![]() | This page 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. |
Does anyone understand this sentence?
This has been in here since April 2002, so I guess it must mean something, but I have no idea what that might be. Is it a joke that's survived for 5 1/2 years?
Joriki ( talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many people think that dolphins are fish, however, this is not true. They are mammals.
While this may be true, it is irrelevant what "many people" think.
Not necessarily. If statements like this can be sourced and are notable errors then they should be included in articles, and perhaps expanded on. Without sourcing, statements like this are useless, but have a look at the lead in dinosaur where it mentions the misconception that the pterodactyl is a dinosaur, or in techno which mentions the term being used excessively as an encompassment of all electronic dance music. Both of these are "common errors" but they are verifiable and notable, and will add more clarity to readers of articles who know little about the topic.
Obviously, "many people think" is pretty terrible wording, but the principle of including common errors isn't always a bad idea. - Zeibura ( Talk) 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose we add
Mccready ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Those interested in ts discussion may wish to comment on a related RfC that I have filed at Talk:Fibromyalgia. Dlabtot ( talk) 05:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here. I see no problem with the word "controversy," because it simply implies that there has been troubled or unresolved debate. McCready makes a good point that the word shouldn't be overused to describe tempests in a teapot. It also shouldn't be used when unambiguously unreliable, fringe sources (and I stress "unambigously") have objections to something they're not in a position to judge. For example, it would be wrong to say there is "controversy" over the idea of man-made global warming just because the LaRouche movement doesn't like it, but it is fair to say there's "controversy" if more serious, non-scientific groups make objections that are published by reliable sources.
The problem with McCready's proposed addition is that it gives one community a monopoly over whether the word is being used appropriately, but the idea of a "reliable source" extends beyond any given community. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think McCready's point is valid, and this isn't just a list of words to avoid but also a guideline on proper usage of certain words even if they are commonly used. I would say everything above boils down to WP:WEIGHT, part of the NPOV policy. I would word it to that effect and say:
That covers pretty much anything and is according to policy. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 06:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I consider the use of "solution" in this manner to be a per se violation of WP:NPOV, and one of the surest indicators of spam. And it really, really, really, really, REALLY bugs me. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of not allowing the use of this word? The word Terrorist has a clear definition in the dictionary, by blocking it you are denieing the opprotunity to present facts on this encyclopedia. The English language has no other precise word for the intentional political killing of uninvolved civilians. If you bring a reliable source that states that a person or group have commited a crime that fit the dictionary's definition of terrorism, it would simply be untruthfull not to use the word terrorist or terrorism to describe that person/group/act. AviLozowick 13:33, 22 February, 2008 (UTC)
A terrorist is instilling fear in a person or group to get what it wants. Often this is done through violence. When an institute such as a government is terrorizing, the state is probably a tyrannical state. The usage of terrorist nowadays is corrupted by the 9-11 attacks and the USA etc etc. In Europe at least. Before that no one was making trouble when the PLO was called a terrorist organisation. The word is corrupted in the sense that terrorists are absolute monsters that have no families and no conscience. There is always another side of the medaillon. Fact is, like someone mentioned earlier, there is no other word for practices like terrorism. Mallerd ( talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"Majority" (not in the sense of "over a certain age") should not be used to refer to uncountable things, like amounts of liquids. I hear phrases like "the majority of the asphalt used", but "most" means what the speaker intends (and can be used with both numbers and amounts), whereas "majority" means "more than half the number of," where "number" is countable. The distinction between amounts (or "measures"), which must be associated with conventional units of measurement (such as grams), and numbers -- of countable things, like kangaroos -- seems to be lost on many people. Unfree ( talk) 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a guideline called "Call a spade a spade". How can these two guidelines co-exist? Emmanuelm ( talk) 14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted in Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade)
I've removed this from the page because I can't see any problem with using this word:
Phenomenon has two meanings that are easily confused and cause problems when used in relation to paranormal or pseudoscience claims.
- Phenomenon can mean an occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.
- Phenomenon can mean an unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence as a marvel or wonder. As such, a phenomenon would be something that was extraordinary and perhaps controversial.
Because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish which of the two is meant, it's best to avoid its usage in places where the meaning of "phenomenon" is ambiguous.
I can't see how the meaning of it would be unclear, and we anyway can't list every ambiguous word as a word to avoid. :) SlimVirgin talk| edits 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is just saying to avoid using the word when it is ambiguous. There are many cases where it is ambiguous. Simply avoid using "phenomenon" in those cases. When phenomenon is not ambiguous use it. Plenty of other words on this list are used all the time in Wikipedia, only they are used in instances where the word isn't problematic. "Paranormal phenomenon" as a term is borderling POV-pushing. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Some phenomena associated with mediums were found among those regarded in the Middle Ages as possessed by devils—e.g., levitation and speaking in languages unknown to the speaker. Similar phenomena were reported in the witch trials of the early modern period, particularly the appearance of spirits in quasi-material form and the obtaining of knowledge through spirits. [2]
- The definition of "phenomenon" in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (a very reputable dictionary) is quite in accordance with ScienceApologist's original post, i.e., the possibility for ambiguity here seems to be quite real. (
http://www.bartleby.com/61/14/P0241400.html )
On the other hand, as Crum375 commented, we obviously can't add every possibly ambiguous term to the list. It comes down to personal opinion on whether this is worth including or not, + consensus arrived at here between our various personal opinions.
--
Writtenonsand (
talk)
03:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
We aren't talking about adding every possibly ambiguous term. This one has cause problems. Let's just avoid it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is that the page was reverted to the version including the word "phenomena" as a WTA before locking it down for edit warring? Most editors (as in a simple straw poll reflecting all of the above would agree) were opposed to the word "phenomena" appearing in the WTA, for various reasons including 1) Not really a word to avoid and 2) Out of place in a minimalist list. In the edit warring there were three editors who removed it (including one admin) versus one editor who kept putting it back in. Why wasn't it simply locked down, instead of revert-then-lock? That doesn't seem right. It was an admin not involved in the discussion who was reverted.
I'm pointing this out because I've watched several articles go the same route. An editor edit wars and when he doesn't get his version somehow the article mysteriously is reverted to his version and locked. It's happened several times on multiple articles. --
Nealparr (
talk to me)
01:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And the only way for it to get resolved quickly is to arrive at a consensus. Is there a consensus? Does the word 'Phenomenon' belong in the list of 'Words with controversial or multiple meanings'? As I understand the issue: since the word 'phenomenon' means loosely in one sense 'something that happened', the use of a term like 'paranormal phenomenon' implies that a paranormal event actually happened, which clearly is not something that we would want to state as a fact - or even imply. We only want to report about how other sources have described things. But the usage of the word as something exceptional is common and generally understood. I submit that these usages are so common that there is not really much ambiguity. Dlabtot ( talk) 06:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Phenomenon expressly does not mean "something that actually happened"; it means something that appeared to happen (from phainein, to show, cause to appear). As the OED puts it: A thing which appears, or which is perceived or observed; a particular (kind of) fact, occurrence, or change as perceived through the senses or known intellectually; esp. a fact or occurrence, the cause or explanation of which is in question. From this derive the special senses of "immediate object of perception" and "marvel, prodigy". This is a tempest in a teapot. We need not avoid the word, which is commonly used because it implies nothing about the reality of the appearance. Please unprotect, and look up words before you argue about them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
←Proposed language: At the start of WP:WORDS#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint, I propose the following language to handle several different things (including the page protection) all at once:
Many words, when used in the wrong context, can indicate a sense of respect, importance, urgency, or danger that is not supported by the sources. Unless the words are being attributed to someone else, be careful when using words such as controversy or conflict to make sure the sources really do support the existence of a controversy or conflict. If you're not sure if you have the right word, look for an online definition. Even the word the can falsely imply that something is definite or the only or most important thing of its kind. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 14:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Duke, I made your suggested changes. It would be the first paragraph under WP:WORDS#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. Neal, I dropped the last part after the semicolon, and added "definite". As to whether that's an actual problem that needs addressing, that was a problem from a WP:GAN review that brought me over here. In the article Black hole, the editors were all aware that the current thinking is that we can't quite say for sure yet that the "compact object" is a black hole, and they didn't mean to say that; but repeated use of the phrase "the black hole" had the same effect as a word to avoid; it got the reader to believe something not supported by the sources. This is the point of this paragraph. The 24-hour news channels use this trick constantly, saying that there is a "controversy" or "argument" where neither exists, and because the larger culture gets it wrong, and gets away with it, I believe this is a very important thing to have in this guideline, which is one of the few guidelines specifically mentioned in WP:WIAGA. I agree that there are some words, such as "phenomenon", that editors don't know the meaning of, but per WP:NOTLEX, it's better to ask them to look the word up than to define the word ourselves, and the current trend in style guidelines is to be short and avoid explanation where possible. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 13:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Phenomenon" needs to be in the list. It is used inappropriately by the paranormalist factions on Wikipedia and needs to be eschewed. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
←SA, I think you should keep fighting to change the text of that article by attacking the sources, but when I look at other articles that seem similar to me, I don't think you're going to win on the point of removing "phenomena" from the article. In general, words that are used in similar articles are worse than "phenomena", which sometimes means "things that are perceived". Read Miracle, and see how many times the words incident, event, and occurrence are used. What makes that okay is the statement in the lead section that it's disputed that there's any evidence at all, and what makes "phenomena" okay in Parapsychology, IMO, is the statement right up front that it's fringe science, although the article could be improved by additional examples of debunking. Articles like this wander into NPOV territory, and NPOV says in this case: even when you don't believe it, if there are significant numbers of people on both sides of the issue, you have to let both sides tell their story. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 23:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This is probably immensely picky, but I'd suggest a minor edit to the "Claim" section. Where it says:
“ | Other definitions of claim, particularly in a legal sense, are widely acceptable. | ” |
I'd suggest an amendment.
“ | Other definitions of claim, particularly in a legal sense, are widely acceptable. Editors should ensure that the word "claim" is used only with respect to civil suits and not petitions or criminal matters. | ” |
I suggest this because before I was editing, I found a few articles where divorces and criminal cases were called "claims", which is generally wrong. Now of course I can't find them, but it would be good to be accurate. -- NellieBly ( talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin to ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"Cripple" redirects to "Handicapped"? It seems to me there are several things wrong with offering that as a prime example of an inoffensive sentence. For one thing, it's not true :) I didn't change it because I'd rather hear what the point was, what you guys think would be an appropriate substitute. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
A cripple can't walk, so he is a handicapped human. Why is not true? Mallerd ( talk) 12:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Under what circumstances is "the" a word to avoid, in front of a conjectured or doubted thing or event? Here's my guess:
[proposed text] Even the word "the" can imply that something is the only thing of its kind, or the most important one. Also, don't use "the" to refer to a thing if the existence of the thing is disputed, unless:
[end proposed text]
In this particular case, my belief is that that "believed to pass" isn't enough; instead, I'd prefer "A black hole would have an event horizon, and the remaining matter would pass...". - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 22:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Deserves much caution; but the following set of facts need to be expressed somehow:
If we try to say nothing about X, someone will insert it. If we assert X, or omit Y, we are misinforming our readers. It is difficult to phrase this set of facts without using actually. We need either a substitute, or a note on this case (like other words to avoid in the same class). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, why is this protected? I would like to add a footnote for WP:WTA#Point out, note, observe about Steven Pinkers discussion of factive verbs in his book The Stuff of Thought. There is a rebuttal to that kind of argument online though, here. But reading Pinker made me a bit more sensitive to the use of words, especially synonyms for "state". Could it benefit others to have a footnote giving some authority to this page, and providing some pointers for further reading? Merzul ( talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In the article Washington Irving, the beginning had reference to a " Negro messboy drowning." This wording was used because it was taken directly from the cited New York Times article but has since been changed to "black messboy." Just as we tend to use British English for articles about England, does it make sense to use language from the time of an article (in this case the word Negro instead of today's black) when describing something from history? Or would we only do that when quoting the original source? Do we want to be Politically Correct or use language of the time in question? Perhaps not in that we probably would not want an article about Shakespeare to be written in Elizabethan English. Further, if we find Negro offensive and to be avoided, shouldn't we also avoid using messboy which also has negative connotations today? Is this question already addressed somewhere in the manual of style? Thanks. WilliamKF ( talk) 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this a word to avoid? The dictionary meaning of the word is one who sacrifices his life, his station, or what is of great value to him, for the sake of principle or to sustain a cause. If it is verifiable that a person / a group willingly sacrificed his/her/their life in support of a belief/cause, and it is also verifiable that the person / group if frequently and commonly referred to as Martyr or Martyrs in 3rd party sources, is it still unacceptable to use the word in Wikipedia? Arman ( Talk) 09:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There's one class of words to avoid that aren't here (or anywhere else that I can see): words that Wikipedians get wrong. An example would be "portmanteau", which means a word that combines both the sounds and the meanings of other words, such as "smog" (smoke + fog). "Gerrymander" is not a portmanteau word, since it doesn't mean something that is part Elbridge Gerry and part salamander. Wikipedians tend to use "portmanteau" wrong about 3 times out of 4. Are there other words that Wikipedians tend to get wrong? Should they be avoided, on the theory that they make an existing problem worse? - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
In editing Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy I saw someone proposing "attempted to justify" as a more neutral substitute for "explain". I disagree with this but noticed "justify" isn't on this list. My feeling is that "justify" could be permissible if used within the context of a specific legal or ethical code, but not when used in the sense of trying to argue the appropriateness of something in the absolute sense. For example a tax lawyer could "attempt to justify" a particular tax exemption claimed under an article of the tax code, if the outcome of the case was pending and perceived by a source to be in doubt, but a politician should not be said to "attempt to justify" that exemption in terms of the jobs it would create. I'm not sure that would be seen by others as a meaningful distinction. Another possibility would be to say that it is justified, so to speak, to use the term when that word is used by a source; or you could just blacklist the word altogether with the others, or tell me I'm wrong ;). What do you think? Wnt ( talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this discussion has come up before.
Many media outlets use phrases like (e.g.) "may cost up to six billion pounds" or "as many as 300 people are likely to lose their jobs". The use of "up to" and "as many as" is often undescriptive as the number could have been plucked out of the air, and "up to" includes anything from zero to the figure quoted. If the figure is exceeded (as it often is in the case of death tolls / project budgets), the statement becomes even more meaningless. If estimation over a figure is involved it is better to quote the estimation, say that it's an estimation and say who says it. I think Wikipedia does better job than most at avoiding these terms, the Cyclone Nargis example on the front page avoiding sensationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw6aa ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This page says to avoid the word "claim", but perhaps it should be stated that that does not apply to fringe articles. There's a special problem with fringe articles: in an article devoted to describing a tiny-minority viewpoint, a significant amount of coverage needs to be given to describing that viewpoint because it's the subject of the article, but there need to be ways to nevertheless maintain the neutral point of view which normally gives no space at all to such a viewpoint. Various techniques can be used to try to ensure that while describing the fringe viewpoint it is not given undue legitimacy. One of these techniques is the use of the word "claim", and we used it to get this effect at the article Mucoid plaque. I suggest adding the following to the bottom of the "claim" section of this page:
Perhaps someone can come up with a better example. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 15:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(←, ec, not so relevant anymore, as it seems I'm preaching to the choir here, but still...) I also have strong feelings about this. This style guideline is about our choice of words to avoid the appearance of bias, while NPOV and DUE are content policies. In the case of fringe theories this mean that we must effectively side against the theory in terms of the content presented; but there is no need to do this by means of manipulative uses of verbs. In the case of fringe theories, the facts speak for themselves, and describing one side as "claiming" and the other side as "pointing out" and "noting" adds nothing to the presentation of facts. Quite contrary, I think it sometimes can undermine the credibility of the facts we present. If instead, we represent the fringe view as fairly as we can, then our presentation of the mainstream view will look far more credible and not as spoon-fed. I apologize if this post has nothing to do with the current discussion, I'm not editing the same article as Coppertwig, but thanks for listening anyway, Merzul ( talk) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this be added? Take for example this: [9] - in context its piling on support for the character's bisexuality and weasling out by saying "actually, it's not really confirmed, but you know...?" Sceptre ( talk) 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this should (heh) get an individual mention, under 'words that editorialize'. I see a lot of 'should' in newer or niche articles, and it's almost always HOWTO and/or POV content. I actually can't think of a circumstance in which an article should ever actually say use 'should' outside quotations (but I'm sure there are some). What does everyone think about this? 219.79.186.13 ( talk) 11:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this category is not only a problem, but a serious risk for libel.
The current description for the category is:
"This category deals with topics relating to events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism."
Which, technically, will allow anyone ever accused of terrorism by anyone to be included. The word gets thrown around a lot these days, and I can't imagine the variety of people that have been accused. Any thoughts on this? - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
How about mentioning the construction "X recognises Y"? I see this used a lot to subtly endorse a viewpoint in articles. For example, from [ [10]] (currrent revision):
Tribal sovereignty refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves. Current federal policy in the United States recognizes this sovereignty and stresses the government-to-government relations between Washington, D.C. and the American Indian tribes.
As can be seen, while the first sentence blatantly endorses "inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves" (as opposed to saying "Tribal sovereignty refers to the concept that indigenous tribes have an inherent authority to govern themselves"), this is easily spotted and fixed. However, the second sentence has a more subtle NPOV issue, in that it implies that "this soverignty" is valid, and that the US federal government recognises that this is so. I think this particular construction deserves a mention here, as, from what I have seen, this appears to be a pretty common problem. Anyway, tell me what you reckon, guys. 58.153.21.3 ( talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_words#.22Assume.22. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the wording under WP:WTA#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, purported, alleged needs a bit of work. Specifically:
See [11] for a before-and-after diff. I've self-reverted the changes for now so that they can be discussed. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this proposed change as it relates to the word "alleged" and its variations. It would unduly restrict legitimate uses of that word, and it has apparently been proposed in order to gain an advantage in an ongoing content dispute, see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#rephrasing intro. 6SJ7 ( talk) 01:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's what I've found:
This is pretty much in line with the thrust of my proposed changes, and there are some points here which I think it's worth reflecting in our guidelines. In particular, the style guides' comments suggest to me that our current wording about there not being a "neutrality problem" isn't really true. I'd like to propose the following revised paragraph covering "alleged", reflecting what the various style guides say (and tying that in to existing wikipolicies):
Alleged (along with allegedly) is different from the foregoing in that it is often used in some specific contexts, most notably concerning legal matters where someone is stated to have "allegedly" done something. (Indeed, the word alleged derives from a Latin legal term.) It should be used with great care, particularly where accusations against living individuals are concerned. Always make it clear in the article text (not just the footnotes) who is doing the alleging - in legal cases, this will usually be a prosecutor, state body or plaintiff. In contexts other than legal cases, consider avoiding the use of alleged altogether and look for alternative forms of words such as "[source] asserted that [allegation]" or "according to [source], [allegation]." Avoid using it as a weasel word to cast doubt on a statement or imply wrongdoing, as this may not be compatible with Wikipedia's principle of a neutral point of view. Do not misuse it as a routine qualifier; consider using alternatives such as apparent, ostensible or reputed.
Any thoughts? -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Does anyone understand this sentence?
This has been in here since April 2002, so I guess it must mean something, but I have no idea what that might be. Is it a joke that's survived for 5 1/2 years?
Joriki ( talk) 21:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Many people think that dolphins are fish, however, this is not true. They are mammals.
While this may be true, it is irrelevant what "many people" think.
Not necessarily. If statements like this can be sourced and are notable errors then they should be included in articles, and perhaps expanded on. Without sourcing, statements like this are useless, but have a look at the lead in dinosaur where it mentions the misconception that the pterodactyl is a dinosaur, or in techno which mentions the term being used excessively as an encompassment of all electronic dance music. Both of these are "common errors" but they are verifiable and notable, and will add more clarity to readers of articles who know little about the topic.
Obviously, "many people think" is pretty terrible wording, but the principle of including common errors isn't always a bad idea. - Zeibura ( Talk) 18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose we add
Mccready ( talk) 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Those interested in ts discussion may wish to comment on a related RfC that I have filed at Talk:Fibromyalgia. Dlabtot ( talk) 05:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here. I see no problem with the word "controversy," because it simply implies that there has been troubled or unresolved debate. McCready makes a good point that the word shouldn't be overused to describe tempests in a teapot. It also shouldn't be used when unambiguously unreliable, fringe sources (and I stress "unambigously") have objections to something they're not in a position to judge. For example, it would be wrong to say there is "controversy" over the idea of man-made global warming just because the LaRouche movement doesn't like it, but it is fair to say there's "controversy" if more serious, non-scientific groups make objections that are published by reliable sources.
The problem with McCready's proposed addition is that it gives one community a monopoly over whether the word is being used appropriately, but the idea of a "reliable source" extends beyond any given community. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think McCready's point is valid, and this isn't just a list of words to avoid but also a guideline on proper usage of certain words even if they are commonly used. I would say everything above boils down to WP:WEIGHT, part of the NPOV policy. I would word it to that effect and say:
That covers pretty much anything and is according to policy. -- Nealparr ( talk to me) 06:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I consider the use of "solution" in this manner to be a per se violation of WP:NPOV, and one of the surest indicators of spam. And it really, really, really, really, REALLY bugs me. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the point of not allowing the use of this word? The word Terrorist has a clear definition in the dictionary, by blocking it you are denieing the opprotunity to present facts on this encyclopedia. The English language has no other precise word for the intentional political killing of uninvolved civilians. If you bring a reliable source that states that a person or group have commited a crime that fit the dictionary's definition of terrorism, it would simply be untruthfull not to use the word terrorist or terrorism to describe that person/group/act. AviLozowick 13:33, 22 February, 2008 (UTC)
A terrorist is instilling fear in a person or group to get what it wants. Often this is done through violence. When an institute such as a government is terrorizing, the state is probably a tyrannical state. The usage of terrorist nowadays is corrupted by the 9-11 attacks and the USA etc etc. In Europe at least. Before that no one was making trouble when the PLO was called a terrorist organisation. The word is corrupted in the sense that terrorists are absolute monsters that have no families and no conscience. There is always another side of the medaillon. Fact is, like someone mentioned earlier, there is no other word for practices like terrorism. Mallerd ( talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"Majority" (not in the sense of "over a certain age") should not be used to refer to uncountable things, like amounts of liquids. I hear phrases like "the majority of the asphalt used", but "most" means what the speaker intends (and can be used with both numbers and amounts), whereas "majority" means "more than half the number of," where "number" is countable. The distinction between amounts (or "measures"), which must be associated with conventional units of measurement (such as grams), and numbers -- of countable things, like kangaroos -- seems to be lost on many people. Unfree ( talk) 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a guideline called "Call a spade a spade". How can these two guidelines co-exist? Emmanuelm ( talk) 14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (cross-posted in Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade)
I've removed this from the page because I can't see any problem with using this word:
Phenomenon has two meanings that are easily confused and cause problems when used in relation to paranormal or pseudoscience claims.
- Phenomenon can mean an occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.
- Phenomenon can mean an unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence as a marvel or wonder. As such, a phenomenon would be something that was extraordinary and perhaps controversial.
Because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish which of the two is meant, it's best to avoid its usage in places where the meaning of "phenomenon" is ambiguous.
I can't see how the meaning of it would be unclear, and we anyway can't list every ambiguous word as a word to avoid. :) SlimVirgin talk| edits 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is just saying to avoid using the word when it is ambiguous. There are many cases where it is ambiguous. Simply avoid using "phenomenon" in those cases. When phenomenon is not ambiguous use it. Plenty of other words on this list are used all the time in Wikipedia, only they are used in instances where the word isn't problematic. "Paranormal phenomenon" as a term is borderling POV-pushing. ScienceApologist ( talk) 12:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Some phenomena associated with mediums were found among those regarded in the Middle Ages as possessed by devils—e.g., levitation and speaking in languages unknown to the speaker. Similar phenomena were reported in the witch trials of the early modern period, particularly the appearance of spirits in quasi-material form and the obtaining of knowledge through spirits. [2]
- The definition of "phenomenon" in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (a very reputable dictionary) is quite in accordance with ScienceApologist's original post, i.e., the possibility for ambiguity here seems to be quite real. (
http://www.bartleby.com/61/14/P0241400.html )
On the other hand, as Crum375 commented, we obviously can't add every possibly ambiguous term to the list. It comes down to personal opinion on whether this is worth including or not, + consensus arrived at here between our various personal opinions.
--
Writtenonsand (
talk)
03:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
We aren't talking about adding every possibly ambiguous term. This one has cause problems. Let's just avoid it. ScienceApologist ( talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is that the page was reverted to the version including the word "phenomena" as a WTA before locking it down for edit warring? Most editors (as in a simple straw poll reflecting all of the above would agree) were opposed to the word "phenomena" appearing in the WTA, for various reasons including 1) Not really a word to avoid and 2) Out of place in a minimalist list. In the edit warring there were three editors who removed it (including one admin) versus one editor who kept putting it back in. Why wasn't it simply locked down, instead of revert-then-lock? That doesn't seem right. It was an admin not involved in the discussion who was reverted.
I'm pointing this out because I've watched several articles go the same route. An editor edit wars and when he doesn't get his version somehow the article mysteriously is reverted to his version and locked. It's happened several times on multiple articles. --
Nealparr (
talk to me)
01:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
And the only way for it to get resolved quickly is to arrive at a consensus. Is there a consensus? Does the word 'Phenomenon' belong in the list of 'Words with controversial or multiple meanings'? As I understand the issue: since the word 'phenomenon' means loosely in one sense 'something that happened', the use of a term like 'paranormal phenomenon' implies that a paranormal event actually happened, which clearly is not something that we would want to state as a fact - or even imply. We only want to report about how other sources have described things. But the usage of the word as something exceptional is common and generally understood. I submit that these usages are so common that there is not really much ambiguity. Dlabtot ( talk) 06:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Phenomenon expressly does not mean "something that actually happened"; it means something that appeared to happen (from phainein, to show, cause to appear). As the OED puts it: A thing which appears, or which is perceived or observed; a particular (kind of) fact, occurrence, or change as perceived through the senses or known intellectually; esp. a fact or occurrence, the cause or explanation of which is in question. From this derive the special senses of "immediate object of perception" and "marvel, prodigy". This is a tempest in a teapot. We need not avoid the word, which is commonly used because it implies nothing about the reality of the appearance. Please unprotect, and look up words before you argue about them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
←Proposed language: At the start of WP:WORDS#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint, I propose the following language to handle several different things (including the page protection) all at once:
Many words, when used in the wrong context, can indicate a sense of respect, importance, urgency, or danger that is not supported by the sources. Unless the words are being attributed to someone else, be careful when using words such as controversy or conflict to make sure the sources really do support the existence of a controversy or conflict. If you're not sure if you have the right word, look for an online definition. Even the word the can falsely imply that something is definite or the only or most important thing of its kind. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 14:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Duke, I made your suggested changes. It would be the first paragraph under WP:WORDS#Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint. Neal, I dropped the last part after the semicolon, and added "definite". As to whether that's an actual problem that needs addressing, that was a problem from a WP:GAN review that brought me over here. In the article Black hole, the editors were all aware that the current thinking is that we can't quite say for sure yet that the "compact object" is a black hole, and they didn't mean to say that; but repeated use of the phrase "the black hole" had the same effect as a word to avoid; it got the reader to believe something not supported by the sources. This is the point of this paragraph. The 24-hour news channels use this trick constantly, saying that there is a "controversy" or "argument" where neither exists, and because the larger culture gets it wrong, and gets away with it, I believe this is a very important thing to have in this guideline, which is one of the few guidelines specifically mentioned in WP:WIAGA. I agree that there are some words, such as "phenomenon", that editors don't know the meaning of, but per WP:NOTLEX, it's better to ask them to look the word up than to define the word ourselves, and the current trend in style guidelines is to be short and avoid explanation where possible. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 13:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
"Phenomenon" needs to be in the list. It is used inappropriately by the paranormalist factions on Wikipedia and needs to be eschewed. ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
←SA, I think you should keep fighting to change the text of that article by attacking the sources, but when I look at other articles that seem similar to me, I don't think you're going to win on the point of removing "phenomena" from the article. In general, words that are used in similar articles are worse than "phenomena", which sometimes means "things that are perceived". Read Miracle, and see how many times the words incident, event, and occurrence are used. What makes that okay is the statement in the lead section that it's disputed that there's any evidence at all, and what makes "phenomena" okay in Parapsychology, IMO, is the statement right up front that it's fringe science, although the article could be improved by additional examples of debunking. Articles like this wander into NPOV territory, and NPOV says in this case: even when you don't believe it, if there are significant numbers of people on both sides of the issue, you have to let both sides tell their story. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 23:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This is probably immensely picky, but I'd suggest a minor edit to the "Claim" section. Where it says:
“ | Other definitions of claim, particularly in a legal sense, are widely acceptable. | ” |
I'd suggest an amendment.
“ | Other definitions of claim, particularly in a legal sense, are widely acceptable. Editors should ensure that the word "claim" is used only with respect to civil suits and not petitions or criminal matters. | ” |
I suggest this because before I was editing, I found a few articles where divorces and criminal cases were called "claims", which is generally wrong. Now of course I can't find them, but it would be good to be accurate. -- NellieBly ( talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin to ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
"Cripple" redirects to "Handicapped"? It seems to me there are several things wrong with offering that as a prime example of an inoffensive sentence. For one thing, it's not true :) I didn't change it because I'd rather hear what the point was, what you guys think would be an appropriate substitute. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 22:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
A cripple can't walk, so he is a handicapped human. Why is not true? Mallerd ( talk) 12:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Under what circumstances is "the" a word to avoid, in front of a conjectured or doubted thing or event? Here's my guess:
[proposed text] Even the word "the" can imply that something is the only thing of its kind, or the most important one. Also, don't use "the" to refer to a thing if the existence of the thing is disputed, unless:
[end proposed text]
In this particular case, my belief is that that "believed to pass" isn't enough; instead, I'd prefer "A black hole would have an event horizon, and the remaining matter would pass...". - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 22:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Deserves much caution; but the following set of facts need to be expressed somehow:
If we try to say nothing about X, someone will insert it. If we assert X, or omit Y, we are misinforming our readers. It is difficult to phrase this set of facts without using actually. We need either a substitute, or a note on this case (like other words to avoid in the same class). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, why is this protected? I would like to add a footnote for WP:WTA#Point out, note, observe about Steven Pinkers discussion of factive verbs in his book The Stuff of Thought. There is a rebuttal to that kind of argument online though, here. But reading Pinker made me a bit more sensitive to the use of words, especially synonyms for "state". Could it benefit others to have a footnote giving some authority to this page, and providing some pointers for further reading? Merzul ( talk) 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
In the article Washington Irving, the beginning had reference to a " Negro messboy drowning." This wording was used because it was taken directly from the cited New York Times article but has since been changed to "black messboy." Just as we tend to use British English for articles about England, does it make sense to use language from the time of an article (in this case the word Negro instead of today's black) when describing something from history? Or would we only do that when quoting the original source? Do we want to be Politically Correct or use language of the time in question? Perhaps not in that we probably would not want an article about Shakespeare to be written in Elizabethan English. Further, if we find Negro offensive and to be avoided, shouldn't we also avoid using messboy which also has negative connotations today? Is this question already addressed somewhere in the manual of style? Thanks. WilliamKF ( talk) 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Is this a word to avoid? The dictionary meaning of the word is one who sacrifices his life, his station, or what is of great value to him, for the sake of principle or to sustain a cause. If it is verifiable that a person / a group willingly sacrificed his/her/their life in support of a belief/cause, and it is also verifiable that the person / group if frequently and commonly referred to as Martyr or Martyrs in 3rd party sources, is it still unacceptable to use the word in Wikipedia? Arman ( Talk) 09:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There's one class of words to avoid that aren't here (or anywhere else that I can see): words that Wikipedians get wrong. An example would be "portmanteau", which means a word that combines both the sounds and the meanings of other words, such as "smog" (smoke + fog). "Gerrymander" is not a portmanteau word, since it doesn't mean something that is part Elbridge Gerry and part salamander. Wikipedians tend to use "portmanteau" wrong about 3 times out of 4. Are there other words that Wikipedians tend to get wrong? Should they be avoided, on the theory that they make an existing problem worse? - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
In editing Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy I saw someone proposing "attempted to justify" as a more neutral substitute for "explain". I disagree with this but noticed "justify" isn't on this list. My feeling is that "justify" could be permissible if used within the context of a specific legal or ethical code, but not when used in the sense of trying to argue the appropriateness of something in the absolute sense. For example a tax lawyer could "attempt to justify" a particular tax exemption claimed under an article of the tax code, if the outcome of the case was pending and perceived by a source to be in doubt, but a politician should not be said to "attempt to justify" that exemption in terms of the jobs it would create. I'm not sure that would be seen by others as a meaningful distinction. Another possibility would be to say that it is justified, so to speak, to use the term when that word is used by a source; or you could just blacklist the word altogether with the others, or tell me I'm wrong ;). What do you think? Wnt ( talk) 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this discussion has come up before.
Many media outlets use phrases like (e.g.) "may cost up to six billion pounds" or "as many as 300 people are likely to lose their jobs". The use of "up to" and "as many as" is often undescriptive as the number could have been plucked out of the air, and "up to" includes anything from zero to the figure quoted. If the figure is exceeded (as it often is in the case of death tolls / project budgets), the statement becomes even more meaningless. If estimation over a figure is involved it is better to quote the estimation, say that it's an estimation and say who says it. I think Wikipedia does better job than most at avoiding these terms, the Cyclone Nargis example on the front page avoiding sensationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw6aa ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
This page says to avoid the word "claim", but perhaps it should be stated that that does not apply to fringe articles. There's a special problem with fringe articles: in an article devoted to describing a tiny-minority viewpoint, a significant amount of coverage needs to be given to describing that viewpoint because it's the subject of the article, but there need to be ways to nevertheless maintain the neutral point of view which normally gives no space at all to such a viewpoint. Various techniques can be used to try to ensure that while describing the fringe viewpoint it is not given undue legitimacy. One of these techniques is the use of the word "claim", and we used it to get this effect at the article Mucoid plaque. I suggest adding the following to the bottom of the "claim" section of this page:
Perhaps someone can come up with a better example. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 15:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
(←, ec, not so relevant anymore, as it seems I'm preaching to the choir here, but still...) I also have strong feelings about this. This style guideline is about our choice of words to avoid the appearance of bias, while NPOV and DUE are content policies. In the case of fringe theories this mean that we must effectively side against the theory in terms of the content presented; but there is no need to do this by means of manipulative uses of verbs. In the case of fringe theories, the facts speak for themselves, and describing one side as "claiming" and the other side as "pointing out" and "noting" adds nothing to the presentation of facts. Quite contrary, I think it sometimes can undermine the credibility of the facts we present. If instead, we represent the fringe view as fairly as we can, then our presentation of the mainstream view will look far more credible and not as spoon-fed. I apologize if this post has nothing to do with the current discussion, I'm not editing the same article as Coppertwig, but thanks for listening anyway, Merzul ( talk) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Should this be added? Take for example this: [9] - in context its piling on support for the character's bisexuality and weasling out by saying "actually, it's not really confirmed, but you know...?" Sceptre ( talk) 22:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this should (heh) get an individual mention, under 'words that editorialize'. I see a lot of 'should' in newer or niche articles, and it's almost always HOWTO and/or POV content. I actually can't think of a circumstance in which an article should ever actually say use 'should' outside quotations (but I'm sure there are some). What does everyone think about this? 219.79.186.13 ( talk) 11:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this category is not only a problem, but a serious risk for libel.
The current description for the category is:
"This category deals with topics relating to events, organizations, or people that have at some point in time been referred to as terrorism, terrorists, etc., including state terrorism."
Which, technically, will allow anyone ever accused of terrorism by anyone to be included. The word gets thrown around a lot these days, and I can't imagine the variety of people that have been accused. Any thoughts on this? - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
How about mentioning the construction "X recognises Y"? I see this used a lot to subtly endorse a viewpoint in articles. For example, from [ [10]] (currrent revision):
Tribal sovereignty refers to the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves. Current federal policy in the United States recognizes this sovereignty and stresses the government-to-government relations between Washington, D.C. and the American Indian tribes.
As can be seen, while the first sentence blatantly endorses "inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves" (as opposed to saying "Tribal sovereignty refers to the concept that indigenous tribes have an inherent authority to govern themselves"), this is easily spotted and fixed. However, the second sentence has a more subtle NPOV issue, in that it implies that "this soverignty" is valid, and that the US federal government recognises that this is so. I think this particular construction deserves a mention here, as, from what I have seen, this appears to be a pretty common problem. Anyway, tell me what you reckon, guys. 58.153.21.3 ( talk) 16:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_words#.22Assume.22. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the wording under WP:WTA#So-called, soi-disant, supposed, purported, alleged needs a bit of work. Specifically:
See [11] for a before-and-after diff. I've self-reverted the changes for now so that they can be discussed. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this proposed change as it relates to the word "alleged" and its variations. It would unduly restrict legitimate uses of that word, and it has apparently been proposed in order to gain an advantage in an ongoing content dispute, see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#rephrasing intro. 6SJ7 ( talk) 01:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's what I've found:
This is pretty much in line with the thrust of my proposed changes, and there are some points here which I think it's worth reflecting in our guidelines. In particular, the style guides' comments suggest to me that our current wording about there not being a "neutrality problem" isn't really true. I'd like to propose the following revised paragraph covering "alleged", reflecting what the various style guides say (and tying that in to existing wikipolicies):
Alleged (along with allegedly) is different from the foregoing in that it is often used in some specific contexts, most notably concerning legal matters where someone is stated to have "allegedly" done something. (Indeed, the word alleged derives from a Latin legal term.) It should be used with great care, particularly where accusations against living individuals are concerned. Always make it clear in the article text (not just the footnotes) who is doing the alleging - in legal cases, this will usually be a prosecutor, state body or plaintiff. In contexts other than legal cases, consider avoiding the use of alleged altogether and look for alternative forms of words such as "[source] asserted that [allegation]" or "according to [source], [allegation]." Avoid using it as a weasel word to cast doubt on a statement or imply wrongdoing, as this may not be compatible with Wikipedia's principle of a neutral point of view. Do not misuse it as a routine qualifier; consider using alternatives such as apparent, ostensible or reputed.
Any thoughts? -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)