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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
QuackGuru added a SOME shortcut, stating that the source must state "some" before we can use it. This is not true. Like Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague."
This is why I
reverted. I don't mind the SOME shortcut as long as it's not used to state that "some," "most" and similar can only been used oif the source(s) use the term.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk) 17:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Template:Whostates – template pages are not policies or guidelines. In fact, the quoted advice is out of place on any template page – Template documentation exists to explain the purpose of a template and how to use it, not to offer general style advice. If the advice is truly supported by consensus, then why isn't it part of
Wikipedia:Manual of style? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Template:Whoare simply expressing a common-sense view, and maybe not; I don't have a strong opinion either way. But once again, if the advice is so useful and is indeed supported by consensus, then why isn't it part of
WP:MOS? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 00:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:MOS" argument is flawed....for reasons I've noted above . Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The Template:Who and Template:Whom are both not relevant to this discussion. Both templates have nothing to do with adding or removing the word "some". The relevant template is Template:Weasel inline. The fact is editors claim they can use the word "some" when the source does not support the claim. When the source does not support the claim the editor is ignoring WP:V policy. Editors claim even if the source does not support the claim it is okay to ignore policy. "Some" is often fine even when a source does not use the word "some." [2] is tantamount to original research if the source does not use a synonym for the word "some". When a source is vague the text should be vague without adding an unsupported weasel word. But not every editor agrees with Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Editors add their own personal opinion to Wikipedia articles when the source is making a vague claim and also rewrite text to alter the meaning when they do not like what the source says. The word "some" is the most misused weasel word on Wikipedia. Editors who add or support original research should not be editing Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Editors knowingly add the word "some" when they know the source makes no such claim. The source should decide what the reader should read. Editors should not be telling readers what to think by replacing sourced text with original research or adding weasel words not found in the source. There should be no dispute over this. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Does WP:RELTIME cover use of "the late" in front of a person's name? If not, what does? I have assumed this is not generally accepted, but I don't know the exact guideline that covers it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is against mentioning protologisms in the Manual of Style section on Neologisms and new compounds. Editors noted that protologisms are a subset of neologisms and that "protologisms" is not a widely used term. Cunard ( talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Would it be useful to mention "so-called ' protologisms'" in the Manual of Style section on Neologisms and new compounds? If so, why, and if not, why not? This was discussed on the Words to Watch talk page with no clear consensus being reached. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
In the discussion above, much space was given to what published sources say about the meanings of protologism and neologism. However, according to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, it's more important that the style and content of these pages " should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors", since they are not held to the same content standards as the encyclopedia proper. My question is whether (and why or why not) it would serve "clarity, directness, and usefulness" to insert a reference to protologisms into the guideline, such as:Wikipedia's Glossary states that a protologism is:Neologisms (including so-called " protologisms") are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.
A word that is created and used in the hope that it will become widely used and an accepted part of the language. A successful protologism becomes a neologism. The term protologism has been adopted as jargon for use within Wiki communities, but is not in common usage outside this context. "Protologism" itself can be considered either a protologism or neologism.
Update One objection that was raised in the earlier discussion above was that the word protologism, as a neologism itself, is inappropriate to use at all given
MOS:NEO
. However, policy and guideline pages are not held to the same content standards as the encyclopedia proper – see
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Not part of the encyclopedia
. Hence my question's focus on "clarity, directness, and usefulness" rather than adherence to rules (which don't apply in the same way here). —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 08:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 12:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Article wizard/Neologismand
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Shorthands. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 18:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipuffery § Shortcut WP:PUFFERY about redirecting WP:PUFFERY to this Manual of Style page. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: the shortcut now redirects here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I like the excellent material at Editorializing and wish that reading and understanding it were a precondition for editing here at all! I wonder if the custodians of this page might consider adding "aptly" to the examples of things to avoid, or at least think about carefully. Since I became sensitized to it I've seen so many horrible uses of it. It's Year 9 report-writing style (not in a good way) and rarely has a place here when it is not in a direct quotation. "Aptly enough" is even worse, but, wow, there are plenty of Aptlys that make me want to tear out virtual pages ... Thanks and best wishes 82.34.71.202 ( talk) 19:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Done Yaris678 ( talk) 17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the material on "linking words" such as but, despite, however, and although, it's unlikely that users will
think these words should be generally avoided. I think we can trust users to understand the meaning of "
no forbidden words or expressions" as well as "
The advice in this guideline [...] should not be applied rigidly". If people are not understanding this, then we have a bigger problem than whether words like but and although are included or or not. The existence of the redirects
WP:AVOID
and
WP:Words to avoid
notwithstanding, the name of the page is "Words to watch", not "Words to avoid", which I assume was a deliberate choice. As with any words, the context matters; in the case of using but, however, although, etc., the text is pretty clear in explaining that the issue is avoiding unsupported conclusions. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 06:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
contentious labels should include "conspiracy theory". That seems to be the go-to snarl word for dismissing any accusation of malfeasance by a politican, without argument. 2600:8801:0:1530:B48F:7DDD:69EA:34D7 ( talk) 22:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the material recently added under "Survivors" could easily be condensed and folded into § Euphemisms. Since Survivor has multiple meanings, it's somewhat ambiguous as a section heading. The phrase "survived by" may not strictly be a euphemism in the same sense as "passed away" for died (it's more a bit of journalistic/legalistic jargon like "deceased") but it seems intended for the same effect; namely, to create a breezy, reassuring sense of efficiency around the issue of death. And the shortcut, intuitively, is WP:SURVIVEDBY. The text should highlight the same wording, in my opinion. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Are litotes against WP:MOS?-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Altercari recently added "generally accepted, until recently, unlike most" to the WP:WEASEL section. I reverted because it's not weasel wording, and sources commonly support such wording, especially "generally accepted." When reporting on whatever literature, for example, it's common to note what the scholarly consensus is. And in these cases, statements like "generally accepted" may be used. As for "until recently," that is a WP:Dated matter that is already covered by this guideline. And "unlike most" can be a simple factual statement; I don't see why it needs to be added at all. Furthermore, as has been noted before on this talk page, the boxes are examples; we do not need to include every example there is; it will keep going on and on. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there any policies or guidelines regarding vulgarities that are not located within article space? For example, on a user page? A user talk page? Is there a policy about an editor using vulgarities on his/ her own talk page? What about in edit summaries? I understand that we are not censored, but I also know that we have the option to be polite or not to be polite ourselves when it comes to userpages and user talk pages. But maybe there are no guidelines for this, and people should feel welcome to swear up a storm on their publicly viewable userpage (really, though??). Please let me know what the precedents are, if any. Thanks! KDS4444 ( talk) 22:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I reverted Seth Whales on adding "iconic" to the WP:PEACOCK section, and pointed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 5#"Iconic" for my previous feelings on this matter.
I still feel the same way. Editors keep adding words to that section. Where is the limit? Why can't we only have a few examples there and be done with it? Why must we keep allowing another supposed peacock word to be added to the section, especially when some editors read the section to mean that the words in question should be automatically removed when they come across them? Given that some of these words are often supported by WP:Reliable sources on the topics they are used for, I'm not strongly opposed to them unless they actually violate the WP:Neutral policy. Sometimes it is simply better to state that "[So and so] is considered iconic.", and then elaborate. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The words that I mainly see as an issue are outstanding, extraordinary, brilliant, remarkable, prestigious, awesome and virtuoso. I don't see unique as a big issue at all. "Unique" can be considered vague, but it is a simple descriptor that is often factual. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue, but I'd like to explore the possibility of banning the use of "illegal alien" across Wikipedia unless it's part of quotes. I've noticed that it's a term that editors regularly try to introduce to Wikipedia articles related to immigration (see this [5] today as an example) whereas other editors try to remove it. While lots federal and state agencies do use the term (some have moved away from it in recent years), the term is rarely, if ever, used by reliable news sources:
Is is therefore jarring when Wikipedia uses a term that is (i) widely seen as offensive or sinister, (ii) has not been used by any reliable news outlets in decades, and (iii) has far more suitable (common in reliable sources and non-offensive) substitutes, such as "undocumented immigrant" and even the flawed "illegal immigrant". So, it's not only bad style to use it on Wikipedia but the fact that the term is allowed on Wikipedia leads to lots of needless edit-warring as users try to introduce the offensive term to pages and others try to remove it. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I feel that I should point out that this is also partly a varieties of English issue. "Illegal alien" as a term never really caught on in UK or Canadian English, and only really shows up reliably in those contexts in sources with a far-right POV. Both Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries define the term as "US English". Newimpartial ( talk) 15:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I support the use of the term provided the context is appropriate. For example, the term should not be used in an article that has content cited to any entity that does not use the term per their manual(s) of style. However, the term still has legal standing, and remains a definition provided by a number of dictionaries. From a legal standpoint, in the United States a 2015 opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ( [10]) confirmed that the term has basis in legal documentation. The parlance of our time is changing, and while the term may well fall out of favor (a counter to my 5th Circuit point would be that the term has not been granted a legal opinion by the US Supreme Court), it remains in use. Without doubt the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone if the situation (and more importantly, the source cited in the concerning instance) warrants it. The question should always be if or not it is tactful to use the term, or if a better one can be employed to suit the same need. Per my previous posting, like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 ( talk) 03:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
After reading an article which described the subject as having dropped out of school, I wondered if it was a euphemism, perhaps even pejorative, or an appropriate synonym for quitting school? My inclination is that it is not encyclopedic, and so I ask. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 07:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I've made a proposal to have "adult" removed from the opening sentence of Family Guy at Talk:Family Guy#RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Obsolescent spellings – It includes some discussion of whether a list of such words/spellings should be maintained at MOS:WTW, or elsewhere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The latest addition of "iconic" has been added by Magnolia677. The only reason I have not reverted again is because it keeps getting added, and because, in the previous discussion, I stated that I would not revert its inclusion again. But I do want to take the time to point to that previous discussion -- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 8#Words in the WP:PEACOCK section, and "iconic". If I start seeing editors removing legitimate uses of "iconic," I will likely remove the term from the guideline and make my case for the removal here on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a place for "in fact" on this page - perhaps in WP:EDITORIAL along with 'actually'?
I see it a lot, and almost always it is either original research, an NPOV breach, or both.
It probably does have some place, like in discussing works of fiction - "The book is set in Nairobi, South Africa. In fact, Nairobi is in Nigeria." - but then so does "actually" (which is why this page is now Words to Watch not Words to Avoid). It would be useful to have a clear place to point people to which says why it is a bad phrase to use. TSP ( talk) 13:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Some stuff often discussed on this talk page is the subject of a thread at the main MoS talk page, here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 19:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please add upcoming to the list of relative time words to avoid. The list already "in the future" and I think upcoming should be on the list too. That would be a good start but it might be good to write more.
About half the time I see upcoming used it is used incorrectly, if the text isn't already out of date it soon goes out of date and needs to be changed. Many editors do not seem to mind using the word upcoming in the full knowledge that using it inevitably forces other editors to have to rewrite the text. I would like for the guideline to warn editors that even if they really thing the use of word is necessary to avoid using it repeatedly and only using it sparingly. Ideally if there was some kidn of Upcoming template that worked similarly to the Template:As of.
Thanks in advance. -- 109.76.225.230 ( talk) 16:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
as of}}
template, so we know the date by which we expect to need to remove the word and update the material in other way (or update the release date, if it's been pushed further). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 19:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposed clarification of BLPCRIME terminology
The above link directs to a talk page proposal for wp:blp, which has gained a small amount of traction. I've encountered two situations recently in which the proposal if amended to the policy, would apply. Details can be found in the rollout section of the talk page linked above. After not hearing much by way of feedback on BLP TALK I was tempted to just BRD there, but after revising my proposal a few times for inclusion on the project page, I came to the conclusion that the proposal would be more suitable for WTW.
The proposal in a nutshell is: There's a difference between calling someone a criminal and calling someone a convicted criminal with accompanying contextualization, citation and attribution. The difference is that with contextualization the judicial nature of the text is made clear. Without this it appears to broadly imply criminal nature and amounts to a non-specific accusation of criminal intent.
Could I get some thoughts here please.
thanks
Edaham ( talk) 08:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I occasionally see in Wikipedia articles the presence of words like "amidst", "amongst", "unbeknownst", and "whilst", considered archaic by style guides that mention them. (In US English, such words not only might seem archaic, but also pretentious and quaint.)
Invoking WP:ENGVAR as UK-regional spelling isn't a valid reason to use them, because even UK style guides such as The Times of London, The Guardian, as well as BBC News advise against using these words, as described in our article While#Whilst.
Because the English Wikipedia is read worldwide, would it be appropriate to have a note about avoiding words like these? Exceptions would be quotations and titles of works, of course.
I find that it's possible to reword the sentence to avoid either the archaic or modern forms while improving the sentence at the same time. For example "There is disagreement amongst scientists about...." is more compelling by restating it more concisely as "Scientists disagree about..."
Thoughts? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
The discussion above about WP:ENGVAR seems to be more about spoken English, whereas we have multiple examples of UK style guides that advise against using these words in written English, so I disagree that this is a WP:ENGVAR or WP:COMMONALITY issue, regardless of personal preferences of individual editors. All I am wondering is, should Wikipedia follow the lead of other reputable style guides on both sides of the pond? Nobody is advocating banning these words, so the fact that they exist all over Wikipedia is a non-issue, but I think we have ample reason to list them as words to watch in written prose. This guideline, after all, is called "words to watch" and not "words to avoid". In many cases one can rewrite a sentence to be more concise and clear while avoiding either form of these words altogether, as illustrated by the example in my first comment. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I often despair of Wikipedida and its growing list of does and don'ts. Issues like this are better solved on the talk page of an article rather than have a guideline rule that is then used by someone to run AWB or a bot script over articles that the user of the bot or AWB has never manually touched. Take for example the above statement " MOS:COMMONALITY. I was involved in a similar discussion recently which led to the addition of the last bullet point which probably covers the case you're talking about." which I presume means the the bullet point "When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should be preferred unless there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative. This would not apply in cases where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialised context e.g. connexion in Methodist connexionalism." So someone can go through any topic with close connection with Britain and "rationalise" [sic.] the spelling of words ending in "ize" to the usual British ending of "ise". How does that improve MOS:COMMONALITY? -- PBS ( talk) 13:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Anachronist I have reverted you edit. I think it is instruction creep, and less than helpful, and potentially harmful. See for example the lead in British English "For example, the adjective wee is almost exclusively used in parts of Scotland and Ireland, and occasionally Yorkshire, whereas little is predominant elsewhere." If someone has written a paragraph that uses the term "wee". I think that guidance that forces the changing wee to little, when wee is perfectly understandable is wrong. -- PBS ( talk) 18:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
.
character. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)If unbeknownst is archaic, then the alternative – unbeknown – just seems bizarre. In fact, unbeknownst seems to have become the more common variant used in books since about 1980 ( Google Ngram Viewer). — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 03:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Watergate is not really an example of use of the suffix "-gate". The suffix derives from the Watergate scandal. Maybe tailgate or Russiagate would be a better example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curfibex ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about this addition by LaundryPizza03. Some things are hoaxes and we call them that without any worry that doing so is POV. We also have a List of hoaxes and a List of Wikipedia hoaxes. What POV issues are you referring to, LaundryPizza03? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that the addition was reverted by Anachronist. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Long-standing MoS material on these terms has been moved to an essay after a short discussion. Further discussion of what to do with this material [11] may be warranted. Please see WT:Manual of Style#Arab and Arabic. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Quoted Text from Ballinger et al. (1992)-- Ephert ( talk) 21:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | ||||||||||
In an effort to integrate these Asian mtDNA studies into a coherent view of Southern Mongoloid migra- tions, we have conducted a detailed analysis of the mtDNAs from seven East Asian populations. The data provide evidence that: (1) the Vietnamese are the most diverse and, hence, the oldest population; (2) Malay- sians retain remnants of haplotypes found in PNG; (3) coastal Asians have a striking frequency cline for the 9-bp deletion; and (4) both insertion and deletion mutations in the COII/tRNALYs intergenic region have occurred more than once. |
Similarity of mongoloid types: Analysis of South- east Asian mtDNA variation indicates that all extant populations were derived from a common ancestral population which encompassed most of the variation. The mean of the intrapopulational divergence is 0.182%, while the mean interpopulational divergence corrected for intrapopulational divergence (NEI and TAJIMA 1983) is about one-sixth this value or 0.030%, with a range of 0.019% to 0.053% (Table 3). Thus, it would appear that most of the mtDNA variation is shared between the Southeast Asian populations and predated the present geographic subdivision. Of the current populations, the Vietnamese have the greatest intrapopulational genetic divergence (0.236%) sug- gesting that it is the oldest. Since Vietnam was colo- nized by a southeast China migration, this would imply a southern Chinese origin of Mongoloid people about 59,000 to 118,000 YBP (assuming that mtDNA di- vergence is 2-4% per million years, CANN, BROWN and WILSON 1984; CANN, STONEKING and WILSON 1987; NECKELMANN et al. 1987, 1989; WALLACE et al. 1987). | |||||||||
The quoted text above is in the upper-left of page 140 just before the "Materials and Methods" section which is page 2/14 of the PDF document. |
The quoted text above is the first paragraph of the "Discussion" section which is the fourth paragraph of the right column of page 142 which is page 4/14 of the PDF document. | |||||||||
Source: Ballinger, S. W.; Schurr, T. G.; Torroni, A; Gan, Y. Y.; Hodge, J. A.; Hassan, K; Chen, K. H.; Wallace, D. C. (1992). "Southeast Asian Mitochondrial DNA Analysis Reveals Genetic Continuity of Ancient Mongoloid Migrations". Genetics. 130 (1): 139–152. PMC 1204787 |
I am in a discussion with User:Calthinus on Talk:Vietnamese people. In an edit on September 21, 2017, User:Calthinus wrote, "Okay well it still smacks of WP:PEACOCK. My removal was not based on source manipulation. Claiming to be the "oldest" population when of course what that actually means is poorly understood by most people is typically diagnostic of nationalistic editing practices, although to be fair I don't edit much Southeast Asian pages so I'll assume good faith here. It still looks bad on the page though." I contend that the reliable source describing Vietnamese as the oldest population given a certain context is not in violation of WP:PEACOCK. The description of "oldest" is a description Ballinger et al. (1992) based on genetic data given a certain context, and that certain context appears to be the oldest of the current Southeast Asian populations. For analogy, if this statement violates WP:PEACOCK, then saying that Native Americans are the oldest population in the Americas based on genetic evidence would also violate WP:PEACOCK. Surely, mentioning that Native Americans are the oldest population in the Americas based on genetic evidence should not be a fact that is censored due to someone possibly interpreting that statement as meaning that Native Americans are somehow better than other people. Applying the same sound reasoning, the Ballinger et al. (1992) genetic source should not be censored due to someone possibly interpreting the statement which could be cited to Ballinger et al. (1992) as meaning that Vietnamese are somehow better than other people.-- Ephert ( talk) 21:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Popcornduff, now that you mention it, why are we telling editors to avoid "issue"? I can see avoiding "an issue with" if it's vague, but "a problem with" is also vague. "Issue" is used for "problem" in a lot of places on Wikipedia. Hmm. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, "issues" doesn't always mean "problems" to people. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I know this word is not on the list under WP:PEACOCK, but I noted its overuse in some articles, like JoJo (singer). [12] There may be some valid uses, usually where a given authority makes a statement of authenticity on something of theirs, but under what circumstances would this word qualify as a peacock term? I'm thinking my edit that I cited here is one of those times.
I will note I brought this up here before, three and a half years ago, but I'm still curious. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 15:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Unsupported attributions is covered here. Yet there is another problem. Editors are deleting supported attributions. We have "Unsupported attributions" but not "Supported attributions". Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
"The guest list included Charles, Prince of Wales – This is usually acceptable, as a confusion with Charles I of England, Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely."
"... is highly unlikely."
According to whom? What research shows this to be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.42.187 ( talk) 11:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
To be bold, i created a new section here, "Clutter". Comments? Feel free to edit it if you see fit. Or is said section appropriate?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 19:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This [ [13]] has raised an interesting couple of interesting questions is the "term" "weapon of choice for perpetrators" a label, and how can we use inline attribute a view that can be attributed to so many sources? "according to the NYT, the BG, the Guardian, the BBC...etc". Slatersteven ( talk) 11:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Requested move 21 June 2018.
Under discussion are potential MOS:WTW and WP:NPOV concerns about "regimes". (Other matters include: whether there's a special WP:IAR rationale to capitalize "Communist" in this case, despite MOS:ISMCAPS; whether "killings" is the right word; whether the article needs to be split for WP:NOR reasons; and some other stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I think so, @ P Aculeius: does not. Paradoctor ( talk) 09:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
To say that someone "fell in battle" does not introduce bias, is not flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, and does not endorse a particular viewpoint. The word/phrase has a specific technical meaning in this context and is acceptable in this context throughout academia, and has been for hundreds of years. So it seems to me that the guideline in question is being misused to enforce one particular notion of what words or expressions ought to be forbidden... P Aculeius ( talk) 14:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)"[t]here are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint. The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. For example, some words have specific technical meanings in some contexts and are acceptable in those contexts (e.g. "claim" in law). What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability" (emphasis in original; internal citations omitted).
I see it as a euphemism. It also seems to me to carry some connotation of the person involved being someone important, rather than just one of those disposable foot soldiers. In fact, I wonder if its use comes from the idea of falling from one's horse, rather just from one's feet. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not think "fell in battle" is a euphemism in the sense that we should ban it completely, since its meaning is pretty much evident from the phrasing itself, so that even someone who has never heard the phrase could easily tell what it means. Nonetheless, I think that "died in battle" or "was killed in battle" would be far preferable wording, since these are more specific and remove any possibility of ambiguity, since it is hypothetically possible that someone who has never heard the phrase "fell in battle" could perhaps mistake it to mean the person was merely badly injured. Clarity is probably the most important factor to consider here. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Might be worth including victim[s]. This word is appropriate in reference to [statutory] crime victims in most cases (not all, when the crime is one with no actual harm and imposed for subjective reasons like religious doctrine). Also appropriate for and mass victims of state actions defined as international crimes, like genocide. It's not appropriate when the actions are more subjective (e.g. "victims of China's Internet censorship", since authoritarians are generally in support of various forms of censorship – I'm saying this as a civil libertarian; I'm just able to separate my beliefs from objective analysis of belief systems). It's also not appropriate in reference to diseases and disorders, e.g. "victims of congenital blindness". Same goes for suffer[er]/suffering; we should not write "She suffers from oculocutaneous albinism". These aren't idle concerns; I fairly often have to replace exactly these sorts of constructions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Since 2006, the main MoS page has had advice on this (in various wording). A general approximation: The adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Well-established noun phrases such as gum arabic (lower-case) and Arabic coffee are exceptions.
Plus add something about Arabian, since many editors are unclear on the difference. Virtually every off-WP style guide covers this, and with mutually compatible advice, so we'll be on good footing to include it.
This was unilaterally deleted by someone in February of this year, and a later discussion concluded not to re-add it, on the basis that it was "weird" to dwell on one particular set of words. I suggested moving it to MOS:WTW, which is all about considering particular words, but this idea got drowned out in various argumentation about definitions.
I re-propose that it be covered here, since it's a matter of cultural sensitivity and appropriate usage, which is almost universally detailed in style guides. The "weird" thing is for MoS to remain utterly silent on it, after over a decade of providing clear (albeit incomplete) advice which has served us well. I think several months of leaving the matter as-is is sufficient to ask now whether consensus has change (or, rather, for whether a more specific consensus will emerge other than "don't revert the deletion from the main MoS page").
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Should we restore the Arab/Arabic-related advice deemed correct but too narrow for the main MoS page, to this MoS subpage where it's on-topic?
Material recently reverted with "more support required", despite previous discussion of the idea meeting no opposition, on this very page:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words is not a guideline, and no one seems to cite or use it with any frequency. It's an essay, and a former article that got project-spaced because it was not good enough for mainspace. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The Arab[ic|ian] question doesn't come up often enough to need a shortcut. The "ugly Americanisms" thing seems like a straw man argument. Batternut ( talk) 22:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
we've had a few wars and a whole lot of deaths results from people not being clear on this stuff, and surely more to come., your edit then? Batternut ( talk) 05:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
If the main point of this addition is to avoid Anti-Arabism, Islamophobia etc, (which is indeed a laudable aim) perhaps we should minimize or remove the pedantry over Arab, Arabic and Arabian distinction. The wording should focus on the risk of bias, as it currently reads more like preaching on geography, and the bias issue is just an afterthought. Batternut ( talk) 08:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I find the wording of this RfC decidedly non-neutral:
Given also the ill-tempered spat over middle eastern war which hogs half the comment space, a restart of this RfC might be the best course, and perhaps with the modified proposal above. Batternut ( talk) 06:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Talk:Trypophobia#Latest changes. The discussion concerns whether or not it is fine to quote this source as much as desired without the use of quotation marks, and whether or not we should always use a source's exact words. Regarding the latter, the question is whether it's WP:Original research to use our own wording as opposed to a source's exact words and whether wording like this needs to be tagged as WP:Weasel. The discussion additionally concerns stating things in Wikipedia's voice when sources disagree, the research is new, and/or there is no consensus in the literature on the matter.
On a side note: The Trypophobia article contains an image that some find distressing. So a heads up on that. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, regarding this, I don't see "report" as much of an issue. I do see "reportedly" as an issue, though, since it's often used in a snide way. As for "a Baptist church," what is the reasoning behind that? I take it that you mean that someone might add "a Baptist church" to downplay or try to discredit the validity of the claim? You know, because it's a statement from a Baptist church? Or maybe someone trying to strengthen the argument of the claim by stating "a Baptist church"? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Carl Tristan Orense, why do you think "overwhelming" should be added to the WP:PEACOCK section? I've seen okay uses of "overwhelming" when supported by a source. And like I stated when reverting you, there are already enough examples. As others have stated on this talk page before, this is not a list. It's not a place to add every word we personally want highlighted. There are a number of other words we can add to that box, but the goal (like the other boxes as well) is to make sure editors/readers get the point. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to raise a depressing topic, but does WP have a guideline or policy regarding the language or vocab that should be used for reporting suicides? E.g. in the biography of Darcy Clay, an editor has just changed "committed suicide" to "took his own life." I don't see anything about this under WP:EUPHEMISM or WP:SUICIDES.-- Muzilon ( talk) 07:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this, this and this, furthermore isn't quite on the same level as "but, despite, however, though, although." I haven't really seen cases where furthermore "possibly unduly call[s] the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." I do consider "furthermore" editorializing" in our articles, but it's not on the same level as the first batch of examples in that section. From what I can tell, it's simply used to carry on the continuation of a thought, without bias, the vast majority of the time. In that vein, it's similar to "additionally." But then again, I usually see "but," "though," and "although" used appropriately as well. The words "despite" and "however," but especially "despite," are more problematic.
DVdm, I take it you added "furthermore" because it's such a common editorializing term? Not because it usually "unduly call[s] the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second"? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
In Drake (musician)'s lead section:
He is one of the most popular entertainers in the world, [1] [2] and one of the best-selling music artists of the 21st century. Drake's contributions to music have made him a global figure in popular culture for over a decade. [3] [4]
None of the sources cited state that, while the one that does is an unreliable website (uncharteddomain dot com). While discussing the topic I believe is WP:Peacock from the user that added it. The other sources, however, did note that he is 2018's top artist commercially in the United States. How could it be rewritten if it is indeed wp:peacock? Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 05:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
___
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
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.
Should we add a class of "Terms that can introduce bias", listing incorrect use of Arab and Arabic as an examplar?
RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC). Batternut ( talk) 08:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The wording would be:
Batternut ( talk) 08:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
For comparison, the current wording is
Do not use similar or related words in a way that blurs meaning or is incorrect or distorting.
For example, the adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Arabian relates to the Arabian peninsula or historical Arabia. (These terms are all capitalized, e.g. Arabic coffee and Arabian stallion, aside from a few conventionalized exceptions that have lost their cultural connection, such as gum arabic.) Do not substitute these terms for Islamic, Muslim, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Muslim Arab is someone who is in both categories.
Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about terminology, consult major modern dictionaries.E Eng 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Do not use similar or related words in an incorrect, distorting, or meaning-blurring way? If something is wrong, fix it. The List of commonly misused English words seems sufficient to address the Arab/Arabic case. Alsee ( talk) 05:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
In a sentence like " Annabelle is a Raggedy Ann doll said by demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren to be haunted" we can't put scare quotes around demonologists, or say "self-described" or anything, we just have to pretend like that's a real thing? EatenRiper ( talk) 09:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
To a user who edits in British English- it seems amusing to see a heading spelled Editoriali(z)ing under words to avoid! ClemRutter ( talk) 13:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit by Alsee, should "prodigy" be on the WP:PEACOCK list? After all, " child prodigy" is a legitimate term. Are we never to mention that someone is a genius or considered a genius? We note that Albert Einstein is considered to have been one. I can see an issue with putting "genius" in Wikipedia's voice if it's not something that is widely accepted like Einstein's genius is, but "prodigy" seems more objective. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion that led to this latest addition is seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using the term "chess prodigy". We also have an article on chess prodigy. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't think weasel words should be removed instead of just tagged and left there? EatenRiper ( talk) 09:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I personally see a LOT of very old tags, not just Weasel tags. Especially the tag "needs verifiable sources" (or "needs attribution"?). That tag has existed for many, many years on many pages. I don't have time or resources to edit the pages where I see that; I wish I did. I suppose it's just unfortunate that pages can get tagged with tags that persist for so long. 75.146.141.141 ( talk) 20:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
An RfC on this subject has been opened here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Does the stuff about puffery and words to watch apply to quotes? I assume it does, or what would be the point in the guideline in the first place? Since an article could circumvent it by using a lot of quotes. The article isn't totally clear on it though. It doesn't definitively say they do, but it also doesn't definitively say they don't. So id like some clarification. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Noted biographer Jane Doe calls Harry Smith "The greatest ever at what he did"
I was reverted with the edit comment "This isn't an article". What do you mean, User:EEng? CapnZapp ( talk) 10:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Can we add "martyr" to the list of contentious labels? It is often used by the followers of some ideology or the other to incorporate their POV. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Under "Editorializing" in the "Words to watch" section with "but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, ..." I would like to add the watchwords, "nonetheless" and "nevertheless." - is that acceptable, or is their usage not prevalent enough to warrant inclusion? - Epinoia ( talk) 17:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Considering adding refuted, which seems to creep in sometimes, when disagreed or disputed is meant. Refuted is more categorical, and means disproven. Mathglot ( talk) 08:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think at one time there was a WP:WTA#Theory link that has now disappeared. I want to make a request to include some prose that encourage people to be careful with terms which mean different things in different contexts. I am most familiar with situations that arise in scientific and empirical contexts. For example, I sometimes come across the word "theory" being used to refer to a "personal theory" or hunch which is fine in some contexts, but can be extremely misleading in others. In general, I think unless there is some overarching reason to prefer using the term "theory" in such contexts, synonyms are better in order to preserve the scientific sense of the word. The same thing goes for hypothesis, proof (which should be held for mathematics and legal standards of evidence), and phenomenon (which generally in empirical contexts refers to well-established observable events but in other scenarios is used to mean "fantastical" and is, therefore, often too ambiguous to use as a "label").
I don't think words like these currently have a good place for their inclusion.
Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 19:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
This essay used to be "words to avoid" and there was a time "theory" was included. Long about the time it was converted into "words to watch", that section was removed. However, I think that the basic point can be explained here that these kinds of words are not words you need to avoid, they just need to be unambiguous in context. There are scenarios where a word like "theory" does not mean scientific theory and can, or even must be used. For example, critical theory. The goal would be for us to explain the care that is needed when trying to apply loaded terms like this to the plain text of Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 11:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
"evidence". jps ( talk) 14:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
"argument". jps ( talk) 17:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I can use some actual examples in the text. If you think other words are more abused, you are free to propose an alternative, of course. jps ( talk) 11:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which has been attributed to his new position on foreign policy"
Please change this to
"In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which poll participants attributed to his new position on foreign policy"
Merely "has been attributed to" is weasel-words, since we don't know who's doing the attributing. 208.95.51.53 ( talk) 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists and comment. Halo Jerk1 ( talk) 02:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Now it's an RfC. Found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: Should we provide attribution when using "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" when describing BLP subjects?. Halo Jerk1 ( talk) 04:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Would the terms that indicate the final results of a conflict be a problem: victorious, failed, triumphant, unsuccessful, etc. Examples: 2018 Ugandan failed coup, or 2020 Moroccan victorious referendum. Would any of this term be recommended? I think it is preferable to use other terms like attempt or none of these terms at all "2019 Ugandan coup attempt" or "2020 Moroccan referendum". Is there any guideline related to this issue?-- MaoGo ( talk) 03:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Leviv ich 17:34, 22 August 2019 (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.
WP:RACIST says (obviously!) that it's not good for a Wikipedia editor to decide whether someone is racist. Instead, that view should generally be attributed to specific reliable sources. It seems to me that we should probably mention sexist, homophobic, and transphobic in the same section. They're all value-laden labels and should normally be treated the same way (i.e., avoided unless the label is widely used, and attributed to sources rather than to editors' personal views). What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This page seems to indicate that one should avoid weasel words, as they might make it seem that a statement is more true than it actually is. However, sometimes I need to make a statement less exact than it seems. For example (not an actual example), one my state that there are billions of stars in the universe. That might be seen to imply that there are between one and ten billion, otherwise it might have said tens of billions or hundreds of billions. Since we can't count them, and if we did it would only be the visible universe, the intent is for a vague but large number. I need to imply that the value isn't meant to be exact. Gah4 ( talk) 02:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
QuackGuru added a SOME shortcut, stating that the source must state "some" before we can use it. This is not true. Like Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague."
This is why I
reverted. I don't mind the SOME shortcut as long as it's not used to state that "some," "most" and similar can only been used oif the source(s) use the term.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk) 17:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Template:Whostates – template pages are not policies or guidelines. In fact, the quoted advice is out of place on any template page – Template documentation exists to explain the purpose of a template and how to use it, not to offer general style advice. If the advice is truly supported by consensus, then why isn't it part of
Wikipedia:Manual of style? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 19:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Template:Whoare simply expressing a common-sense view, and maybe not; I don't have a strong opinion either way. But once again, if the advice is so useful and is indeed supported by consensus, then why isn't it part of
WP:MOS? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 00:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:MOS" argument is flawed....for reasons I've noted above . Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The Template:Who and Template:Whom are both not relevant to this discussion. Both templates have nothing to do with adding or removing the word "some". The relevant template is Template:Weasel inline. The fact is editors claim they can use the word "some" when the source does not support the claim. When the source does not support the claim the editor is ignoring WP:V policy. Editors claim even if the source does not support the claim it is okay to ignore policy. "Some" is often fine even when a source does not use the word "some." [2] is tantamount to original research if the source does not use a synonym for the word "some". When a source is vague the text should be vague without adding an unsupported weasel word. But not every editor agrees with Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Editors add their own personal opinion to Wikipedia articles when the source is making a vague claim and also rewrite text to alter the meaning when they do not like what the source says. The word "some" is the most misused weasel word on Wikipedia. Editors who add or support original research should not be editing Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Editors knowingly add the word "some" when they know the source makes no such claim. The source should decide what the reader should read. Editors should not be telling readers what to think by replacing sourced text with original research or adding weasel words not found in the source. There should be no dispute over this. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Does WP:RELTIME cover use of "the late" in front of a person's name? If not, what does? I have assumed this is not generally accepted, but I don't know the exact guideline that covers it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The consensus is against mentioning protologisms in the Manual of Style section on Neologisms and new compounds. Editors noted that protologisms are a subset of neologisms and that "protologisms" is not a widely used term. Cunard ( talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Would it be useful to mention "so-called ' protologisms'" in the Manual of Style section on Neologisms and new compounds? If so, why, and if not, why not? This was discussed on the Words to Watch talk page with no clear consensus being reached. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
In the discussion above, much space was given to what published sources say about the meanings of protologism and neologism. However, according to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, it's more important that the style and content of these pages " should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors", since they are not held to the same content standards as the encyclopedia proper. My question is whether (and why or why not) it would serve "clarity, directness, and usefulness" to insert a reference to protologisms into the guideline, such as:Wikipedia's Glossary states that a protologism is:Neologisms (including so-called " protologisms") are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.
A word that is created and used in the hope that it will become widely used and an accepted part of the language. A successful protologism becomes a neologism. The term protologism has been adopted as jargon for use within Wiki communities, but is not in common usage outside this context. "Protologism" itself can be considered either a protologism or neologism.
Update One objection that was raised in the earlier discussion above was that the word protologism, as a neologism itself, is inappropriate to use at all given
MOS:NEO
. However, policy and guideline pages are not held to the same content standards as the encyclopedia proper – see
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Not part of the encyclopedia
. Hence my question's focus on "clarity, directness, and usefulness" rather than adherence to rules (which don't apply in the same way here). —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 08:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 12:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC))
Wikipedia:Article wizard/Neologismand
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Shorthands. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 18:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipuffery § Shortcut WP:PUFFERY about redirecting WP:PUFFERY to this Manual of Style page. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: the shortcut now redirects here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 13:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I like the excellent material at Editorializing and wish that reading and understanding it were a precondition for editing here at all! I wonder if the custodians of this page might consider adding "aptly" to the examples of things to avoid, or at least think about carefully. Since I became sensitized to it I've seen so many horrible uses of it. It's Year 9 report-writing style (not in a good way) and rarely has a place here when it is not in a direct quotation. "Aptly enough" is even worse, but, wow, there are plenty of Aptlys that make me want to tear out virtual pages ... Thanks and best wishes 82.34.71.202 ( talk) 19:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Done Yaris678 ( talk) 17:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the material on "linking words" such as but, despite, however, and although, it's unlikely that users will
think these words should be generally avoided. I think we can trust users to understand the meaning of "
no forbidden words or expressions" as well as "
The advice in this guideline [...] should not be applied rigidly". If people are not understanding this, then we have a bigger problem than whether words like but and although are included or or not. The existence of the redirects
WP:AVOID
and
WP:Words to avoid
notwithstanding, the name of the page is "Words to watch", not "Words to avoid", which I assume was a deliberate choice. As with any words, the context matters; in the case of using but, however, although, etc., the text is pretty clear in explaining that the issue is avoiding unsupported conclusions. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 06:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
contentious labels should include "conspiracy theory". That seems to be the go-to snarl word for dismissing any accusation of malfeasance by a politican, without argument. 2600:8801:0:1530:B48F:7DDD:69EA:34D7 ( talk) 22:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the material recently added under "Survivors" could easily be condensed and folded into § Euphemisms. Since Survivor has multiple meanings, it's somewhat ambiguous as a section heading. The phrase "survived by" may not strictly be a euphemism in the same sense as "passed away" for died (it's more a bit of journalistic/legalistic jargon like "deceased") but it seems intended for the same effect; namely, to create a breezy, reassuring sense of efficiency around the issue of death. And the shortcut, intuitively, is WP:SURVIVEDBY. The text should highlight the same wording, in my opinion. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Are litotes against WP:MOS?-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 00:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Altercari recently added "generally accepted, until recently, unlike most" to the WP:WEASEL section. I reverted because it's not weasel wording, and sources commonly support such wording, especially "generally accepted." When reporting on whatever literature, for example, it's common to note what the scholarly consensus is. And in these cases, statements like "generally accepted" may be used. As for "until recently," that is a WP:Dated matter that is already covered by this guideline. And "unlike most" can be a simple factual statement; I don't see why it needs to be added at all. Furthermore, as has been noted before on this talk page, the boxes are examples; we do not need to include every example there is; it will keep going on and on. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Are there any policies or guidelines regarding vulgarities that are not located within article space? For example, on a user page? A user talk page? Is there a policy about an editor using vulgarities on his/ her own talk page? What about in edit summaries? I understand that we are not censored, but I also know that we have the option to be polite or not to be polite ourselves when it comes to userpages and user talk pages. But maybe there are no guidelines for this, and people should feel welcome to swear up a storm on their publicly viewable userpage (really, though??). Please let me know what the precedents are, if any. Thanks! KDS4444 ( talk) 22:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I reverted Seth Whales on adding "iconic" to the WP:PEACOCK section, and pointed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 5#"Iconic" for my previous feelings on this matter.
I still feel the same way. Editors keep adding words to that section. Where is the limit? Why can't we only have a few examples there and be done with it? Why must we keep allowing another supposed peacock word to be added to the section, especially when some editors read the section to mean that the words in question should be automatically removed when they come across them? Given that some of these words are often supported by WP:Reliable sources on the topics they are used for, I'm not strongly opposed to them unless they actually violate the WP:Neutral policy. Sometimes it is simply better to state that "[So and so] is considered iconic.", and then elaborate. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The words that I mainly see as an issue are outstanding, extraordinary, brilliant, remarkable, prestigious, awesome and virtuoso. I don't see unique as a big issue at all. "Unique" can be considered vague, but it is a simple descriptor that is often factual. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 09:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue, but I'd like to explore the possibility of banning the use of "illegal alien" across Wikipedia unless it's part of quotes. I've noticed that it's a term that editors regularly try to introduce to Wikipedia articles related to immigration (see this [5] today as an example) whereas other editors try to remove it. While lots federal and state agencies do use the term (some have moved away from it in recent years), the term is rarely, if ever, used by reliable news sources:
Is is therefore jarring when Wikipedia uses a term that is (i) widely seen as offensive or sinister, (ii) has not been used by any reliable news outlets in decades, and (iii) has far more suitable (common in reliable sources and non-offensive) substitutes, such as "undocumented immigrant" and even the flawed "illegal immigrant". So, it's not only bad style to use it on Wikipedia but the fact that the term is allowed on Wikipedia leads to lots of needless edit-warring as users try to introduce the offensive term to pages and others try to remove it. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I feel that I should point out that this is also partly a varieties of English issue. "Illegal alien" as a term never really caught on in UK or Canadian English, and only really shows up reliably in those contexts in sources with a far-right POV. Both Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries define the term as "US English". Newimpartial ( talk) 15:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I support the use of the term provided the context is appropriate. For example, the term should not be used in an article that has content cited to any entity that does not use the term per their manual(s) of style. However, the term still has legal standing, and remains a definition provided by a number of dictionaries. From a legal standpoint, in the United States a 2015 opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ( [10]) confirmed that the term has basis in legal documentation. The parlance of our time is changing, and while the term may well fall out of favor (a counter to my 5th Circuit point would be that the term has not been granted a legal opinion by the US Supreme Court), it remains in use. Without doubt the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone if the situation (and more importantly, the source cited in the concerning instance) warrants it. The question should always be if or not it is tactful to use the term, or if a better one can be employed to suit the same need. Per my previous posting, like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 ( talk) 03:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
After reading an article which described the subject as having dropped out of school, I wondered if it was a euphemism, perhaps even pejorative, or an appropriate synonym for quitting school? My inclination is that it is not encyclopedic, and so I ask. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 07:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I've made a proposal to have "adult" removed from the opening sentence of Family Guy at Talk:Family Guy#RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Obsolescent spellings – It includes some discussion of whether a list of such words/spellings should be maintained at MOS:WTW, or elsewhere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The latest addition of "iconic" has been added by Magnolia677. The only reason I have not reverted again is because it keeps getting added, and because, in the previous discussion, I stated that I would not revert its inclusion again. But I do want to take the time to point to that previous discussion -- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 8#Words in the WP:PEACOCK section, and "iconic". If I start seeing editors removing legitimate uses of "iconic," I will likely remove the term from the guideline and make my case for the removal here on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a place for "in fact" on this page - perhaps in WP:EDITORIAL along with 'actually'?
I see it a lot, and almost always it is either original research, an NPOV breach, or both.
It probably does have some place, like in discussing works of fiction - "The book is set in Nairobi, South Africa. In fact, Nairobi is in Nigeria." - but then so does "actually" (which is why this page is now Words to Watch not Words to Avoid). It would be useful to have a clear place to point people to which says why it is a bad phrase to use. TSP ( talk) 13:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Some stuff often discussed on this talk page is the subject of a thread at the main MoS talk page, here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 19:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Could someone please add upcoming to the list of relative time words to avoid. The list already "in the future" and I think upcoming should be on the list too. That would be a good start but it might be good to write more.
About half the time I see upcoming used it is used incorrectly, if the text isn't already out of date it soon goes out of date and needs to be changed. Many editors do not seem to mind using the word upcoming in the full knowledge that using it inevitably forces other editors to have to rewrite the text. I would like for the guideline to warn editors that even if they really thing the use of word is necessary to avoid using it repeatedly and only using it sparingly. Ideally if there was some kidn of Upcoming template that worked similarly to the Template:As of.
Thanks in advance. -- 109.76.225.230 ( talk) 16:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
as of}}
template, so we know the date by which we expect to need to remove the word and update the material in other way (or update the release date, if it's been pushed further). —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 19:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposed clarification of BLPCRIME terminology
The above link directs to a talk page proposal for wp:blp, which has gained a small amount of traction. I've encountered two situations recently in which the proposal if amended to the policy, would apply. Details can be found in the rollout section of the talk page linked above. After not hearing much by way of feedback on BLP TALK I was tempted to just BRD there, but after revising my proposal a few times for inclusion on the project page, I came to the conclusion that the proposal would be more suitable for WTW.
The proposal in a nutshell is: There's a difference between calling someone a criminal and calling someone a convicted criminal with accompanying contextualization, citation and attribution. The difference is that with contextualization the judicial nature of the text is made clear. Without this it appears to broadly imply criminal nature and amounts to a non-specific accusation of criminal intent.
Could I get some thoughts here please.
thanks
Edaham ( talk) 08:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I occasionally see in Wikipedia articles the presence of words like "amidst", "amongst", "unbeknownst", and "whilst", considered archaic by style guides that mention them. (In US English, such words not only might seem archaic, but also pretentious and quaint.)
Invoking WP:ENGVAR as UK-regional spelling isn't a valid reason to use them, because even UK style guides such as The Times of London, The Guardian, as well as BBC News advise against using these words, as described in our article While#Whilst.
Because the English Wikipedia is read worldwide, would it be appropriate to have a note about avoiding words like these? Exceptions would be quotations and titles of works, of course.
I find that it's possible to reword the sentence to avoid either the archaic or modern forms while improving the sentence at the same time. For example "There is disagreement amongst scientists about...." is more compelling by restating it more concisely as "Scientists disagree about..."
Thoughts? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
References
|
---|
References
|
The discussion above about WP:ENGVAR seems to be more about spoken English, whereas we have multiple examples of UK style guides that advise against using these words in written English, so I disagree that this is a WP:ENGVAR or WP:COMMONALITY issue, regardless of personal preferences of individual editors. All I am wondering is, should Wikipedia follow the lead of other reputable style guides on both sides of the pond? Nobody is advocating banning these words, so the fact that they exist all over Wikipedia is a non-issue, but I think we have ample reason to list them as words to watch in written prose. This guideline, after all, is called "words to watch" and not "words to avoid". In many cases one can rewrite a sentence to be more concise and clear while avoiding either form of these words altogether, as illustrated by the example in my first comment. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 23:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I often despair of Wikipedida and its growing list of does and don'ts. Issues like this are better solved on the talk page of an article rather than have a guideline rule that is then used by someone to run AWB or a bot script over articles that the user of the bot or AWB has never manually touched. Take for example the above statement " MOS:COMMONALITY. I was involved in a similar discussion recently which led to the addition of the last bullet point which probably covers the case you're talking about." which I presume means the the bullet point "When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should be preferred unless there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative. This would not apply in cases where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialised context e.g. connexion in Methodist connexionalism." So someone can go through any topic with close connection with Britain and "rationalise" [sic.] the spelling of words ending in "ize" to the usual British ending of "ise". How does that improve MOS:COMMONALITY? -- PBS ( talk) 13:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Anachronist I have reverted you edit. I think it is instruction creep, and less than helpful, and potentially harmful. See for example the lead in British English "For example, the adjective wee is almost exclusively used in parts of Scotland and Ireland, and occasionally Yorkshire, whereas little is predominant elsewhere." If someone has written a paragraph that uses the term "wee". I think that guidance that forces the changing wee to little, when wee is perfectly understandable is wrong. -- PBS ( talk) 18:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
.
character. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 22:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)If unbeknownst is archaic, then the alternative – unbeknown – just seems bizarre. In fact, unbeknownst seems to have become the more common variant used in books since about 1980 ( Google Ngram Viewer). — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 03:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Watergate is not really an example of use of the suffix "-gate". The suffix derives from the Watergate scandal. Maybe tailgate or Russiagate would be a better example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curfibex ( talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Not sure about this addition by LaundryPizza03. Some things are hoaxes and we call them that without any worry that doing so is POV. We also have a List of hoaxes and a List of Wikipedia hoaxes. What POV issues are you referring to, LaundryPizza03? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that the addition was reverted by Anachronist. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Long-standing MoS material on these terms has been moved to an essay after a short discussion. Further discussion of what to do with this material [11] may be warranted. Please see WT:Manual of Style#Arab and Arabic. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Quoted Text from Ballinger et al. (1992)-- Ephert ( talk) 21:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC) | ||||||||||
In an effort to integrate these Asian mtDNA studies into a coherent view of Southern Mongoloid migra- tions, we have conducted a detailed analysis of the mtDNAs from seven East Asian populations. The data provide evidence that: (1) the Vietnamese are the most diverse and, hence, the oldest population; (2) Malay- sians retain remnants of haplotypes found in PNG; (3) coastal Asians have a striking frequency cline for the 9-bp deletion; and (4) both insertion and deletion mutations in the COII/tRNALYs intergenic region have occurred more than once. |
Similarity of mongoloid types: Analysis of South- east Asian mtDNA variation indicates that all extant populations were derived from a common ancestral population which encompassed most of the variation. The mean of the intrapopulational divergence is 0.182%, while the mean interpopulational divergence corrected for intrapopulational divergence (NEI and TAJIMA 1983) is about one-sixth this value or 0.030%, with a range of 0.019% to 0.053% (Table 3). Thus, it would appear that most of the mtDNA variation is shared between the Southeast Asian populations and predated the present geographic subdivision. Of the current populations, the Vietnamese have the greatest intrapopulational genetic divergence (0.236%) sug- gesting that it is the oldest. Since Vietnam was colo- nized by a southeast China migration, this would imply a southern Chinese origin of Mongoloid people about 59,000 to 118,000 YBP (assuming that mtDNA di- vergence is 2-4% per million years, CANN, BROWN and WILSON 1984; CANN, STONEKING and WILSON 1987; NECKELMANN et al. 1987, 1989; WALLACE et al. 1987). | |||||||||
The quoted text above is in the upper-left of page 140 just before the "Materials and Methods" section which is page 2/14 of the PDF document. |
The quoted text above is the first paragraph of the "Discussion" section which is the fourth paragraph of the right column of page 142 which is page 4/14 of the PDF document. | |||||||||
Source: Ballinger, S. W.; Schurr, T. G.; Torroni, A; Gan, Y. Y.; Hodge, J. A.; Hassan, K; Chen, K. H.; Wallace, D. C. (1992). "Southeast Asian Mitochondrial DNA Analysis Reveals Genetic Continuity of Ancient Mongoloid Migrations". Genetics. 130 (1): 139–152. PMC 1204787 |
I am in a discussion with User:Calthinus on Talk:Vietnamese people. In an edit on September 21, 2017, User:Calthinus wrote, "Okay well it still smacks of WP:PEACOCK. My removal was not based on source manipulation. Claiming to be the "oldest" population when of course what that actually means is poorly understood by most people is typically diagnostic of nationalistic editing practices, although to be fair I don't edit much Southeast Asian pages so I'll assume good faith here. It still looks bad on the page though." I contend that the reliable source describing Vietnamese as the oldest population given a certain context is not in violation of WP:PEACOCK. The description of "oldest" is a description Ballinger et al. (1992) based on genetic data given a certain context, and that certain context appears to be the oldest of the current Southeast Asian populations. For analogy, if this statement violates WP:PEACOCK, then saying that Native Americans are the oldest population in the Americas based on genetic evidence would also violate WP:PEACOCK. Surely, mentioning that Native Americans are the oldest population in the Americas based on genetic evidence should not be a fact that is censored due to someone possibly interpreting that statement as meaning that Native Americans are somehow better than other people. Applying the same sound reasoning, the Ballinger et al. (1992) genetic source should not be censored due to someone possibly interpreting the statement which could be cited to Ballinger et al. (1992) as meaning that Vietnamese are somehow better than other people.-- Ephert ( talk) 21:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Popcornduff, now that you mention it, why are we telling editors to avoid "issue"? I can see avoiding "an issue with" if it's vague, but "a problem with" is also vague. "Issue" is used for "problem" in a lot of places on Wikipedia. Hmm. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, "issues" doesn't always mean "problems" to people. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I know this word is not on the list under WP:PEACOCK, but I noted its overuse in some articles, like JoJo (singer). [12] There may be some valid uses, usually where a given authority makes a statement of authenticity on something of theirs, but under what circumstances would this word qualify as a peacock term? I'm thinking my edit that I cited here is one of those times.
I will note I brought this up here before, three and a half years ago, but I'm still curious. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 15:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Unsupported attributions is covered here. Yet there is another problem. Editors are deleting supported attributions. We have "Unsupported attributions" but not "Supported attributions". Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
"The guest list included Charles, Prince of Wales – This is usually acceptable, as a confusion with Charles I of England, Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely."
"... is highly unlikely."
According to whom? What research shows this to be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.42.187 ( talk) 11:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
To be bold, i created a new section here, "Clutter". Comments? Feel free to edit it if you see fit. Or is said section appropriate?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 19:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
This [ [13]] has raised an interesting couple of interesting questions is the "term" "weapon of choice for perpetrators" a label, and how can we use inline attribute a view that can be attributed to so many sources? "according to the NYT, the BG, the Guardian, the BBC...etc". Slatersteven ( talk) 11:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Requested move 21 June 2018.
Under discussion are potential MOS:WTW and WP:NPOV concerns about "regimes". (Other matters include: whether there's a special WP:IAR rationale to capitalize "Communist" in this case, despite MOS:ISMCAPS; whether "killings" is the right word; whether the article needs to be split for WP:NOR reasons; and some other stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I think so, @ P Aculeius: does not. Paradoctor ( talk) 09:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
To say that someone "fell in battle" does not introduce bias, is not flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, and does not endorse a particular viewpoint. The word/phrase has a specific technical meaning in this context and is acceptable in this context throughout academia, and has been for hundreds of years. So it seems to me that the guideline in question is being misused to enforce one particular notion of what words or expressions ought to be forbidden... P Aculeius ( talk) 14:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)"[t]here are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint. The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. For example, some words have specific technical meanings in some contexts and are acceptable in those contexts (e.g. "claim" in law). What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability" (emphasis in original; internal citations omitted).
I see it as a euphemism. It also seems to me to carry some connotation of the person involved being someone important, rather than just one of those disposable foot soldiers. In fact, I wonder if its use comes from the idea of falling from one's horse, rather just from one's feet. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not think "fell in battle" is a euphemism in the sense that we should ban it completely, since its meaning is pretty much evident from the phrasing itself, so that even someone who has never heard the phrase could easily tell what it means. Nonetheless, I think that "died in battle" or "was killed in battle" would be far preferable wording, since these are more specific and remove any possibility of ambiguity, since it is hypothetically possible that someone who has never heard the phrase "fell in battle" could perhaps mistake it to mean the person was merely badly injured. Clarity is probably the most important factor to consider here. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Might be worth including victim[s]. This word is appropriate in reference to [statutory] crime victims in most cases (not all, when the crime is one with no actual harm and imposed for subjective reasons like religious doctrine). Also appropriate for and mass victims of state actions defined as international crimes, like genocide. It's not appropriate when the actions are more subjective (e.g. "victims of China's Internet censorship", since authoritarians are generally in support of various forms of censorship – I'm saying this as a civil libertarian; I'm just able to separate my beliefs from objective analysis of belief systems). It's also not appropriate in reference to diseases and disorders, e.g. "victims of congenital blindness". Same goes for suffer[er]/suffering; we should not write "She suffers from oculocutaneous albinism". These aren't idle concerns; I fairly often have to replace exactly these sorts of constructions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Since 2006, the main MoS page has had advice on this (in various wording). A general approximation: The adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Well-established noun phrases such as gum arabic (lower-case) and Arabic coffee are exceptions.
Plus add something about Arabian, since many editors are unclear on the difference. Virtually every off-WP style guide covers this, and with mutually compatible advice, so we'll be on good footing to include it.
This was unilaterally deleted by someone in February of this year, and a later discussion concluded not to re-add it, on the basis that it was "weird" to dwell on one particular set of words. I suggested moving it to MOS:WTW, which is all about considering particular words, but this idea got drowned out in various argumentation about definitions.
I re-propose that it be covered here, since it's a matter of cultural sensitivity and appropriate usage, which is almost universally detailed in style guides. The "weird" thing is for MoS to remain utterly silent on it, after over a decade of providing clear (albeit incomplete) advice which has served us well. I think several months of leaving the matter as-is is sufficient to ask now whether consensus has change (or, rather, for whether a more specific consensus will emerge other than "don't revert the deletion from the main MoS page").
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Should we restore the Arab/Arabic-related advice deemed correct but too narrow for the main MoS page, to this MoS subpage where it's on-topic?
Material recently reverted with "more support required", despite previous discussion of the idea meeting no opposition, on this very page:
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words is not a guideline, and no one seems to cite or use it with any frequency. It's an essay, and a former article that got project-spaced because it was not good enough for mainspace. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
The Arab[ic|ian] question doesn't come up often enough to need a shortcut. The "ugly Americanisms" thing seems like a straw man argument. Batternut ( talk) 22:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
we've had a few wars and a whole lot of deaths results from people not being clear on this stuff, and surely more to come., your edit then? Batternut ( talk) 05:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
If the main point of this addition is to avoid Anti-Arabism, Islamophobia etc, (which is indeed a laudable aim) perhaps we should minimize or remove the pedantry over Arab, Arabic and Arabian distinction. The wording should focus on the risk of bias, as it currently reads more like preaching on geography, and the bias issue is just an afterthought. Batternut ( talk) 08:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I find the wording of this RfC decidedly non-neutral:
Given also the ill-tempered spat over middle eastern war which hogs half the comment space, a restart of this RfC might be the best course, and perhaps with the modified proposal above. Batternut ( talk) 06:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Talk:Trypophobia#Latest changes. The discussion concerns whether or not it is fine to quote this source as much as desired without the use of quotation marks, and whether or not we should always use a source's exact words. Regarding the latter, the question is whether it's WP:Original research to use our own wording as opposed to a source's exact words and whether wording like this needs to be tagged as WP:Weasel. The discussion additionally concerns stating things in Wikipedia's voice when sources disagree, the research is new, and/or there is no consensus in the literature on the matter.
On a side note: The Trypophobia article contains an image that some find distressing. So a heads up on that. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, regarding this, I don't see "report" as much of an issue. I do see "reportedly" as an issue, though, since it's often used in a snide way. As for "a Baptist church," what is the reasoning behind that? I take it that you mean that someone might add "a Baptist church" to downplay or try to discredit the validity of the claim? You know, because it's a statement from a Baptist church? Or maybe someone trying to strengthen the argument of the claim by stating "a Baptist church"? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 08:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Carl Tristan Orense, why do you think "overwhelming" should be added to the WP:PEACOCK section? I've seen okay uses of "overwhelming" when supported by a source. And like I stated when reverting you, there are already enough examples. As others have stated on this talk page before, this is not a list. It's not a place to add every word we personally want highlighted. There are a number of other words we can add to that box, but the goal (like the other boxes as well) is to make sure editors/readers get the point. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to raise a depressing topic, but does WP have a guideline or policy regarding the language or vocab that should be used for reporting suicides? E.g. in the biography of Darcy Clay, an editor has just changed "committed suicide" to "took his own life." I don't see anything about this under WP:EUPHEMISM or WP:SUICIDES.-- Muzilon ( talk) 07:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this, this and this, furthermore isn't quite on the same level as "but, despite, however, though, although." I haven't really seen cases where furthermore "possibly unduly call[s] the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." I do consider "furthermore" editorializing" in our articles, but it's not on the same level as the first batch of examples in that section. From what I can tell, it's simply used to carry on the continuation of a thought, without bias, the vast majority of the time. In that vein, it's similar to "additionally." But then again, I usually see "but," "though," and "although" used appropriately as well. The words "despite" and "however," but especially "despite," are more problematic.
DVdm, I take it you added "furthermore" because it's such a common editorializing term? Not because it usually "unduly call[s] the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second"? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 05:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
In Drake (musician)'s lead section:
He is one of the most popular entertainers in the world, [1] [2] and one of the best-selling music artists of the 21st century. Drake's contributions to music have made him a global figure in popular culture for over a decade. [3] [4]
None of the sources cited state that, while the one that does is an unreliable website (uncharteddomain dot com). While discussing the topic I believe is WP:Peacock from the user that added it. The other sources, however, did note that he is 2018's top artist commercially in the United States. How could it be rewritten if it is indeed wp:peacock? Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 05:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
___
References
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
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.
Should we add a class of "Terms that can introduce bias", listing incorrect use of Arab and Arabic as an examplar?
RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC). Batternut ( talk) 08:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
The wording would be:
Batternut ( talk) 08:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
For comparison, the current wording is
Do not use similar or related words in a way that blurs meaning or is incorrect or distorting.
For example, the adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Arabian relates to the Arabian peninsula or historical Arabia. (These terms are all capitalized, e.g. Arabic coffee and Arabian stallion, aside from a few conventionalized exceptions that have lost their cultural connection, such as gum arabic.) Do not substitute these terms for Islamic, Muslim, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Muslim Arab is someone who is in both categories.
Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about terminology, consult major modern dictionaries.E Eng 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Do not use similar or related words in an incorrect, distorting, or meaning-blurring way? If something is wrong, fix it. The List of commonly misused English words seems sufficient to address the Arab/Arabic case. Alsee ( talk) 05:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
In a sentence like " Annabelle is a Raggedy Ann doll said by demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren to be haunted" we can't put scare quotes around demonologists, or say "self-described" or anything, we just have to pretend like that's a real thing? EatenRiper ( talk) 09:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
To a user who edits in British English- it seems amusing to see a heading spelled Editoriali(z)ing under words to avoid! ClemRutter ( talk) 13:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Regarding this edit by Alsee, should "prodigy" be on the WP:PEACOCK list? After all, " child prodigy" is a legitimate term. Are we never to mention that someone is a genius or considered a genius? We note that Albert Einstein is considered to have been one. I can see an issue with putting "genius" in Wikipedia's voice if it's not something that is widely accepted like Einstein's genius is, but "prodigy" seems more objective. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion that led to this latest addition is seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using the term "chess prodigy". We also have an article on chess prodigy. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't think weasel words should be removed instead of just tagged and left there? EatenRiper ( talk) 09:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I personally see a LOT of very old tags, not just Weasel tags. Especially the tag "needs verifiable sources" (or "needs attribution"?). That tag has existed for many, many years on many pages. I don't have time or resources to edit the pages where I see that; I wish I did. I suppose it's just unfortunate that pages can get tagged with tags that persist for so long. 75.146.141.141 ( talk) 20:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
An RfC on this subject has been opened here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 05:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Does the stuff about puffery and words to watch apply to quotes? I assume it does, or what would be the point in the guideline in the first place? Since an article could circumvent it by using a lot of quotes. The article isn't totally clear on it though. It doesn't definitively say they do, but it also doesn't definitively say they don't. So id like some clarification. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 07:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Noted biographer Jane Doe calls Harry Smith "The greatest ever at what he did"
I was reverted with the edit comment "This isn't an article". What do you mean, User:EEng? CapnZapp ( talk) 10:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Can we add "martyr" to the list of contentious labels? It is often used by the followers of some ideology or the other to incorporate their POV. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 11:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Under "Editorializing" in the "Words to watch" section with "but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, ..." I would like to add the watchwords, "nonetheless" and "nevertheless." - is that acceptable, or is their usage not prevalent enough to warrant inclusion? - Epinoia ( talk) 17:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Considering adding refuted, which seems to creep in sometimes, when disagreed or disputed is meant. Refuted is more categorical, and means disproven. Mathglot ( talk) 08:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think at one time there was a WP:WTA#Theory link that has now disappeared. I want to make a request to include some prose that encourage people to be careful with terms which mean different things in different contexts. I am most familiar with situations that arise in scientific and empirical contexts. For example, I sometimes come across the word "theory" being used to refer to a "personal theory" or hunch which is fine in some contexts, but can be extremely misleading in others. In general, I think unless there is some overarching reason to prefer using the term "theory" in such contexts, synonyms are better in order to preserve the scientific sense of the word. The same thing goes for hypothesis, proof (which should be held for mathematics and legal standards of evidence), and phenomenon (which generally in empirical contexts refers to well-established observable events but in other scenarios is used to mean "fantastical" and is, therefore, often too ambiguous to use as a "label").
I don't think words like these currently have a good place for their inclusion.
Thoughts?
jps ( talk) 19:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
This essay used to be "words to avoid" and there was a time "theory" was included. Long about the time it was converted into "words to watch", that section was removed. However, I think that the basic point can be explained here that these kinds of words are not words you need to avoid, they just need to be unambiguous in context. There are scenarios where a word like "theory" does not mean scientific theory and can, or even must be used. For example, critical theory. The goal would be for us to explain the care that is needed when trying to apply loaded terms like this to the plain text of Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 11:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
"evidence". jps ( talk) 14:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
"argument". jps ( talk) 17:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I can use some actual examples in the text. If you think other words are more abused, you are free to propose an alternative, of course. jps ( talk) 11:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which has been attributed to his new position on foreign policy"
Please change this to
"In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which poll participants attributed to his new position on foreign policy"
Merely "has been attributed to" is weasel-words, since we don't know who's doing the attributing. 208.95.51.53 ( talk) 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists and comment. Halo Jerk1 ( talk) 02:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Now it's an RfC. Found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: Should we provide attribution when using "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" when describing BLP subjects?. Halo Jerk1 ( talk) 04:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Would the terms that indicate the final results of a conflict be a problem: victorious, failed, triumphant, unsuccessful, etc. Examples: 2018 Ugandan failed coup, or 2020 Moroccan victorious referendum. Would any of this term be recommended? I think it is preferable to use other terms like attempt or none of these terms at all "2019 Ugandan coup attempt" or "2020 Moroccan referendum". Is there any guideline related to this issue?-- MaoGo ( talk) 03:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Leviv ich 17:34, 22 August 2019 (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.
WP:RACIST says (obviously!) that it's not good for a Wikipedia editor to decide whether someone is racist. Instead, that view should generally be attributed to specific reliable sources. It seems to me that we should probably mention sexist, homophobic, and transphobic in the same section. They're all value-laden labels and should normally be treated the same way (i.e., avoided unless the label is widely used, and attributed to sources rather than to editors' personal views). What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This page seems to indicate that one should avoid weasel words, as they might make it seem that a statement is more true than it actually is. However, sometimes I need to make a statement less exact than it seems. For example (not an actual example), one my state that there are billions of stars in the universe. That might be seen to imply that there are between one and ten billion, otherwise it might have said tens of billions or hundreds of billions. Since we can't count them, and if we did it would only be the visible universe, the intent is for a vague but large number. I need to imply that the value isn't meant to be exact. Gah4 ( talk) 02:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)