![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14 |
See also related discussions and archives: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I notice the {{Like whom?}} template is missing from Note C, which reads: The templates {{Who}}, {{Which}}, {{By whom}}, or {{Attribution needed}} are available for editors to request an individual statement be more clearly attributed.
Also, the template {{Where}} is similarly nowhere on the page. Not a big deal I suppose, just pointing this out.
5Q5|
✉
Reading WP:BUZZWORD, I noticed that it recommends avoiding the word "solution" and its wikilink leads here, but the anchor is broken. My investigation then revealed that this page ( MOS:WTW) used to contain a section on the word "solution", but the whole section was removed back in 2010, with a simple edit message of "tightening": [1].
I think the topic of buzzWORDs to avoid/watch belongs here more than in the essay where it's currently found ( WP:PLAINENGLISH). Do you agree? If so, do you have any advice for me regarding moving the content (e.g. should I incorporate the deleted text in any way)? Bendegúz Ács ( talk) 20:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
wasn't missedis that we do have WP:BUZZWORD and that's also why I'm suggesting moving that content here, rather than simply restoring the original one. Bendegúz Ács ( talk) 21:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Wikipedia:FLUFF has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 10 § Wikipedia:FLUFF until a consensus is reached.
Jay
💬
12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
My interpretation of the text used here is that "accused" should only really be used when one is suspected of a crime and not more generally. I recently had a disagreement with another editor that had a different interpretation (see Talk:Golden rice#2024 case in lead for background). I suggest that it might be useful to clarify how MOS:ACCUSED is distinguished from MOS:CLAIM directly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trialwas important. It lead me to the conclusion that such phrasing should be using sparingly and in specific contexts, not simply x accused y of being misleading. Given the general vibe of MOS:CLAIM, I think neutral language is generally preferred if there is a way of phrasing things that way. Maybe my interpretation differs from the broader community, maybe it doesn't. Hence my desire for clarification on what others think. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I've been noticing that POV-leaning contributors and articles tend to use the descriptors "statesman" and "nationalist" (sometimes both) to implicitly express approval of some people, rather than the more neutral "politician".
These labels aren't necessarily contentious; they're often used by sources themselves, some of which are also clearly POV. Is this something we should try to discourage? 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 16:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I was under the impression those terms are neutral synonyms for said. @ Nihil novi Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 14:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.
suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable? I don't really see how they do. It might make more sense to put them into another sentence that more helpfully clarifies the issue at hand. Can you recall any of those contexts where they weren't used neutrally? -- asilvering ( talk) 21:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think Piotrus is suggesting that the sentence be removed, just that the words "noted" and "observed" ought to be removed from it- yes, that's what I meant, asilvering is correct. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the editors who have noted or observed that these two words are not neutral because "they imply the truth of the matter which has been noted/observed, whereas ‘said’ is a factual statement that someone said something, and does not imply that what was said is true". Btw, the Russian government recently noted that the United States financed unsuccessful Ukrainian attempts to assassinate Vladimir Putin. Burrobert ( talk) 06:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Manual of Style ![]() ![]() | |||||||||
|
![]() | Text has been copied to or from this page; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10 11, 12, 13, 14 |
See also related discussions and archives: |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I notice the {{Like whom?}} template is missing from Note C, which reads: The templates {{Who}}, {{Which}}, {{By whom}}, or {{Attribution needed}} are available for editors to request an individual statement be more clearly attributed.
Also, the template {{Where}} is similarly nowhere on the page. Not a big deal I suppose, just pointing this out.
5Q5|
✉
Reading WP:BUZZWORD, I noticed that it recommends avoiding the word "solution" and its wikilink leads here, but the anchor is broken. My investigation then revealed that this page ( MOS:WTW) used to contain a section on the word "solution", but the whole section was removed back in 2010, with a simple edit message of "tightening": [1].
I think the topic of buzzWORDs to avoid/watch belongs here more than in the essay where it's currently found ( WP:PLAINENGLISH). Do you agree? If so, do you have any advice for me regarding moving the content (e.g. should I incorporate the deleted text in any way)? Bendegúz Ács ( talk) 20:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
wasn't missedis that we do have WP:BUZZWORD and that's also why I'm suggesting moving that content here, rather than simply restoring the original one. Bendegúz Ács ( talk) 21:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
The redirect
Wikipedia:FLUFF has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 10 § Wikipedia:FLUFF until a consensus is reached.
Jay
💬
12:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
My interpretation of the text used here is that "accused" should only really be used when one is suspected of a crime and not more generally. I recently had a disagreement with another editor that had a different interpretation (see Talk:Golden rice#2024 case in lead for background). I suggest that it might be useful to clarify how MOS:ACCUSED is distinguished from MOS:CLAIM directly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trialwas important. It lead me to the conclusion that such phrasing should be using sparingly and in specific contexts, not simply x accused y of being misleading. Given the general vibe of MOS:CLAIM, I think neutral language is generally preferred if there is a way of phrasing things that way. Maybe my interpretation differs from the broader community, maybe it doesn't. Hence my desire for clarification on what others think. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I've been noticing that POV-leaning contributors and articles tend to use the descriptors "statesman" and "nationalist" (sometimes both) to implicitly express approval of some people, rather than the more neutral "politician".
These labels aren't necessarily contentious; they're often used by sources themselves, some of which are also clearly POV. Is this something we should try to discourage? 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 16:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I was under the impression those terms are neutral synonyms for said. @ Nihil novi Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
— Bagumba ( talk) 14:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable.
suggest the degree of the person's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence, even when such things are unverifiable? I don't really see how they do. It might make more sense to put them into another sentence that more helpfully clarifies the issue at hand. Can you recall any of those contexts where they weren't used neutrally? -- asilvering ( talk) 21:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think Piotrus is suggesting that the sentence be removed, just that the words "noted" and "observed" ought to be removed from it- yes, that's what I meant, asilvering is correct. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the editors who have noted or observed that these two words are not neutral because "they imply the truth of the matter which has been noted/observed, whereas ‘said’ is a factual statement that someone said something, and does not imply that what was said is true". Btw, the Russian government recently noted that the United States financed unsuccessful Ukrainian attempts to assassinate Vladimir Putin. Burrobert ( talk) 06:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)