a humorous take on it), or perhaps a third-party description by an enemy's scribe, like Tacitus writing about the Gauls and Germani. Exactly what constitutes "religion" per se from other forms of spirituality, and non-devotional cultural beliefs, is a difficult question, and it's not our job to force the label "religion" or "religious" on mythological material that may not actually qualify.
Much of what survives of both Irish and Welsh mythology (in both cases filtered through later Christian scribes who bowdlerized to an unknowable extent) does not appear to be religious at all, but, like much of the Norse sagas, a grandiose and euhemerizing take on what a pre-literate culture can remember of its own actual history. While some of O'Rahilly's historical model of ancient Irish history, based on these mythological cycles, has been shown by more recent research to have numerous flaws, a substantial portion of it has not, and is almost certainly correct in general outline. Parts of it have been bolstered by genetic and other evidence. We have a similar problem with the Arthurian cycle and the Matter of Britain more broadly, as it wildly mixes history, legend/myth, more prosaic folklore, and vestiges of ancient Celtic religion. It's absolutely wrong in most context to refer to Arthur, Merlin, etc. as "deities" or as part of a "religion", but they are absolutely mythological at their core, commingled with poorly recorded actual history, and then layered upon by legend and outright fiction over the intervening centuries. (I don't mean to belabor northwestern European mythology, I can just speak about it with more certainty).
Yet another factor to consider is that the modern, Western concept of religion is not shared across all cultures, nor even within modern Western culture (millions of Westerns identify as having strong spiritual beliefs but not religion, or even an staunch opposition to religion). In many mytho-spiritual systems, the figures we too-conveniently label "gods" in English are nothing at all like the God/Allah of Abrahamic religion, nor even the distant, and otherworldly gods of the Greek and Roman pantheons. They may simply be one's own venerated ancestors, or heroic immortals believed to walk among us at will, or something ineffable that infuses all living thing, or all things, and so on. "Religion" is often actually a very poor label, and we systemically use it overbroadly and vaguely. "Mythology", on the other hand, has a more distinct meaning: A recorded narrative cycle of stories involving the supernatural and how it is thought by a culture to relate to its origins and place in the natural world (usually including death and an expected afterlife). The key part is "a recorded narrative cycle"; i.e., a mythology is essentially a primary source that we can consult, while a religion has no such concrete definition. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
PS: At Triple deity I did, on closer inspection, find "Hindu mythology", without the context making clear that it referred to a mythological cycle, rather than the religion more generally. Rather that start a debate about that, it seemed more sensible to change all the table headings from labels like "Hindu mythology" and "Greek mythology" to simply "Hindu" and "Greek". This also fixed the problem that the Arthurian cycle was being referred to as "mythology" when it's actually legend. (The distinction is important, but need not be dwelt on here.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The quote box being used without context in WP:LABEL was grossly misleading and unnecessary. We have excellent text that describes the problems with contentious labels. The quote (of no one in particular, mind you) is simply not needed and should be removed. If you want to explain a particular word in the text, feel free to offer some text for a possible explanation here.
jps ( talk) 18:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
wp:label applies. Defining a living person in negative terms by those openly hostile to them is both a violation of npov and blp." [16] That's not a case of, in your words above, "
users might think that it's okay to simply remove all those words wherever they see them which is highly problematic" and Arzel didn't refer to the list of examples. Nevertheless, within an hour you'd deleted the entire series from WP:LABEL [17] and you went on to try deleting a group of nine words. You'll understand that it looks as if you really just wanted to delete "denialist" and the rest were collateral damage. NebY ( talk) 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice if there were some text about why "denialist" is a label. Would you care to write some for inclusion? I deleted others because there was no explanation of how they were labels properly. I don't understand why we have words listed which are not mentioned in the text. jps ( talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't necessarily have a problem with the titles " flood myths" and " creation myths" as these are used equally in reference to the wide range of "religions" that contain these narratives. However, it may be notable that:
I would personally interpret "flood legend" as per WP:PRECISE but this is less supported.
There is no denying though that "flood myth" is widely used. The main issue for me is the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in "myth" related terminology favour of modern religions over ancient faiths. Wording is not evenly used. Howver mine is a different issue to yours. Greg Kaye 09:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm just saying that words that fall in the quotebox should at least be explained in the text. jps ( talk) 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, regarding this and this, I reverted because I see no WP:Consensus for changing "are" to "may be." And seeing as this is a WP:Guideline, you should have WP:Consensus for it. Like NebY told you above in this section, "that has no support as yet." I disagree with changing "are" to "may be" because those are words that should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles, unless widely supported by WP:Reliable sources and used in a way that adheres to WP:Due weight. We need no softening of language in that regard. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
PBS, given what I stated above about WP:In-text attribution, how is your edit, which reverted mine, an improvement? I fail to see how my wording "gutted whole point of the paragraph." The whole point of the paragraph is a mess, and should be fixed. Like I stated above, that wording makes it seem like editors "automatically have to use WP:Intext-attribution; they do not. WP:Intext-attribution is clear that it can mislead. I have certainly seen it applied wrongly." Flyer22 ( talk) 14:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added "iconic" to the list of peacock/puffery terms. It's still used quite often in senses where it should be avoided and where it contributes nothing to a sentence. Things that are truly iconic can always be described in terms that clearly state what the iconic thing "stands for" and why. Perhaps it's been considered before, as it's a very prevalent word, but it hasn't been mentioned recently on this talk page. Roches ( talk) 22:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This was undone, and I undid the revert. Many of the words on the list are often used correctly ("landmark", "hit"), and the fact that "iconic" does have legitimate uses does not mean that it shouldn't be on the list. If there are "enough examples", do consider removing another word instead. At this point in time, "iconic" is being overused. It will go out of vogue eventually, and then it won't need to be on the list anymore. Roches ( talk) 02:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
There has to be an entire class of words to watch similar to "only," a perfectly good word when used npov. "Nebraska is the only state to have a unicameral legislature." But not, "Texas only emits 3 x 10 to the ninth bushels of carbon monoxide daily." We don't really automatically have an idea whether carbon monoxide expressed in bushels is a small figure or a large when when used in the context of a fairly large, populated state. There should be a separate subsection that warns users from using this class or words in a pov manner. One "class" is words used to qualify data. Data should be "qualified" using other data, not adjectives nor adverbs. And maybe even providing a short list of common words, of which "only" ranks in the first 10 or 20 IMO. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 19:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this to Emmy Noether a good edit?
It's undiscussed. Perhaps 109.158.49.196 would care to comment here? I assume it was done on the basis of WP:PEACOCK, specifically as interpreting this to mean "no adjectives of comparison whatsoever". Yet we cover the major and notable topics here, so sometimes a topic subject is the major work on a subject or a "leading mathematician" of their time writing "seminal papers" with "elegant" arguments and "profound" influences on others.
This was not a trivial article, it was already a FA and had been widely reviewed by others. These adjectives were justified in their use. Exceptional yes, but sometimes we're describing an exceptional subject and we need glowing praise with which to do it. That's appropriate accuracy in a narrow context, not hyperbole.
Or are all adjectives inherently subjective, unencyclopedic and to be removed on sight? Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The second sentence uses nonparallel construction in "expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view." An "or" should be added before "clichéd", or (preferably, IMHO) the "that" before "endorse" should be removed. Simple fix, but I can't edit this page 2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC ( talk) 10:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt
I think despite should be added to this section, please comment Govindaharihari - WP:EDITORIAL - ( talk) 22:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose that the following words are unambiguously contentious and would need reliable sources before being used in Wikipedia's voice:
The other words I find are not so unambiguously contentious and our text either doesn't discuss them or is ambiguous about them (c.f. myth).
Comments?
jps ( talk) 14:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think John Carter makes a good case for "criminal" to be included. As for cult and sect, I'm less convinced that they are perennially problematic as SMcCandlish puts it. A "sect" can be a very neutral designation and, until relatively recently, so was the term "cult". On the other hand, I think the current use of "cult" is pretty much always pejorative and it is eschewed in the academic literature, so let's include that one. I aslo think SMcCandlish makes some excellent points about some of other other words currently used. Let's try again. Here is a list of the most problematic terms, as far as I can tell that the consensus states:
Are there others which are big red flags?
jps ( talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the list above is far better than the one currently being used in the sense that it includes a higher percentage of simply unambiguous problems. I don't think much (or anything really) would have to change in the text for this replacement. Please let me know your thoughts.
jps ( talk) 21:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
... perverted, cult, extremist, terrorist, bigot, criminal, crank...
Can I suggest this content?:
... pervert, cultist, terrorist, bigot, criminal, crank...
,
... perverted, bigot, terrorist, criminal, crank, cult...
or
... bigot, crank, criminal, cult, perverted, terrorist...
The first suggestion presents content in the form of personal descriptions.
The second suggestion was written just from personal view that "perverted, cult" read oddly and that cult made a pithy ending. Its just subjective opinion.
The last suggestion just puts content in alphabetical order.
Greg Kaye 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
... bigot, crank, cultist, pervert, controversial ...
I think we need to take a step back, and look at actual cases of dispute. Do not adding anything to this list unless there's a record of a nearly intractable dispute that has arisen about it's use, and remove anthing from it that doesn't meet that qualification. Otherwise we're simply engaging in instruction creep and trying to "fix what ain't broke". This is a form of "terriblizing". Much of what I see above appears to be trying to pre-emptively address everything bad we can imagine; the problem with this, of course, is that there's practically no limit to our imagination of what maybe, possibly, somehow could lead to some sort of dispute some time in the future.
And even an analysis of past disputes has to examine what the dispute was actually about. Just because there was some kind of dispute doesn't mean we have a "word to watch" on our hands. This is almost certainly the case with both "terrorist" and "criminal". It's not that the words are inherently PoV-laden, like "bigot", "pervert", and "extremist"; it's that who is labeling whom, in the real world, may reflect an external bias. For this reason, such labels should be qualified and attributed: "a convicted criminal", with legal sources; "defined as a terrorist group by" what specific sources. By way of contrast, we would never say "was a pervert according to ...", or "is a bigot organization according to ...". These two categories of terms are quite distinct. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
PS: "Controversial" is in the first category; either we have sources that there's a controvery, or we don't. It's a purely factual matter, and we do in fact use the word quite frequently, often with section headings that use the word. Thousands of our article subjects (human and otherwise) are literally notable for nothing but the controversy surrounding them. It's absurd to think we can't refer to them as controversial, when the entire article will be about the controversy, what is controversial, and who's controverting what. "Controversial" isn't, well, controversial, here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes. I 100% agree with this. Should we start a sandbox for it? jps ( talk) 14:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Update: Today an edit by jps in effect reverted an edit made by PBS in April 2010. The same subject of the edit -- removing "denialist" -- was discussed on this section of this talk page and there was no consensus, as jps knows. I reverted until jps can demonstrate that there's something new to discuss. Perhaps jps could also state which editors (quoting jps's edit summary) cited this page "as policy inappropriately around Wikipedia". Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps) was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Is Martin Mcguinness a terrorist? Was the Warrenpoint ambush a terrorist attack (it was launched against Armed British soldiers)? In all three cases there are literally dozens and dozens of reliable sources that state that they were so should the lead of each article mention in the editorial voice of the article that they were terrorists and the attack was carried out by IRA terrorists rather than IRA volunteers? If so then why did the American press tend to shy away from calling IRA gunmen "terrorists" and why did the British press inevitably do so? Reliable sources are not necessarily unbiased, particularly when national self-interest is involved. Eg the American government and most of the American media used to state that the Israeli use of the tactics the Israelis described as "targeted killing" were illegal assassinations until 9/11. After 9/11 when the US government found it expedient to adopt the same tactics, then the US government came up with lots of justifications both moral and legal for such tactics, with lots of support in the US media for the use of such tactics, (prior to the US use of "targeted killing" those in the US who wrote in favour of the tactic tend to be overt supporters of Israel). -- PBS ( talk) 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=refs>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=refs}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I assume this is clearly the correct thing to do, but in case someone doesn't get it. "Watergate" is not an example of the "-gate" suffix being used to label a scandal. It's the original name of the scandal itself, and its notoriety led to "-gate" becoming the suffix it is today.
As such, it is impossible for "Watergate" to be used as an example of a case where widespread usage has eliminated the contentiousness of referring to what happened as a "scandal". "Contragate" seems to be the best known scandal with a genuine "-gate" suffix. Choor monster ( talk) 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
One busy day and a half of grading later ...
Neither "Watergate" nor "-gate" are neologisms, so your remarks make little sense. They are established parts of the English language, and pretty much universally understood. Worse, you have been obsessing with dictionaries in a completely irrelevant manner. Dictionaries have their own agendas, and you are letting those agendas direct your arguments. For example, dictionaries—even the OED—hold back terms that are floating around. See " argle-bargle morble whoosh" for my favorite example.
This MOS entry is about the use of certain potentially contentious words in WP. The words are chosen by WP editors, with the presumed goal of communicating to WP readers. Among the expectations is fluency in the writing so that the reading goes down clearly and unambiguously. We do not have to wait for dictionaries to catch up. Mutual understanding is the requirement. There is probably not one U.S. reader who does not instantly understand "Benghazigate", and I'm pretty sure most non-Americans get it too. Nowhere is there a WP requirement that language be restricted to words that have made it into at least one major dictionary. In this case, "-gate" is in every dictionary, and the idea that WP is limited to the dozen or so X-gates that are listed in at least one major dictionary is nonsense.
The OED lists "Irangate", for example, and it cites a British newspaper. I suspect the Iran aspect was recognizable to the British but not anything regarding the Contras, but I do not know. I don't think the term ever caught on here in the US. (And if Contragate never caught on overseas, I'll certainly agree it's a poor exemplar for WP on those grounds.)
Moreover, dictionaries for the most part keep their distance from proper nouns. "Watergate" has become not just the name for a certain scandal, but a term for any career-ending political scandal, so on those grounds it makes it into the dictionary. The only other X-gates I see in dictionaries are examples illustrating "-gate" itself, since no other scandal has entered the language that completely. "Waterloo" has similarly entered the language beyond the name of a town and battle and song. (Too bad "-loo" didn't catch on.) Few battles enter the dictionary, but we don't need an MOS permit to use them. Meanwhile, the MOS isn't requiring a "-gate" word to have achieved this level of language penetration. It is simply requiring that it reach a level where its use isn't contentious, as verified by widespread usage.
Actually, the description as written needs to be changed. "Benghazi-gate" is widely used, as a quick Google search reveals (you already know who uses it, of course, pre-emptive proof that the term is contentious). Yet the 2012 Benghazi attack article does not mention the word, even as an alternative name, and there is an extraordinarily stupidly pleonastic Benghazigate scandal redirect, from something that began as a short-lived obviously POV-pushing article. (Nothing links to it; I think it should just be deleted, or at least moved to Benghazigate.) The term pretty much does not belong on WP, because it is inherently contentious and POV-pushing. That's the message of this MOS. Dictionaries listing it or not listing it are completely irrelevant: its meaning is completely clear, so while at the level of its literal meaning, "Benghazigate" is acceptable, at the higher level of what the real meaning of the word is, the word is unacceptable.
And this is another part of the message that I believe is not illustrated by "Watergate". Because Watergate is in the language for uses having nothing to with the actual scandal, so many uses, in fact, that it had to be contracted into a suffix, it fails to illustrate our concerns with X-gate in general.
Let me introduce an example, never before seen in the English language, yet I think every reader will know exactly what I mean: Sologate. I believe it's perfectly clear I'm referring to Han shot first, if not, it would be clear in any relevant context. We might oppose this usage as a ridiculous neologism, but that's not the point of this section of the MOS. No, our concern is that such a term prejudges Lucas and his artistic taste and his attitude to his fans and so on, and we don't do that on WP. Of course, "Han shot first" also makes potentially contentious judgments (not as strongly, and not actually saying "scandal"), but it has become the phrase—I'm assuming the relevant editors have reached a consensus from reliable sources (not dictionaries!) on this—and so in this case the MOS says we give in and allow the contentious phrase. (Note too the article uses "controversial" right away, despite our MOS warnings. It seems acceptable: the article spells out the controversy.)
I'm sorry this has run on so long, but you have been focusing on dictionaries and neologisms, which are mostly irrelevant to the issues here. Choor monster ( talk) 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it pov to refer to a political movement as "reform." For example, I may wish to change a number of basic Wikipedia policies. So I call them "Wikipedia reform" because it suits my agenda (but maybe not yours :)! Somehow, this (theoretical movement along with other editors with their own agendas) makes it into the encyclopedia. Is it proper to term it "Wikipedia reform?" Student7 ( talk) 19:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The section on unsupported attributions leaps straight into, and is pretty much confined to, a discussion on 'weasel words'. Weasel words are not a necessary ingredient of unsupported attributions, nor is the use of weasel words confined to unsupported attributions. Perhaps a longer explanation, with a paragrapgh on weasel words as a type or example?
There is also a need to clarify the definition of weasel words. In particular, the stipulation: "when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated" needs to be clear that the claim referred to is the claim of authority, otherwise it leads to the possibility that: "Some observers state that 14.265% of cats (Felis Catus) are entirely black" is OK, because the (second) claim in the sentence is neither vague nor ambiguous.
Finally, all of the other sections in the article use examples of weasel words/wording.
Wayne 05:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
(To be placed under the Expressions that lack precision section)
very —, really —, quite —, somewhat —, ....
Additional thoughts on the word "very"
- "So avoid using the word very because it’s lazy. A man is not very tired, he is exhausted. Don’t use very sad, use morose. Language was invented for one reason, boys – to woo women – and, in that endeavor, laziness will not do. It also won’t do in your essays." ~John Keating, Dead Poet's Society
- "Substitute ‘damn’ every time you’re inclined to write very; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." ~ Mark Twain
- "Very is the most useless word in the English language and can always come out. More than useless, it is treacherous because it invariably weakens what it is intended to strengthen." ~ Florence King
Intensifiers like very (or not very, etc.) used to "magnify" the following word should together be replaced with an appropriate single-word verb, adjective, or adverb. [refs 1] [refs 2]
some ---, several ---, a number of ---, numerous ---, many ---, few ---, ....
Quantifiers like several, some, many, few can be imprecisely interpreted, both in value and in POV. It's preferable when possible to give a precise numerical value ("99 bottles of beer"), a range ("5-6 days"), or an upper/lower limit ("over 15 members", "nearly 50 speeches"), or just leave off the quantifier completely ("has written several articles about" -> "has authored articles about").
I boldly added this. Someone reverted it within seconds screaming "WP:CONSENSUS! WP:CONSENSUS!". I think it reflects straightforward, good practices that are taught commonly in writing classes. Now I leave it here until someone cares to add a version back. -- Netoholic @ 10:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: More reverts on this matter are here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 13:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like this discussion might benefit from an outside opinion.
I don't understand where the proposal relating to intensifiers is coming from. They're used all the time and they make perfectly good sentences (sorry, I couldn't think of a single adjective that would properly capture the sense of "perfectly good"). The source given in support of this idea actually only covers the word "very", and it is from a creative writing blog, so not necessarily a very reliable guide to what we should do on WP (sorry, again, I don't know what "very reliable" would be as a single word - it's harder than you might think, isn't it?).
The second proposal is easier to understand, but I'm not very sure ("Certain"! This one's "certain", isn't it? Did I get it right?) about it all the same. If a precise (or approximate) number is known, then it would be better give that. But, then again, I'm not sure most editors need telling this. We tend to use vague quantifiers when they are all we have, and you can often (sorry, I mean "between 25 and 35 percent of the time") make a phrase less precise, or even inaccurate, by removing one. For example, "Many people eat in restaurants" may be preferable to "People eat in restaurants", because the latter might be taken to mean that all people eat in restaurants, or that people in general do so, neither of which is what is intended. Unless you can get your hands on a survey, I don't think there's an easy way around this. Formerip ( talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you made me regret using a specific example. Those
changes you made are not all examples of improved style. You changed There are several guard stations and work camps throughout the forest.
to Guard stations and work camps dot the forest.
Dot the forest? You changed "too many restrictions" to "undue restrictions" which is a change of sense; "too many" means "more than needed in quantity" not that all restrictions are not due. A headscratcher that directly undermines your advice is where you replaced There are many trails throughout the forest
with There are abundant trails throughout the forest
. I don't think we should have MOS guidelines asking people to specifically avoid "many" just because some people prefer the word "abundant". Some of your deletions were improvements, but we shouldn't ask people to wrestle sentences away from common words to match the example of other changes there.
__ E L A Q U E A T E
23:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Rooftop swimming pools are unsuitable for very tall buildings.
If the source we're using for the above phrase says "very tall" in it, we want to avoid direct plagiarism (since we're otherwise using the exact words from the article without proper indication), so then we should be saying:
Rooftop swimming pools are "unsuitable for very tall buildings" according to ''Rooftop Pools Magazine''.
But what if the source does not use "very tall" but gives a height measurement or comparison or doesn't give a clear indication? We need our editors to avoid putting arbitrarily lazy intensifiers like "very" into the articles, since the resulting statement can never be objective, and so cannot be verifiable. "Very" has no place in our encyclopedia unless we're doing a direct quote. All other uses are editor interpretation of sources (OR or SYNTH) by applying an imprecise and lazy intensifier. If anyone can think of a legitimate use of the intensifier "very" when the sources do not also use that word, let's discuss. -- Netoholic @ 09:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Usually these two words/phrases or some variation thereof are used to describe a person's death from a disease such as cancer or something of the sort. Would these words be considered neutral? Connormah ( talk) 13:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I've come across either of these words a few times, particularly in reference to the release of a song or music video. For example, take a look at this excerpt from the article about a song called " In Your Words" by Rebecca Black:
Filming for the video was finished in October 2012, and behind-the-scenes photos for the video were released less than a week after the video was done shooting. A teaser of the video was uploaded on November 9, 2012, and the video was officially released the same day as the single.
In that context at least, I'd consider the word official (or officially) as an adjective (or adverb) a peacock term, though I don't see the word explicitly listed there. The word does have other meanings different from this context (e.g., government official, in which case it's a noun). Official supposedly denotes "authenticity", but from the over-use I've seen, the meaning has become obscured. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 19:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Stated" is a universally-agreed-upon neutral verb, but we use it so much that prose can suffer, so neutral synonyms are desirable. When somebody states that "X is like Y", I assume it's also neutral to say they're "describing" X as Y, or "characerizing" X as Y. Does either of these seem problematic? (Context: this was reverted, which surprised me. But the topic area is highly fraught.) Thanks. -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 10:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
On inspection, this isn't primarily a dispute over word choice, but about neutrality: to what extent does Wikipedia assert that acupuncture is pseudoscience (flavouring it so with words such as "found" or "noted") or suggest more that this is an opinion ("characterized", "described", etc.). I suggest that this perma-discussion is better continued on the Acupuncture article's Talk page. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 05:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree this would have been better at Talk:acupuncture (with perhaps a concurrent fork here), and with minor refactoring, have moved it there [1] -- see Talk:Acupuncture#.22Stated_it_is_X.22.2C_.22described_it_as_X.22 -- Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 12:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Are being added as a "contentious" label, which is obviously rubbish. If sources call something a human rights abuse then so would an article, there are nothing contentious about it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The
WP:LABEL section currently includes reference to the use of "pseudo-". We need to make a clarification regarding the term, "pseudoscience." The reason for this, is that the content guideline,
WP:FRINGE (which has equal authority with this guideline) specifically discusses pseudoscience (in
this section) and in general, obligates editors to "call a spade a spade", supported of course by reliable sources. Additionally, there is an
Arbcom ruling on pseudoscience topics that explicitly authorizes use of the term "pseudoscience" in specified contexts. Therefore, I suggest that we add the following to this section:
"As per Per With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy,
Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such." Per the content guideline,
Fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. In addition, there is an
Arbcom ruling on pseudoscience topics that explicitly authorizes use of the term "pseudoscience" in specified contexts."
Is this OK with everyone? Very open to suggestions for improvement. Thanks.
Jytdog (
talk) 01:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (amended, per below
Jytdog (
talk) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)) (added reference to NPOV policy which also authorizes use of the term. Missed that Facepalm
Jytdog (
talk)
13:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC))
moving this into the guideline now. thanks again all. Jytdog ( talk) 23:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you've solved that!
My question most often comes up in a personal context: "pseudoscientist. Material in article, cites, categories (!), etc. Let's assume that WP:BLP as been solved. Yes, astrology has been derided since the 19th century and before. Does that make, for example, Nancy Reagan, a "pseudoscientist"? I am annoyed by personal labels more than "objective" ones. Let us assume, for the moment, that the person did not spend but a fraction of their time on the pseudoscience; one-time, or peripheral occupation. I can even tolerate "Category: People who practice astrology". My annoyance is with "astrologist" for someone for whom that wasn't a fulltime occupation. Student7 ( talk) 13:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The guide uses the word "claim" in "Claims about what people say..." but then later says that "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." Why isn't the guide following its own prescription and using "Statements" instead of "Claims"? I think we should resolve this contradiction by dialling back the assertion that "said" etc is "almost always neutral and accurate". if the claim is outrageous/contradicted etc in my books using the word "claim" would be more "neutral and accurate" than use of a word that would imply a false parity with better evidenced statements. In my experience WP:CLAIM is used to argue that "claim" may never be used. This should be left to case-be-case considerations.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 23:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
X said 'Y'. This other reliable source doubts 'Y'.than it is to have the fuzzier
X claims 'Y'. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether I mean to fault American public prudishness or WP editors' strong aversion to euphemisms, but it occurs to me that "became romantically involved" is one of several euphemisms for "had sex with." Madonna (entertainer) gives this example: "... Madonna became romantically involved with musician Dan Gilroy." a search reveals another two thousand usages, only a few of them not euphemistic. -- ke4roh ( talk) 02:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed in Theocracy, that the use of the negative with "claim" seemed useful, even effective! I don't want to mess with the wording in the MOS policy, but did want to point that out. e.g. The pope/Caliphs did not claim that everything they did was directed by God. That sort of thing. Student7 ( talk) 19:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I propose to remove "ethnic cleansing" and "collateral damage" from the section "Euphemisms" as neither term "lacks precision" (see the previous sections listed above in the talk page archives for more details on this. -- PBS ( talk) 14:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
See Ethnic Cleansing#Definitions
In reviewing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Bosnian Genocide Case in the judgement of Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights quoted from the ICJ ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case to draw a distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide.
It [i.e. ethnic cleansing] can only be a form of genocide within the meaning of the [Genocide] Convention, if it corresponds to or falls within one of the categories of acts prohibited by Article II of the Convention. Neither the intent, as a matter of policy, to render an area “ethnically homogeneous”, nor the operations that may be carried out to implement such policy, can as such be designated as genocide: the intent that characterizes genocide is “to destroy, in whole or in part” a particular group, and deportation or displacement of the members of a group, even if effected by force, is not necessarily equivalent to destruction of that group, nor is such destruction an automatic consequence of the displacement. This is not to say that acts described as 'ethnic cleansing' may never constitute genocide, if they are such as to be characterized as, for example, 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part', contrary to Article II, paragraph (c), of the Convention, provided such action is carried out with the necessary specific intent ( dolus specialis), that is to say with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region. As the ICTY has observed, while 'there are obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as 'ethnic cleansing' ' (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 562), yet '[a] clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide. |ECHR quoting the ICJ. [1]
The Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 defined ethnic cleansing as "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas."
Ethnic cleansing is not an euphemism for genocide or mass murder it is one group removing "by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas". The violence may lead to crimes against humanity and genocide but ethic cleansing is not an euphemism for either term any more than "war" is a euphemism for mas murder or genocide. -- PBS ( talk) 20:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) explanation of the distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide as quoted above has anyone any objections to removing that pair? -- PBS ( talk) 00:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The comment on seasons was recently deleted and then restored. With the delete Rjensen commented "Relative time references: seasons are fixed for the place the event happened--where the reader lives is irrelevant".
The reason why it was introduced was because people who live in different hemispheres often do not know what the seasons are in the other hemisphere. This came very clear during edits to the Falklands war. The Argentinians invade in autumn 1982 the British task force set sail in spring 1982 was it a pre-emptive strike? If it was then they were very slow getting there because the British did not arrive until late autumn early winter.
It also has affects in other places for an Indian reader reading about the Burma Campaign they know when the Monsoon season starts and ends, but does that help a Scot to understand when "the British advance in 1943 was halted by the start of the Monsoon season"?
-- PBS ( talk) 15:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The word "accidental" means, according to one definition, " arising from extrinsic causes." This is the definition used in the following quote:
"There’s no criminality," an NYPD spokesman told Metro. "That’s why they call it an accident." [2]
If we are to believe law enforcement and the dictionary definition above, accidents don't arise from negligence. But we know some car crashes do. That makes the word "accident" as used in the colloquial sense for any car crash, a euphemism that exonerates the driver from blame. So I suggest adding this to the list of euphemisms to avoid. -- Traal ( talk) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the best forum for this discussion, but it's the best one I can think of for now.
What about the potential for the terms "pejorative" and "term of art" to be used as weasel words? Examples:
I don't mind so much when they're in article bodies and sourced, but they're frequently pushed into the leads - sometimes the lead sentences - and disputes ensue (most recently at Gun show loophole).
In addition, it now seems these categories may be used to similar ends: Category:American political neologisms and Category:Dysphemisms. I think many words/terms in these categories do not belong there. (There are current discussions related to these [6] [7] at the gun show loophole talk page.) -- Lightbreather ( talk) 18:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Some users seem to be circumventing WP:TERRORIST by using the term in category and article names rather than in the bodies of articles, is this allowed? Gob Lofa ( talk) 15:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Gob Lofa, in Faceless Enemy's post of 03:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC) s/he asked, "Examples?" I know that I have developed Category:Organizations designated as terrorist and Category:Designated terrorist organizations associated with Islam although perhaps these should more accurately be moved to Category:Groups governmentally designated as terrorist and Category:Groups associated with Islam governmentally designated as terrorist organizations as per common name and re reference to the nations making the designation. If you have a problem with editor action please cite the cases and perhaps ping the editors involved. Please also specify how you think editors have been circumventing WP:TERRORIST. The title of the page is "words to watch". Greg Kaye 08:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
How do the principals of avoiding words like claim apply in topics about supernatural events? Do we assume that the credibility of experts of supernatural things is in question due to the nature of the paranormal?-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 23:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
One of the usual disputes regarding political articles often has to do with identifying organizations or persons with political labels. Always when I've seen done as POV-pushing, it has been so that editors with a conservative slant want to mark the opponents as liberals and the editors with the liberal-slant want to mark the opponents as conservatives. A 2013 Daily Telegraph article calls these kind of labels "health warnings" [8]. The purpose is similar as with weasel words: "oh, the critics are just some liberals". It shouldn't be due to refer to a foundation as conservative/liberal on every occasion, but on the other hand sometimes labels are required for presenting a dispute in a thorough way, and the result is fine if the editor is careful. Usually when it's done in a disruptive way, there's a number of unrelated low-quality sources bundled together to make the claim for the label, i.e. "is a conservative author [1][2][3][4]".
Does anyone know has this ever been discussed at MOS, and should something about it be drafted? -- Pudeo ' 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC added on 16 March
My view is that this section (in a content on a page entitled "words to watch" and which begins with the statement "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia") is unnecessarily and unhelpfully proscriptive. It is also contradictory saying that there are no forbidden words and then labelling a certain set of adjectives as "labels" and stating that they are best avoided. For instance I would have no problem in describing, say, Nazi philosophy and motivations as being "racist". In a slightly more contentious topic there is currently a discussion at Talk:ISIL on the use of the use of the widely used description "extremist" in the lead. In other cases I think that various topics might be described as fundamentalist without any form of slur being offered. In fact in some cases, and depending on the nature of the true fundamentals of the topic, this particular wording might well present them in an unrepresentationally favourable light. In the specific title The Beatles (terrorist cell) I think that its least problematic part is the terrorist reference. The four individuals concerned are not The Beatles and there is no evidence that I know of that the four of them act as an individual cell and on this basis I have requested an article move to the title ISIL militants nicknamed the Beatles with discussion here. Otherwise I think that the terrorist description is arguably very apt as, to my interpretation, it has been the videoed killing of captives including aid workers that largely substantiated ISIL's international designations as a terrorist organization.
I think that it is very fair that the words mentioned be categorised as "words to watch" but I think that it would be wrong to be prescriptive in our approach. My worry though is that, in a minority of cases, we may lose our ability to give pithy descriptions of topics. Our main priority is to build an informative encyclopaedia and, IMO, not necessarily to pander to any politically correct agenda. Greg Kaye 09:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
*Support. I change my mind.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
20:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree . Shortcut does no harm. --
Mr. Guye (
talk) 17:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Propose adding myth and mythology to the content on "words to watch" in WP:LABEL in regard to all uses of the word. I don't intend by this that the words be excluded from use but just, if alternative presentations can be given, then these should be considered. This is in line with the general spirit of the article which begins with the text: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias."
At present the text of WP:LABEL begins, " Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
In the thread immediately above I have suggested that this can read, " Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and [may be] best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
This proposal follows a long discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities in which continued and unanimous opposition was given to the use of the disambiguation "... (mythology)".
The problem here is perceived WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in which present day faiths seem to be automatically classified as "religions", "faiths" etc. while previously practised faiths get regularly classified as "myths" and "mythologies". Words like "folklore" regularly don't even get a look in. My contention is that practitioners of present day religions have established bias by being instrumental in developing the description of prior forms of belief as myth.
According to the online Oxford dictionary definition of: myth, there seems to be no major problem with the first definition.
If this was viewed in isolation there might be no problem as the word might be considered to neutrally present a narrative on a religious theme. I am not sure when or how the second definition definition was developed/was first used but I consider this to present the problem.
The result, I think, is that present day religions are falsely differentiated from previous faiths.
I think that the problem here goes far beyond a mere #Expression of doubt but that the usage goes as far as to WP:ASSERT falsity when the same stance is not adopted with present day faiths. See the articles Creation myth (which I am not necessarily arguing against) and Genesis creation narrative for examples of this.
A positive way forward I think would be actions such as to favour links such articles as Ancient Greek religion as opposed to Greek mythology. This, I think, would reduce current discrepancy.
I will notify the religion and mythology wikiprojects of this discussion. Greg Kaye 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think we should only use "myth" and "mythology" when necessary and simply be more specific otherwise. Both terms are widely used in an academic, non-pejorative manner but the definition of myth can vary greatly from scholar to scholar, and it does have pejorative semantic element, especially in colloquial English. It's also often reserved for anything that isn't a "living religion". Of course, we're using the term in an academic sense, not a colloquial manner, but I think that the solution to this issue is to simply to be specific wherever possible. I don't think [DEITY NAME (mythology)] is ever an appropriate disambiguation for these reasons. :bloodofox: ( talk) 21:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Related concern This seems part of a larger program the broadly replace the term "mythology" with the term "religion", for example the following edits (inappropriately in my view) replace "Greek mythology" with "ancient Greek religion":
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]. These are only a few of what seems to be many many more. I would respectfully ask that these edits be reverted untill we can come to consensus concerning proper usage.
Paul August
☎
15:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Egsan Bacon, Maunus, Paul August, Mr. Guye, for an illustration of the extent that the interpretation as mythology is being pushed please look at the following;
Word such as religion and pantheon are in existance and yet every sphere of practice in all these cases is defined as "mythology". In each case there were associated religious practices with such aspects as priests, temples and sacrifice. It is a vast POV push to define all of this as solely as mythology and the only way that I see it is that people here have serious issues with WP:OWN. I want to ask what you think can be done to balance things out. As far as I can see, even from the earliest of Earth mother type practice, religion comes first.
Greg Kaye 23:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not that "articles related to the Abrahamic religions keep myth[-]related terminologies at a comparative distance"; rather, some editors who really don't like those words go to extra effort to keep them from ever being applied in those articles, even when it's actually appropriate to do so. This is a WP:NPOV problem, but it's one of elevating Abrahamic religions as somehow "beyond" the concept of mythology. The last thing we need to do is escalate and spread this special-exceptionalism by effectively declaring all religions and purported religions magically immune to this terminology, rather than instead doing the right thing, which is insisting that it be used consistently. I've already referred above to the Christian myth of Joseph's flowering staff; if we have an article on this, it should refer to it as mythological. It's not even, technically speaking, apocryphal.
An additional consideration is that for many ancient religions, or purported religions, we have nothing at all but mythology. We have no other vestiges, except perhaps a few ritual objects from alleged sacred sites (see postprocessual archaeology and its detractors for why such interpretations can be controversial, or see the book Motel of the Mysteries for a humorous take on it), or perhaps a third-party description by an enemy's scribe, like Tacitus writing about the Gauls and Germani. Exactly what constitutes "religion" per se from other forms of spirituality, and non-devotional cultural beliefs, is a difficult question, and it's not our job to force the label "religion" or "religious" on mythological material that may not actually qualify.
Much of what survives of both Irish and Welsh mythology (in both cases filtered through later Christian scribes who bowdlerized to an unknowable extent) does not appear to be religious at all, but, like much of the Norse sagas, a grandiose and euhemerizing take on what a pre-literate culture can remember of its own actual history. While some of O'Rahilly's historical model of ancient Irish history, based on these mythological cycles, has been shown by more recent research to have numerous flaws, a substantial portion of it has not, and is almost certainly correct in general outline. Parts of it have been bolstered by genetic and other evidence. We have a similar problem with the Arthurian cycle and the Matter of Britain more broadly, as it wildly mixes history, legend/myth, more prosaic folklore, and vestiges of ancient Celtic religion. It's absolutely wrong in most context to refer to Arthur, Merlin, etc. as "deities" or as part of a "religion", but they are absolutely mythological at their core, commingled with poorly recorded actual history, and then layered upon by legend and outright fiction over the intervening centuries. (I don't mean to belabor northwestern European mythology, I can just speak about it with more certainty).
Yet another factor to consider is that the modern, Western concept of religion is not shared across all cultures, nor even within modern Western culture (millions of Westerns identify as having strong spiritual beliefs but not religion, or even an staunch opposition to religion). In many mytho-spiritual systems, the figures we too-conveniently label "gods" in English are nothing at all like the God/Allah of Abrahamic religion, nor even the distant, and otherworldly gods of the Greek and Roman pantheons. They may simply be one's own venerated ancestors, or heroic immortals believed to walk among us at will, or something ineffable that infuses all living thing, or all things, and so on. "Religion" is often actually a very poor label, and we systemically use it overbroadly and vaguely. "Mythology", on the other hand, has a more distinct meaning: A recorded narrative cycle of stories involving the supernatural and how it is thought by a culture to relate to its origins and place in the natural world (usually including death and an expected afterlife). The key part is "a recorded narrative cycle"; i.e., a mythology is essentially a primary source that we can consult, while a religion has no such concrete definition. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
PS: At Triple deity I did, on closer inspection, find "Hindu mythology", without the context making clear that it referred to a mythological cycle, rather than the religion more generally. Rather that start a debate about that, it seemed more sensible to change all the table headings from labels like "Hindu mythology" and "Greek mythology" to simply "Hindu" and "Greek". This also fixed the problem that the Arthurian cycle was being referred to as "mythology" when it's actually legend. (The distinction is important, but need not be dwelt on here.) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The quote box being used without context in WP:LABEL was grossly misleading and unnecessary. We have excellent text that describes the problems with contentious labels. The quote (of no one in particular, mind you) is simply not needed and should be removed. If you want to explain a particular word in the text, feel free to offer some text for a possible explanation here.
jps ( talk) 18:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
wp:label applies. Defining a living person in negative terms by those openly hostile to them is both a violation of npov and blp." [16] That's not a case of, in your words above, "
users might think that it's okay to simply remove all those words wherever they see them which is highly problematic" and Arzel didn't refer to the list of examples. Nevertheless, within an hour you'd deleted the entire series from WP:LABEL [17] and you went on to try deleting a group of nine words. You'll understand that it looks as if you really just wanted to delete "denialist" and the rest were collateral damage. NebY ( talk) 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice if there were some text about why "denialist" is a label. Would you care to write some for inclusion? I deleted others because there was no explanation of how they were labels properly. I don't understand why we have words listed which are not mentioned in the text. jps ( talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't necessarily have a problem with the titles " flood myths" and " creation myths" as these are used equally in reference to the wide range of "religions" that contain these narratives. However, it may be notable that:
I would personally interpret "flood legend" as per WP:PRECISE but this is less supported.
There is no denying though that "flood myth" is widely used. The main issue for me is the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in "myth" related terminology favour of modern religions over ancient faiths. Wording is not evenly used. Howver mine is a different issue to yours. Greg Kaye 09:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm just saying that words that fall in the quotebox should at least be explained in the text. jps ( talk) 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, regarding this and this, I reverted because I see no WP:Consensus for changing "are" to "may be." And seeing as this is a WP:Guideline, you should have WP:Consensus for it. Like NebY told you above in this section, "that has no support as yet." I disagree with changing "are" to "may be" because those are words that should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles, unless widely supported by WP:Reliable sources and used in a way that adheres to WP:Due weight. We need no softening of language in that regard. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
PBS, given what I stated above about WP:In-text attribution, how is your edit, which reverted mine, an improvement? I fail to see how my wording "gutted whole point of the paragraph." The whole point of the paragraph is a mess, and should be fixed. Like I stated above, that wording makes it seem like editors "automatically have to use WP:Intext-attribution; they do not. WP:Intext-attribution is clear that it can mislead. I have certainly seen it applied wrongly." Flyer22 ( talk) 14:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have added "iconic" to the list of peacock/puffery terms. It's still used quite often in senses where it should be avoided and where it contributes nothing to a sentence. Things that are truly iconic can always be described in terms that clearly state what the iconic thing "stands for" and why. Perhaps it's been considered before, as it's a very prevalent word, but it hasn't been mentioned recently on this talk page. Roches ( talk) 22:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This was undone, and I undid the revert. Many of the words on the list are often used correctly ("landmark", "hit"), and the fact that "iconic" does have legitimate uses does not mean that it shouldn't be on the list. If there are "enough examples", do consider removing another word instead. At this point in time, "iconic" is being overused. It will go out of vogue eventually, and then it won't need to be on the list anymore. Roches ( talk) 02:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
There has to be an entire class of words to watch similar to "only," a perfectly good word when used npov. "Nebraska is the only state to have a unicameral legislature." But not, "Texas only emits 3 x 10 to the ninth bushels of carbon monoxide daily." We don't really automatically have an idea whether carbon monoxide expressed in bushels is a small figure or a large when when used in the context of a fairly large, populated state. There should be a separate subsection that warns users from using this class or words in a pov manner. One "class" is words used to qualify data. Data should be "qualified" using other data, not adjectives nor adverbs. And maybe even providing a short list of common words, of which "only" ranks in the first 10 or 20 IMO. Thanks. Student7 ( talk) 19:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this to Emmy Noether a good edit?
It's undiscussed. Perhaps 109.158.49.196 would care to comment here? I assume it was done on the basis of WP:PEACOCK, specifically as interpreting this to mean "no adjectives of comparison whatsoever". Yet we cover the major and notable topics here, so sometimes a topic subject is the major work on a subject or a "leading mathematician" of their time writing "seminal papers" with "elegant" arguments and "profound" influences on others.
This was not a trivial article, it was already a FA and had been widely reviewed by others. These adjectives were justified in their use. Exceptional yes, but sometimes we're describing an exceptional subject and we need glowing praise with which to do it. That's appropriate accuracy in a narrow context, not hyperbole.
Or are all adjectives inherently subjective, unencyclopedic and to be removed on sight? Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The second sentence uses nonparallel construction in "expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view." An "or" should be added before "clichéd", or (preferably, IMHO) the "that" before "endorse" should be removed. Simple fix, but I can't edit this page 2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC ( talk) 10:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt
I think despite should be added to this section, please comment Govindaharihari - WP:EDITORIAL - ( talk) 22:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose that the following words are unambiguously contentious and would need reliable sources before being used in Wikipedia's voice:
The other words I find are not so unambiguously contentious and our text either doesn't discuss them or is ambiguous about them (c.f. myth).
Comments?
jps ( talk) 14:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I think John Carter makes a good case for "criminal" to be included. As for cult and sect, I'm less convinced that they are perennially problematic as SMcCandlish puts it. A "sect" can be a very neutral designation and, until relatively recently, so was the term "cult". On the other hand, I think the current use of "cult" is pretty much always pejorative and it is eschewed in the academic literature, so let's include that one. I aslo think SMcCandlish makes some excellent points about some of other other words currently used. Let's try again. Here is a list of the most problematic terms, as far as I can tell that the consensus states:
Are there others which are big red flags?
jps ( talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the list above is far better than the one currently being used in the sense that it includes a higher percentage of simply unambiguous problems. I don't think much (or anything really) would have to change in the text for this replacement. Please let me know your thoughts.
jps ( talk) 21:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
... perverted, cult, extremist, terrorist, bigot, criminal, crank...
Can I suggest this content?:
... pervert, cultist, terrorist, bigot, criminal, crank...
,
... perverted, bigot, terrorist, criminal, crank, cult...
or
... bigot, crank, criminal, cult, perverted, terrorist...
The first suggestion presents content in the form of personal descriptions.
The second suggestion was written just from personal view that "perverted, cult" read oddly and that cult made a pithy ending. Its just subjective opinion.
The last suggestion just puts content in alphabetical order.
Greg Kaye 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
... bigot, crank, cultist, pervert, controversial ...
I think we need to take a step back, and look at actual cases of dispute. Do not adding anything to this list unless there's a record of a nearly intractable dispute that has arisen about it's use, and remove anthing from it that doesn't meet that qualification. Otherwise we're simply engaging in instruction creep and trying to "fix what ain't broke". This is a form of "terriblizing". Much of what I see above appears to be trying to pre-emptively address everything bad we can imagine; the problem with this, of course, is that there's practically no limit to our imagination of what maybe, possibly, somehow could lead to some sort of dispute some time in the future.
And even an analysis of past disputes has to examine what the dispute was actually about. Just because there was some kind of dispute doesn't mean we have a "word to watch" on our hands. This is almost certainly the case with both "terrorist" and "criminal". It's not that the words are inherently PoV-laden, like "bigot", "pervert", and "extremist"; it's that who is labeling whom, in the real world, may reflect an external bias. For this reason, such labels should be qualified and attributed: "a convicted criminal", with legal sources; "defined as a terrorist group by" what specific sources. By way of contrast, we would never say "was a pervert according to ...", or "is a bigot organization according to ...". These two categories of terms are quite distinct. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
PS: "Controversial" is in the first category; either we have sources that there's a controvery, or we don't. It's a purely factual matter, and we do in fact use the word quite frequently, often with section headings that use the word. Thousands of our article subjects (human and otherwise) are literally notable for nothing but the controversy surrounding them. It's absurd to think we can't refer to them as controversial, when the entire article will be about the controversy, what is controversial, and who's controverting what. "Controversial" isn't, well, controversial, here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes. I 100% agree with this. Should we start a sandbox for it? jps ( talk) 14:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Update: Today an edit by jps in effect reverted an edit made by PBS in April 2010. The same subject of the edit -- removing "denialist" -- was discussed on this section of this talk page and there was no consensus, as jps knows. I reverted until jps can demonstrate that there's something new to discuss. Perhaps jps could also state which editors (quoting jps's edit summary) cited this page "as policy inappropriately around Wikipedia". Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps) was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Is Martin Mcguinness a terrorist? Was the Warrenpoint ambush a terrorist attack (it was launched against Armed British soldiers)? In all three cases there are literally dozens and dozens of reliable sources that state that they were so should the lead of each article mention in the editorial voice of the article that they were terrorists and the attack was carried out by IRA terrorists rather than IRA volunteers? If so then why did the American press tend to shy away from calling IRA gunmen "terrorists" and why did the British press inevitably do so? Reliable sources are not necessarily unbiased, particularly when national self-interest is involved. Eg the American government and most of the American media used to state that the Israeli use of the tactics the Israelis described as "targeted killing" were illegal assassinations until 9/11. After 9/11 when the US government found it expedient to adopt the same tactics, then the US government came up with lots of justifications both moral and legal for such tactics, with lots of support in the US media for the use of such tactics, (prior to the US use of "targeted killing" those in the US who wrote in favour of the tactic tend to be overt supporters of Israel). -- PBS ( talk) 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=refs>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=refs}}
template (see the
help page).