Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
April 2002 – October 2005 November 2005 – May 2006

Contents 1 Use of claim 2 Use of "example" 3 'Liberate' and its derivatives 3.1 Version 2 4 Garner 5 Some people assert 6 Propaganda terms 7 "Is growing" is a prediction 8 Cunt 9 Section Terrorist, terrorism 10 Why are controversy sections bad? 11 Subsection "theory" 12 RFC: Article structures which can imply a view 13 Criticism of X 14 Terrorism, yet again 15 On the other hand 16 Article titles 17 "It should be noted" 18 Quotation marks other than marking quotes 19 New Section On Article Content Policy 20 Heads Up 21 Caucasian 22 Legendary 23 Theory modification 24 Denial 25 Use of the word "cult" 26 Article names for controversial events 27 "Report" 28 Yay, terrorism 29 A few other words to consider 30 "affiliated" 31 Arguments for and against describing an entity as terrorist 32 "Sadly", "tragically", etc. in descriptions of death 33 Homophobic 34 Murder 35 The word "score" should be avoided 36 To merge or not to merge 37 Delete this guideline 38 Notable 39 Violation of Wikipedia Policy 40 Use of "purported" in conjunction with "psychic medium" 41 Scientific theories and laws 42 Article structure 43 Bigot 44 Bad example of "claim" in this guideline 45 Terrorist, terrorism section 46 are but a few... 47 "The Late" in terms of the dead 48 Adjevtive and adverbs that convey POV: "merely", "only", "just" 49 "Recently" 50 Terrorist vs Category Terrorism 51 "Scandal" vs "controversy" 52 Pro-life 53 Proposal: law words and and other misplaced formality issues 54 in his book X, author Y hints at Z 55 Purported

[edit] Use of claim

In an old revision of this page, the word claim was treated as follows:

The current page, lumping it together with some other words, says:

I don't think that's an acceptable use at all. Look in [url=http://www.tfd.com/claim]the dictionary[/url]: "To state to be true, especially when open to question". That, in other words, suggests that Bush's statement was open to question, which is POV. According to many POVs (the majority POVs, actually, at least in the West), the view is not at all questionable, and in fact anyone who questions it is quite possibly viewed as a loony depending on whom you ask.

I would propose that this section look something like this.

This is a rather large change, so I'd appreciate some feedback. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good, though a bit long. Do you mean it to replace sections 2.1 and 2.5? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is good also. I find the "acceptable use" section particularly enlightening. Deco 02:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't look at section 2.5. That might be possible to work in somehow, but it's distinct in many ways. Perhaps we should have 2.1 be a section about how you should usually use say, and bump everything else down? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For convenience I'm going to move up the section 'Point out, note...' so that it follows the section 'So-called, claim(s), purported(ly)...' Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there was unanimous agreement amonst the few who commented, I've instituted the change. Feel free to revert if you object. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

See problems that have arisen with the "claim" guideline at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Some Thoughts Concerning Education. I think that the wording of the guideline is too stringent and it should rely on the OED. Thanks. Awadewit 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose this addition: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "claim" is "‘Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain, assert’." This usage is particularly common when discussing texts and ideas. For example:

"In Book II [of Essay Concerning Human Understanding] Locke claims that ideas are the materials of knowledge and all ideas come from experience." - John Locke at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Awadewit 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "example"

This style good really isn't NPOV. It's examples may be the best to put it, but there is no need you use examples that everybody criticizes, such as Microsoft or G. Bush. Iolakana|^(talk) 16:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV only applies to articles. But if you don't like the examples, go ahead and change them. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Liberate' and its derivatives

The word "liberate" means "to set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control" [3]. It's usage should be avoided in the cases that do not fit this definition. For instance, it woud be inappropriate to say "the army of country X liberated territory Y from Z", if the political regime established by country X at territory Y is oppressive. It does not matter whether regime Z was oppressive or not.

Another example, "the army of country X liberated country Y from the control of country Z" is inappropriate if the country Y claims or claimed its independence but did not obtain it from X. In this case the country Y was not set free from foreign control, but rather one foreign control was replaced by another one.

Please note that according to the definition the pre-war status of the territory is irrelevant.

The word "liberate" and its derivatives should not be avoided if the context clearly fits the definition: liberation of prisoners, retaking a territory if most reputable scholars do not consider the new regime at this territory oppressive, if the country becomes indpendent, etc. --AndriyK 15:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem unreasonable, provided there are good sources to describe the change of control as exchange of occupations rather than liberation. If there is serious difference of opinion over whether liberation occurred (such as the case of Poland) then the word liberation should be avoided because its use is prejudicial to the question. A more neutral word should be substituted. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the flaw is in the word "occupant", Ukraine, like it or not was universally recognised as part of the USSR, before and after the second World War (Unlike the Baltic States, where I personally agree that the word liberation is not suitable). --Kuban Cossack 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not about Ukraine or USSR. This is about the countries X, Y and Z.

Let's formulate a general guideline in the most abstract form and then see to which countries it applies.--AndriyK 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the word should be avoided in military-political situations regardless of their context. Sure, usable in the most obvious situations (concentration camps, Gulags, prisons and so on), but in all other situations there are much better, much more neutral words that could be used. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but even the 1944 Allied push through France was not "liberation" for Petain nor for the French SS soldiers. Not to mention more obvious cases like Poland, or the areas taken from Poland. I've seen some users have no problem mentioning that the people of some area had been liberated - and then mentioning that all of them were subsequently arrested and deported.

Let's stick to military terms and all will be fine. Halibutt 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As per Halibutt's post, imho. Readers don't need to be spoonfed someone's opinion continually. Personally, I find few things quite so annoying and nauseating. Plus, avoiding "liberate" is simple and avoids so many pointless edit squabbles. Deuar 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with AndriyK's, Halibu's, and Deuar's statements.--tufkaa 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AndriyK, Halibutt,and Deuar. To be exact: we should avoid "liberate" wording in military-political situations regardless of context, which is indeed simple. Ukrained 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AndriyK: liberate should be avoided if the connotations of the term are controversial, such as when it is not clear that there was an increase in liberty or the new regime is also oppressive. A minor point: the oppressiveness of the previous regime is not irrelevant; when liberty is increased - relative to the previous regime - liberate may be appropriate. Also, like AndriyK, I would still use it in some cases (e.g. the Allied liberation of France). - PatrickFisher 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think liberate can be generally avoided provided that it is retained in cases where it is the "most common English name" for an event (I'm thinking of Liberation of Paris, in particular). Kirill Lokshin 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Liberate" should be avoided at least in controversial cases.--Mbuk 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And who will define what is a controversial case? -- Grafikm_fr 22:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Liberate" is not POV in most cases and there is no need to avoid it. In the case of the Soviets and Nazis, I daresay there is no "other side" that wishes to speak up. Rjensen 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may, is that just your opinion or is that a policy? -- Grafikm_fr 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not policy yet. We're discussing whether to add some words about inappropriate use of the word "liberation" to this Style guide, which would make it recommended best practice for all editors (though not mandatory). --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And who will define what is a controversial case? Controversial case is "if the political regime established by country X at territory Y is oppressive." Or considered as oppressive by respectable schoolars, I would say.--Mbuk 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there is always a "good-will approach" we could adopt. If there are people to dispute the usage of the L word in certain context, then it is fair to assume that the usage is controversial. And, as a matter of good will approach, we could change it there to some more neutral terms. What do you say? //Halibutt 06:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a fair chance that someone will always dispute a topic in some context. As you said yourself earlier, "Liberation of Paris" was hardly liberation for Petain and his men. What would you say if someone started to dispute that one? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that liberate should always be avoided in political/military contexts. It has a strongly positive connotation, and words with strong connotation should be avoided. Proper nouns (Liberation of Paris) would of course be exempted, as is our policy, and quotes of course could contain the word as well, but used as an actual part of speech, I don't think it's ever acceptable in this context. If prisoners are being freed, use the word free; if a country is being retaken, use the word retake.

I'm aware, however, that there's been a longstanding dispute on this issue. I hope all participants in it have been informed so they can discuss it here? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version 2

The word "liberate" means "to set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control" [4]. It's usage should be avoided in the cases that do not fit this definition. For instance, it woud be inappropriate to say "the army of country X liberated territory Y from Z", if the political regime established by country X at territory Y is oppressive. It does not matter whether regime Z was oppressive or not.

Another example, "the army of country X liberated country Y from the control of country Z" is inappropriate if the country Y claims or claimed its independence but did not obtain it from X. In this case the country Y was not set free from foreign control, but rather one foreign control was replaced by another one. Therefore this situation does not fit into definition as well.

Please note that according to the definition the pre-war status of the territory is irrelevant.

The word "liberate" and its derivatives should not be avoided if the context clearly fits the definition: liberation of prisoners, for instance. There are no formal reasons to avoid the word "liberate" in the case of (re)taking terrirory in combat operations if reputable scholars do not consider the newly established or reestablished regime at this territory oppressive, if the country becomes indpendent, etc. Still, many editors believe that militaric terms like "(re)take control over", "advance into", "(re)clame", "recover" etc. is better suited in such situations, as it is more encyclopedic and less politically charged, and potentially less controversial.

I tried to take into account different views that appeared in the above discussion and modified the last paragraph. Does it look better now?--AndriyK 11:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

However what happens if there is no country Y? If country X liberated its own territory from country Z? (Which is clearely the scenario that opened the dispute) --Kuban Cossack 12:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is no doubt that the territory is own, i.e. the people there did not claim their independence from country X, then it is the first case: "The army of country X liberated territory Y from Z" would be a bad wording if the political regime established by country X at territory Y is oppressive. There is no formal reasons to avoid the word "liberate" if the regime is not oppressive . Nonetheless many editors consider militaric terminology as s better style even in this case.--AndriyK 14:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. "it woud be inappropriate to say 'the army of country X liberated territory Y from Z', if the political regime established by country X at territory Y is oppressive"—since when is Wikipedia supposed to judge whether a regime is "oppressive"? If you would like to say "supported by fewer than X% of its inhabitants", that at least would be a reliable standard, but it's often much too hard to gauge support, so that's a flawed standard as well. As for "if reputable scholars do not consider the newly established or reestablished regime at this territory oppressive", reputable scholars' POV is not NPOV. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"supported by fewer than X% of its inhabitants" would not work. Oppressive regimes do not allow free elections or independent sociological polls. It is usually difficult to say how many percent of inhabitants support a certain oppressive regime.

The point of my proposal is the following. If there are scolars stating that regime X was/is oppressive this might be a POV not shared by everybody. It is not a sufficient reason to state in the article that the regime was oppressive. But it is a sufficient reason to avoid the word "liberate", because otherwise it may cause controversies, edit wars etc. Are you agree?--AndriyK 10:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the point is even if it was oppressive (again definition of what is oppressive is also helpful, does death penalty in USA or Guantanamo bay prison make it an oppressive regime as well?) I think we need to be rational with exactly what is liberation. So if country x eg. USSR is invaded by country Y eg Nazi Germany, then all of the territory that belonged to the USSR prior to invasion, as it is being recovered is liberated.

No, I don't agree. Emphasis on scholars here is inappropriate. Neo-Nazis doubtless view Nazi occupiers as liberators, and that this is an uncommon view today is mainly because of the predominant Western POVs of our time, which are so violently antiracist as to classify racism as a crime in many countries. I am against racism, but Wikipedia nevertheless shouldn't endorse the systemic biases of our era any more than it should other biases. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1. If territory Y is now an independent country, but its government and people still acknowledge liberation. (e.g. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova) then it is liberation without question.
2. If however territory Y is an independent country but its leaders now directely question the impact of the country Xs actions (e.g. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), then its liberation from country Y, with long term consenquences explained.
3. If territory Yc was an indpenedent country but it opposed country z, then action of country x is liberation from country Z (e.g Serbia, Czech republic). And if the modern government questions long-term impact, then liberation from country z with long-term consenquences explained (e.g Poland, Croatia).
4. If territory is indeed part of country z and/or it was part of country z's allies (sattelites) then, it is indeed occupation (as officially confirmed by Yalta and Potsdam conferences). Examples would be Hungary, Austria and of course Germany itself.

Finally I will not accept double standards for eastern or western thetres of World War 2. --Kuban Cossack 16:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No government has autority over WP. Governmental POV cannot be a guideline for WP editors.

Using the word "occupation" is not duscussed here. Please create a separate section if you would like.

My version does not say anything about West or East. Where do you see double standards?--AndriyK 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So then what is in your opinion a guide to NPOV? IMO - take / liberate / free. would the POV scale, the Occupy is not applicable as it is a hard nationalist POV that is not even worth to be taken for consideration in WP. Hence Liberate is in the middle and is NPOV, as mirrored by states, peoples, UN, and most respectable publications (e.g. Britannica). --Kuban Cossack 17:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Read "Ukraine" and "Wold wars". Do you find "liberate" there?--AndriyK 17:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It does say that about Kiev. So true for Kiev = true for Ukraine (east and west) --Kuban Cossack 18:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Current government opinion isn't a good solution. Governments are political, and may want to mouth some fictions to get in a better position with someone. Consider the position of the US on, for instance, Taiwan or the Armenian genocide. I also question whether the opinion of a majority of modern citizens is appropriate to use as any kind of basis; many modern-day Germans no doubt view the Allies as having liberated their country from Hitler, but that wasn't remotely the sentiment at the time, to my knowledge, even accounting for the difficulty of gauging opinion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As liberation is a term devoted to expansion of freedom, it can't be used to define what happened in territories taken by Soviet Union, where massive executions, repression of national identity and political terror took place. From what I know only in Russia the term doesn't evoke controversy(or even outright rejection of the term as in some worst hit countries), perhaps it should be limited then to territories in its possesion ? There are many other, fairly neutral and descriptive terms that can be used. Its obvious that the term "liberation" in regards to actions of Soviet Union in areas that went under its control, rises serious objections. I may also note that not only in Wikipedians but in governments and populations of those countries. --Molobo 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

perhaps it should be limited then to territories in its possesion? That's what I was doing in the first place, yet it still started a huge edit war... Nobody is talking about applying this term to Poland or Germany... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the definition of the word "liberate" once more. Do you find there any reference to "possesion"?--AndriyK 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"A major use of the word is the act of the (forcible) removal of unwanted control of an area, person or people by an outside (sometimes military) force." Control = possession. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is taken from a WP artickle, which can be a usefull source of information, but is not a creadible source.--AndriyK 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A general dictionary is not a credible source either, since it contains only the general meaning of the word, not its significance in some particular context. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What does the dictionary of military terms tell us about this word?--AndriyK 13:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Britannica uses the words "Kiev liberation". In this case, so can we, since accusing them of POV-pushing would be slightly excessive. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk first about the definition of the word "liberate". You told us you are not satisfied with the definition found in general dictionaries. Do you know other definitions found in creadible sources?--AndriyK 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, check Talk:Lviv and Talk:Łódź (and its history), where various users suggested to use it for Poland as well. //Halibutt 02:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, since when do I have to be responsible of the point of view of "various users"? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And when did I suggest that? I merely pointed to the fact that this discussion does not only affect a more clear-cut cases like the Russian forces recapturing Russian territory, but also affects the cases where the Red Army entered territory of foreign states. //Halibutt 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be wary of "liberate" because (unless its in the literal sense of "set free"), any battle of "Liberation" will be seen as a freeing by one side, and (usually) a loss of freedom by the other. So in general, I wouldn't mind seeing this on the words list. Its exactly that kind of inherent worded viewpoint that this list's designed to address. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "liberate" should be avoided in general when refering to a change in territorial control. Liberation is a value-laden term - a liberation is always a good thing. A change in territorial control is often a good thing or a bad thing depending on your POV. This guideline is exactly for words like this. AndrewRT - Talk 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garner

My current pet peeve is the word "garner". It seems to crop up in entertainment-related articles particularly, eg. "so and so garnered 19 Oscars throughout their long career". It is becoming the cliche of the decade. It mimics the kind of unreal language you hear on plastic-infotainment TV shows. We're better than that. Where can I make an appeal to people to please stop using it. JackofOz 21:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want people to stop using it, this is the place to suggest it and gauge whether anyone agrees. I don't; I have no objection to the use of the word garner, in moderation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some people assert

I find it ironic that this page contains the phrase "Some people assert that yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions," as this phrase seems to violate a number of Wikepedia guidlines, including the guidlines on this very page. "Assert" is one of those words that is a synonym for say, which introduces a bias to the statement. And in the Wikipedia article on weasel words, "Some people say . . ." is given as one of the weasel terms to avoid. In fact, it's the very first example. I just thought that was kind of funny.

[edit] Propaganda terms

As has been discussed for article titles already - Wikipedia:Naming conventions - propaganda names, especially referring to military conflicts, are to be avoided. E.g. United States invasion of Panama instead of "Operation Just Cause" and Iraq War instead of "Operation Iraqi Freedom", holocaust instead of "Final solution of the Jewish question". This does not hold when there is a need to point to the actual operation rather than a neutral term, e.g. if a conflict is known under a certain name but for different parts of it there are only operational names available and a neutral descriptive is impractical. Añoranza 00:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be fair to point out that (a) the discussion linked above seems to come to the opposite conclusion (specific decisions regarding individual pages notwithstanding) and (b) that this same discussion is already being conducted at the Military history WikiProject at some length. Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion only started today, and the Military history project only has guidelines - saying

"Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name".

This here is official policy and specifically on text in articles, not article titles. Añoranza 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be why we're discussing a new guideline that would address text in articles, of course. Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where will this discussion appear next? Why do the people in the previous discussions have to chase down the new ones all the time? This is getting out of hand, this discussion was handled in two other locations. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just look above to see why this is the right place to discuss terms in articles, which has not been done before. The link to this discussion was already provided by another user at Wikipedia:Naming Conventions before I went here. Añoranza 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Añoranza clearly has an agenda of some sort. Añoranza is shopping this discussion around tens of discussion pages at this moment, trying to find a forum that agrees with him. He wants to subvert language to his causes. He even claims Operation Golden Pheasant is a "propaganda term". What is propaganda-ish about a "Golden Pheasant"? If the operational name is a commonly used name, then there is no reason not to use it. This user has an issue with military terms of the United States and is on some sort of anti-US crusade. Johntex\^talk 17:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Official names of a product, organization, individual, enterprise, etc. are typically the correct names for articles about those products, organizations, individuals, enterprises, etc. Thus, we have People's Republic of China (nothing about it is the "people's"), Roman Catholic Church (which is not "catholic"), State of Israel (when many dispute the validity of its statehood), IntelliSense (plenty of people would be skeptical of their mice's intelligence), etc.

In the case of military operations, however, typically two sides are involved: it's not a matter of one entity making up names for itself or its property. Furthermore, typically the codename is not the most common name used for the operation, so having it be the article name violates the cardinal rule of article naming, and using it instead of more usual terms would be jarring and thus poor style. Thus, in many cases a more descriptive name is superior, for both names and text. I'm not willing to rule out using codenames altogether, though; they might in some cases be the most common term used. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't cover all the cases he is attempting to change. Some of them are about operations that were only a small part of the overall conflict - such as a mission to insert a certain team of operatives. Some of them are not even two-party conflicts, they are just military exercises! Johntex\^talk 04:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, one will redirect to the other, or the other will redirect to the one, of course. As a rule, if something has a formal name, then that formal name is not biased. For example, a school is a school, africa is africa, the boer war is the boer war and a PC is a PC. The creators and "owners" of something usually have the right to choose its name. Where POV comes in is when a name inherently takes a side. But a proper noun is not usually such a thing. Neither "Desert Storm" nor "US invasion of Iraq" are particularly likely to mislead or insult a reader, since these are the formal name, and description, respectively. My $0.02 FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Desert Storm" is significantly less POV than "US invasion of Iraq". A storm does not take sides, and is an apt metaphor for conflict. The phrase "US invasion" portrays the US as an occupying force. The phrase "of Iraq" portrays Iraq as a passive victim. Desert Storm would be a better name. Johntex\^talk 04:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Desert storm (neutral and common term it redirects to: Gulf War) is a term chosen by just one side and favoring that one, thus not neutral. It refers to the powers of nature when actually military action is taking place, it is thus doublespeak. The neutral name chosen for the US invasion of Iraq as established in this encyclopedia is 2003 invasion of Iraq. The respective "Operation Iraqi Freedom", an extreme case of propaganda, redirects to the common name of the conflict, Iraq War, as avoidable operation names generally should. As a sidenote, claiming someone is on some sort of "crusade" does not support a point, it is against the wikipedia principle to assume good faith, and it discredits the one who writes it. Note that the grossly propagandistic term "Operation Peace for Galilee" for the 1982 Lebanon War is not a US operation, nor is UNOSOM II (which currently wrongly redirects to a propaganda term). Furthermore, as I was told, the military history project is just a project, nothing official, and it does not yet cover operation names in articles. This here is official policy, as the title says, articles should heed to this. Añoranza 14:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this users above example shows why they are shopping this around. I have had to explain to this user 5 times now why Operation Restore Hope is more appropriate then redirecting it to UNOSOM II. I will do it yet again. UNOSOM II is a larger UN operation, Operation Restore Hope only focuses on the US operation that is part of the larger operation. Hence why it should not be merged. If anything a UNOSOM II article should be created to stand on its own and no longer need to be redirected to a sub operation of the larger operation. Operation Golden Pheasant has been cited as propaganda by this user as well as Operation Linebacker being cited as POV. The issue is not titles however its about article text. Military officials so not participate in complete battles often and so are recognized by operations they take part in. Same for military equipment. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of thoughts:

1. There's nothing wrong with the editors here and on MILHIST collaborating -- in any event, one would hope that the two pages will agree when the process is complete. Yes, Anoranza should have informed this group about the prior dicussion, but that's in the past.
2. My own thought is that Anoranza's decision that all operation names are "propoganda terms" is not helpful.
3. With that said, I think that generally, a non-operational name is preferable to an operational name if available, for the same reason that MILHIST prefers non-operational names in titles.
4. On the other hand, if a particular operation doesn't have a readily recognizable non-operational name (e.g., Desert Fox, which never received a popular name, or Desert Sabre, which was a sub-part of the 91 Gulf War), the operational name is preferable.
5. Is the MilHist group approaching a consensus? If so, maybe you could post the leading proposals here to get some more thoughts, or just invite the editors here to contribute on MilHist.TheronJ 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone here could contribute to the MILHIST discussion, that would be great; there have been a number of different ideas regarding both titles and in-text uses, but not really enough discussion yet to come to a real consensus on which one to go forward with. Kirill Lokshin 16:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Is growing" is a prediction

"the Homeopathy article factually states that "It is growing in popularity..." We might factually state that it has grown from 1986 to 2006. We should not extrapolate that and say it constitutes a trend. "Is growing" should be cited to a reliable source who says so. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Is growing" isn't a prediction. See our article on instantaneous rate of change, a mathematical concept that handily solves this issue. It is logically sound to say that in the neighborhood of the present time, the derivative of homeopathy use is positive where it's defined. This can be roughly summarized as "growing in popularity". Homeopathy may be growing right now even if in ten seconds everyone will give it up and never use it again; that's in ten seconds, not now.

If it said "homeopathy will continue to grow in popularity", that's a prediction. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"where it's defined" - Sure, when you have a known function you can talk about its derivative. Another way of making the criticism I just made would be to say that we are claiming to know something about a function: that its derivative exists at a point, and is positive. We can't say that ourselves; we need to cite a reliable source who says it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Something is a prediction if it posits knowledge of future events. You can know the left-sided derivative of the homeopathy-usage function at the present point without any knowledge of future events, just knowledge of past and present events. Therefore, asserting that homeopathy usage is growing is not a prediction. If it's unsourced, obviously it needs to be sourced, but so does anything. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't know the left hand side; we only know an interval between two times in the past. In some cases that's being generous: really we only know values at discrete times in the past. But maybe I'm missing your point. I agree that it needs to be cited, but what needs to be cited is a reliable source saying, "it is growing." I would say it is not enough to cite figures showing more homeopathy this year than last year. Citing figures would let us say "grew." Citing a source would let us quote it as saying, "is growing." Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, certainly. Probably something along the lines of "homeopathy use has been growing steadily over the past decade" would be fine if you have annual stats only (even if you have only biannual stats, really), but an unqualified "is growing" isn't as useful either way, so it should probably be avoided. I think, however, that it's a bit too specific for this list. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cunt

I feel that we should add Cunt as one of the words to avoid. There are better, more encyclopedic words, such as vagina, that could be used. The use of the word Cunt on Wikipedia only serves to degrade the level of our encyclopedia.Jimjones5 21:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It goes without saying that slang is not encyclopedic in tone. What article uses the term, except in quotations or when discussing the term itself? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a simply matter of finding this out. Simply run a wikipedia search. There is a search bar on the left side of the screen, and once on the search page you can choose many different searching options. Editors to Wikipedia are not here to do your own personal homework. If you are interested in finding out which articles mention the word cunt, I suggest you search for it using the search bar on the left side of the screen.Jimjones5 00:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested. I was just wondering why you were interested. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, that's some funny stuff right there. Tragic romance 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section Terrorist, terrorism

In section Terrorist, terrorism we state some rules about how to use such words in connection with people and groups. Do the same rules hold for actions that can be labbelled as "terrorist"? If it is or if it is not I think the section should discuss explicitly this case too.--Pokipsy76 08:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Any logic applied to referring to groups or individuals as terrorists applies to actions too, I should think. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is the case we should say it explicitly in the section Terrorist, terrorism. Otherwise we should say explicitly that the rules do not apply to actions.--Pokipsy76 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be more reluctant to call a particular man a terrorist than to call an action terrorism. For example, I would not say "Senator X was a terrorist" but I would say "The Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist organization" and would certainly say that lynching African-Americans was terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your example was bad in 2 ways: first groups (as Ku Klux Klan) share the same rules of individuals according to the policy, second accusing a senator of terrorism can easily be controversial but there are also case where labelling an actions as "terrorist" can be more controversial than labelling indivisuals. You probably would not say that "Hiroshima bombing was a terrorist attack" but you would probably say that "Bin Laden was a terrosist".--Pokipsy76 08:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I actively look forward to saying bin Laden was a terrorist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I actively look forward to saying Lenin was a terrorist, but I'll do it outside of the encyclopedia. Kokot.kokotisko 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried my best to clean up the list of "for" and "against" arguments. Please check my changes. Kokot.kokotisko 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why are controversy sections bad?

This article says distilling the Pro- and Con- sides into a separate controversy section is bad, since it implies a "hierarchy of fact". But it seems to me that controversy sections can often be very useful-- they can separate univerally-agreed-upon-facts from opinion and make it easier to be sure that both sides of a debate are getting balanced appropriately.

The only commments on that section on the talk pages are old ones that oppose that section. Do people here still strongly believe we shouldn't have controversy sections? and what does "folded into the narrative" even look like?

--Alecmconroy 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "pro and con"-type sections can be fine, personally. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I Like "pro and con" sections also, so long as each fact has a citation. It avoids edit wars. Some topics will always have a Rashomon quality to them and need separate voices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subsection "theory"

The subsection begin in this way:

In science, a theory is an explanation of nature which is consistent with the available scientific evidence and supported by repeatable experiments. Theories predict the outcomes of specific situations.

But

1. Not all scientific theories are supported by *repetible* experiments: what experiments are repeatable to support Big Bang or Evolution theories?
2. Not all theories predicts the outcomes of specific situations: theories can just explain events of the past without making predictions, like Continental drift theory do.

So I suggest to modify this introduction.--Pokipsy76 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Be bold. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokipsy:You misunderstand the meaning of the word "experiment", so perhaps other readers will also.

• Experiment also includes such investigations as biologists do in researching the makeup of life in nature. When a biologist investigates the makeup of a particular newly found species, the prediction is that it will fit somewhere in the scheme of evolution, and it almost invariably does. Occasionally there an aberration here and there where there are remaining questions about where it fits, in which case further investigation and experimentation needs to be done. All told, there are relatively very few cases that to date have not been established by genetic and other evidence as to what other species were its ancestors, and what other species were its descendants, if any (because some became extinct or were otherwise "dead ends"). Based on this kind of experimental evidence and other kinds of experimental evidence, evolution is one of the most well confirmed theories ever proposed. Don't forget, evolution describes progressions or origins of individual species, not origin of life as a whole, which is a separate range of inquiry that is more forensic in nature. But every time a new species is found somewhere, which happens constantly (1.5 million to date and still growing), it is an experiment that tests the theory of evolution.
• As to the "big bang", this is, you are correct, a theory that is harder to fit into the standard model of a theory, because it is a theory about origins that, to date at least, does not appear to be replicable. The theory that the universe is expanding is constantly being tested by new observations and measurements and predictions that are fulfilled repeatedly when more powerful and more thorough observations of parts of the universe are made. The big bang, however, can only be pieced together by fitting together pieces of a puzzle using experimental evidence derived from other aspects of physics, astrophysics and astronomy. To date, the pieces of the puzzle continue to fit together, and within the last decade, new experimental evidence arising from subatomic observations at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider in Brookhaven National Laboratory has brought forth further evidence that appears consistent with theoretical calculations about what happens to matter when it is in the process of forming. That would be equivalent to the first few milliseconds of the expansion of the universe when, if other calculations are correct, matter could not exist in its present form. So you are right, the Big Bang is really more of a theoretical speculation than a theory per se. Nonetheless, it is quite different from saying that, for instance "a widely held theory in town is that Joe's Tavern pours smaller drinks after you start to get drunk".
• As to continental drift, like evolution, it is not merely historical, but can still be observed occurring even as we sit here at our computers today.

In sum, I agree further clarification of this section about the word "theory" is appropriate, but I would at the very least be careful about making such sweeping assertions with regard to evolution and continental drift. ... Kenosis 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand experiments. Experiments test theories, and a theory concerning the Big Bang does not need to have a Big Bang present, to be testable. See metric expansion of space for examples of experiments which test current theories of the Big Bang. Also see falsifiability for more on the subject. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this topic is grossly out of place, but since you're already talking about it, I'll add my two cents. Big Bang and Evolution are hypotheses, not theories.Tragic romance 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll see your two cents, raise you three more and wager that the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very much theories in the strictest scientific sense of the word. That's five cents that says that FT2 is right. Jimp 07:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Article structures which can imply a view

This section suggests that articles should never have controversy sections in which pro- and con- sides of an issue are discussed. But Wikipedia:Criticism explicitly allows Criticism/Controversy/Reception sections in some cases. Many feature articles have controversy/support/criticism sections, including Igor Stravinsky, Evolution, Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, Metrication, etc.

I'd propose adding language to the "Article structures which can imply a view" section to indicate that while controversy sections should not be used as a tool to marginalize criticism, there are some cases in which controversy sections are useful. --Alecmconroy 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go, because I agree with you. I have also included "words to avoid" per subject area, often an issue within the article title, even though this is on the edge between NPOV and WTA. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than leaving the door wide open in the final summarizing sentence, which didn't quite follow anyway, it was fine. I've removed that part as that was not the intent of the original, long-standing passage. Just like worse is better, in this case vague is better. That is unless we want to get into defining exactly which cases are controversy sections useful and which cases they're being used as a tool to marginalize criticism. I'd like to avoid that can of worms. Editors applying a little common sense is better than trying to address all possible scenarios here. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But I really do think we should have a sentence that explicity says that "there are some cases in which controversy sections are useful." It might seem like it's just common sense, but in actuality, people have cited this section to me as evidence that the wikipedia consensus is that controversy sections are never, ever useful. If we don't believe that, we should exspend the extra words to make it clear that they can be useful, so long as they don't marginalize criticism. --Alecmconroy 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to discourage controversy sections. Surely the wording at the top of the page, that there are no words that are never to be used, can be used in reply to people who wrongly cite this page as absolutley forbidding them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with controversy sections, and more definitely not to the extent that I'd list them as something to avoid. For example, an article may list a subjects history, proponents, activities, and then have acontroversies section to group together all the major controversies in the field. That approach works very well. It's when a controversies section is used to push a viewpoint that we have problems. I wouldn't at all say such sections are a bad idea, just that there are good and bad ways to use them. Examples available if needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that controversy sections and indeed, whole articles on controversies, are sometimes the BEST way to structure our coverage of controversial aspects of a topic. That's not reflected in the current language. --Alecmconroy 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that just opens the door for those who oppose the criticism to create POV forks, something that goes very much against the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So, there's two issues here: (1) what does the current policy actually mean, and (2) what should the policy actually be. Let's ignore the second issue for a moment, just focus on what the current Wikipedia policy on controversy sections actually IS. The way I read the this page's current policy, it means controversy sections are bad and should never be used. Several other people have read the policy and reached the same interpretation. Wikipedia:Criticism seems to have the exact opposite policy, as it explicitly discusses how to write "Response to" sections. So, which is it? Never Useful or Sometimes Useful?

Setting aside my own thoughts on which it should be, it seems that the very least that we should either ADD words to this article to make it consistent with Wikipedia:Criticism, or we should REMOVE words from that article to make it consistent with this article.

--Alecmconroy 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of X

"such articles should always be a neutral evaluation of the critical view, rather than a platform for criticism." - Good point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Scope creep. That was never in the original guideline or any policy and thus does not enjoy consensus, having not been discussed. I've removed it and until the community shows some consensus for this. FeloniousMonk 18:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism, yet again

Would someone please weigh in at Talk:Boricua Popular Army? Flybd5 is insisting that it is simply factual to call the Boricua Popular Army "terrorist", and doesn't seem to get my point about why that is inappropriate to say in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Perhaps he will listen to someone else. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Add User:KazakhPol to that, he seems to be on a mission to label any groups opposed to central asian governments, as terrorists in the narrative voice. Aaliyah Stevens 10:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the other hand

I noticed "on the other hand" is not much used in articles. It is used a lot in discussion arguments though. I believe good editors do not use it in general in articles. This is because it is like "however". I am wondering whether this should be added as a word to avoid under the category of "however". I see it can be used also to create false balance. EG.

In the first case as an argument: Hitler killed 3 million Jews. On the other hand, he was a good family man.

Or for false balance/argument: Qi Kung has no scientific support. On the other hand, millions of people say that it makes them live longer.

It seems to be very much avoidable as a phrase anyway. So I suggest it be added to words to avoid. Hylas Chung 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article titles

The section on article titles seems weak to me. In particular, the examples provided seem tendentious without being particularly good examples. But I don't want to plunge in if I'm alone in this. What do others think? - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The section is not clear and the examples do not help to clarify.--Pokipsy76 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of Islamic extremist terrorism is the result of extensive discussion and compromise. For a while it was changing every week, and probably was at one time Islamic extremist violence or Islamist extremist violence. On the theory that hard cases make bad law, I wonder if there is a better example of a tendentious page title? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly relevant is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "It should be noted"

I think "It should be noted" should be added, because that's editorial opinion. Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. About the only place where the reader should ever be told to "note" something is in the caption of an image, pointing out the detail (e.g. "note the memento mori in the form of a skull"). - Jmabel | Talk 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If something "should be noted", then it probably should be a footnote. Gimmetrow 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it even belongs in captions. State what's in the picture and let them decide what to note for themselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If nothing else, it is just bad writing, in the turgid style of high academic. Get rid of it, along with variations like 'it is important to note,' 'note that,' and so on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That belongs in Wikipedia:Avoid trite expressions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation marks other than marking quotes

I think that using quotation marks for the purpose of reservation or criticism is bad form. In wikipedia we have the unique capability to link to entries (and chapters therein) when referring to a specific, less common meaning of a word. Although such use of quotations is a vehicle employed in journalism, I think it's improper in an encyclopedia. I find it especially disturbing when used in the "so - called" sense; if, for example, you don't think that the subject is what he says he is - write "self proclaimed". If you think a certain act wasn't done, say "he claims to have [purchsed the land, for example]", or state that the act is unrecognized (by somebody). Quotations just look like a pseudo- subtle snide judgement. Shilonite 09:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that editorializing of the type "ha ha, look what this silly person thinks" with needless quotation marks is a bad idea. -- nae'blis 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Section On Article Content Policy

I propose a new section, maybe on Village Pump, somthing like the Signpost, but wherever it's relevent, where this section lists word choice for article content. This section, would list, for example: 'Instead of using 'craftsman' or 'craftsmen' in articles, use 'craft worker' or 'craftsperson.'. Another example: 'Do not use the word: 'Indian' to refer to indigenious peoples of the Americas, because 'Indian' most appropriatly refers to a person from or of India.'. This new section would also say help and say that people who come across this section, & people who find errors like listed in said section would correct them. It also has the power to be cited, in discussions, for example: in talk pages, where people blue link, for example 'WP:NPOV' or 'WP:MOS'.100110100 11:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads Up

I've read articles, but I don't remeber which ones, which refered to Galicia, but didn't state Iberian Galicia or East European Galicia. Just to let you guys know. Hhhmmmm, maybe it would have been more appropriate to list this in a section, like which that I proposed...............................100110100 11:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caucasian

I know this has been discussed earlier, but I think the discussion was off the mark. Caucasian does not mean white. East indians are caucasian, for example. Perhaps not in common usage, but it is still technically correct. If you want to say white, say white, or european. Rm999 08:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

East indians are not caucasian Kransky 13:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

People from the Caucasus are Caucasian - that's where the term comes from. But I'd say European with a capital E. BTW, Russians call Caucasians (from the Caucasus) "black." So maybe just avoiding the race, color, ethnicity thing is best unless it is absolutely needed. Smallbones 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

East Indians are a mix, but mostly have Caucasian features. From http://www.isteve.com/2002_Who_Exactly_Is_an_Asian_American.htm:

"Although the people of the Indian subcontinent vary widely in skin color, most have Caucasian facial features. Indeed, practically all Indian immigrants are from the Caucasian majority, rather than from India's hard-to-categorize tribal minorities. "

The fact that this can even be debated indicates strongly that racial terms (african american, caucasians should not be interchanged with skin color or nationality terms). 75.85.165.158 07:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legendary

I would like to add "legendary" to the list of words to avoid. It can mean that the person is very famous; or it can mean that the person is a "myth". You are also suppose to avoid writing that the person is "famous", it should be self evident from the biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory modification

There were a number of misconceptions that had crept into the discussion of the word "theory" on this page. First of all, a "law" is not a "stronger version" of a theory as is often misconceived. A law is a succinct statement of a principle based on a theory. Inasmuch as a theory is correct, a law is correct. Unlike theories, laws do not lend themselves to easy modification. If a theory is disproven, it may be possible to modify it so it still has utility (for example, one can still use epicycles to model the orbital motion of certain objects), but laws are necessarily abandonded once disproven (for example, saying that the planets move according to their spheres in epicyclic fashion is a law of Ptolemaic astronomy which does not apply to the natural world).

Also it is inappropriate to say that theories are ever "proven". Theories are by definition empirical and based on induction. There is always doubt. Mathematical beasts which are proven are not theories.

--ScienceApologist 11:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I support fully the above problem. The issue is that we have TWO different competing definitions of theory:
  • The popular defintion: "A guess to a solution to a problem" usage: "I have a theory about this...." The problem is that the popular defintion of a theory is what scientists call a "hypothesis," which is a different concept entirely. In the common usage, people most often use the word "theory" when they mean "hypothesis".
  • The science-community definition: "An organized system of thought with explanatory powers". For example: Atomic Theory is the entire system of thought that seeks to explain behaviors of matter as "atoms"; numerous laws are inherant to this theory (the Law of Definite Proportions, the Law of Multiple Proportions, etc.). Theories are not incomplete, they are not unproven, they are not in want for anything. They are complex systems of explanation about natural events. When people criticize a Theory by saying "Its only a theory" they are confusing the two definitions. A theory is under constant modification; but to claim that it is unaccepted merely because it is expected to be fluid is also a misunderstanding; science expects that all assertions it takes to be "true", be they theories, laws, principles, axioms, models, or whatever, to be open to scrutiny; if additional evidence comes to light, we change our theories. As long as all evidence points to the current theory, we continue to accept it. --Jayron32 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denial

I propose that words "denial" and "deny" should be avoided or their use should be somehow defined. They are widely used in Wiki despite their obvious nature that falls into "Words which can advance a point of view" cathegory.neurobio 01:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you have in mind here; all of the following seem perfectly appropriate to me:

"The government issued a formal denial."

"He was denied entry at the border."

"The accused denied all charges."

"According to Kubler-Ross, 'denial' is one of the usual steps in the grieving process."

So presumably it is not the words deny/denial as such that are a problem, it is their use in some particular context. Could you indicate examples of the inapproriate use that concerns you? Otherwise, this doesn't have much potential to go anywhere. - Jmabel | Talk 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "cult"

I do agree with a majority of this section, but a couple things bother me about it. First, that the word "cult" should be avoided at all possible except for reasons X and Y and so on. Yet farther down in the section it states that the word has acceptable usage with concern to religious practices. The use of the word cult as it pertains to to religious practices is the SOLE reason why it's offensive and should be avoided. Along with the first two paragraphs, we should reserve the use of the word "cult" to those groups who truly and blatantly deserve it (ex. Branch-Davidians under Koresh) and/or ones that masquerade as religion (ex. Scientology).

Thing #2 that rubs me sideways is the example in this section "the cult of Demeter at Eleusis". The de-centralized nature of Hellenism can lead people to assume that they were cults (that is, if those people prescribe to what's written on this page and not the view I've written here). In actuality, sect is the appropriate term, regardless of the era in which you are discussing. User:MrFuchs 03OCT06

A "cult" in this last sense isn't a sect at all. This is the narrow, proper, original meaning of "cult": an external religious practice, as distinguished from teachings, writings, and beliefs. To the best of my knowledge, there is no other word for it. - Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your preaching to the choir here. Yes you can make the argument that the venerators of Demeter at Eleusis could be considered a "cult" in the dry dictionary definition. The whole point of this article is WORDS TO AVOID. So with that in mind, we can subsitute the dirty word "cult", for the much cleaner and neutral "sect" without losing any sort of descriptive meaning. On a personal level I think its horrible we have to subsitute words because they've evolved with negative connotations. But then again, the world would be a better place if it ran like it should. User:MrFuchs 8OCT06

I'm confused by what you are saying. Are you suggesting (1) that even in its literal meaning cult should be avoided and that therefore (?) we should say "the sect of Demeter at Eleusis"? That seems to me to be a misuse of the word "sect": it was not, to my knowledge a distinct sect. I suppose we could say something like "the votive practice of worship of Demeter at Eleusis"… - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Because of your confusion on what I said I went back and re-read what I've written several times and I would like to make some amendments. 1) although I stand by my conviction that the word "cult" should be avoided, the word "sect" is an inproper subsitute. 2) as far as other non-Greek religions, I think the word religion itself or faith can be adequate subsitutes as they do not have negative connotations. 3) when referring to the Greek religion or aspects of it, the terms "Demoi" or "Temple" are appropriate, as it is the terms we use ourselves. I hope that I have sufficiently corrected myself and made my stance clearer. If not, please feel free to let me have it, so to speak... User:MrFuchs 12NOV06

[edit] Article names for controversial events

Hi everyone. FYI there is a discussion and proposal in Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict about use of strong words such as "massacre" and "genocide" in article names. Naming guidelines on a few pages, including this one, conflict with each other. Kla'quot 19:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Kla'quot 09:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Report"

If it is not appropriate to say that a news agency "reported" something, what verb would be preferred? - Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yay, terrorism

So the debate is happening again on Talk:al-Qaeda. Feel free to add your 2 cents. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes please come and join in! We need more views on this.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few other words to consider

What about tragic? I think that presents a non-npov, especially in the context of "a tragic accident". I also think that referring to the dead as "the late" should be added somewhere as well. Everyone will die sometime, and for the most part, it's just clutter, throws off verb tenses and is somewhat npov, as it portrays the deceased in a positive light. And I don't see any mention of saying someone has "passed away", which implies similar instances. 69.209.100.255 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My view? "Tragic" only belongs in discussing literature, not life; I usually remove it on sight. Similarly, I always turn "passed away" to "died". "The late" is trickier: it's sometimes useful in a context where someone would otherwise be presumed to be alive, a relatively recent death at a relatively young age, e.g., "the background vocal was by the late Brad Nowell" or "he was on the staff of the late Paul Wellstone". I probably wouldn't use it, but I probably wouldn't remove it in a case like that. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "affiliated"

That a company may have been part of the one's affiliated with Enron (to use the example given) is generally a question of fact. Sometimes "subsidiary" can be used, but "afiliated" is in this context a neutral descriptor of a financial relationship.

This is not necessarily true of other uses, where there is no formal relationship: "Communist-affiliated" is an example of where it is intended to imply that a relationship exists, whichmay or may not be correct. If there's no objection, I'll substitute my example.DGG 23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments for and against describing an entity as terrorist

Why is this section included? The enclosing section indicates that terrorist and terrorism are words to be avoided, yet this subsection indicates that a lack of consensus exists. Wikipedia inconsistenly describes groups and events as terrorist in the narrative voice. For example IRA, Al-Qaida are not but Oklahoma bombing and 9/11 are. This gives much confusion. Either we agree that Wikipedia editors makes judgements about which events and groups are terrorist or we don't. At the moment, it is confusing. Curtains99 15:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is less objectionable to call an act terrorist than a group (and your choice of examples suggests that others have the same intuition. Both the Oklahoma bombing and the 9/11 attacks seem to pretty clearly reach any threshold for being terrorist acts. I wouldn't have used the word myself in Wikipedia's narrative voice, but I wouldn't fight over it.

Labeling a group terrorist is much trickier, because even a group that openly embraces terror tactics may do a great deal more than that. Consider Hamas. Or the CIA. Both have certainly committed acts of terror, but that doesn't make an openly Hamas-funded hospital or a covertly CIA-funded professional organization into agents of terror. - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I notice that fewer and fewer individuals and groups are being described as terrorist in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Osama bin Laden is described as a 'militant Islamist'. Carlos the Jackal is still a terrorist. Che Guevara is of course a Marxist Revolutionary. The French Resistance is never referred to as terrorist. Martin McGuinness is a 'former head of the Provisional IRA' and not a terrorist.

The perpetrators of 9/11 are referred to as '19 terrorists' but that phrase links to a page called Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks which does not describe them as terrorists.

Do you think this situation is clear? I agree that an act is easier to designate as terrorist than a group or an individual, but I still believe that no act is ever objectively 'terrorist' when there is no agreed definition for the term. I can make arguments for why the two incidents above should not be considered terrorist. In the case of 9/11, I have a verifiable reliable source documenting an opinion held by millions of people that the act did not constitute terrorism. We end up with this kind of page: List of terrorist incidents which is pure POV Curtains99 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the executions of people who were perceived as the enemies of the French Revolution was objectively terrorist, and was proclaimed so by its instigators. Similarly, the "propaganda by deed" of anarchists circa 1900. To say that the 9/11 attacks were not a terrorist, it seems to me that one must subscribe to the theory that they were not perpetrated by Al Qaeda. I'm sure that millions of people believe they were not; millions of people presumably also believe that people have never set foot on the moon, but I would hope we are not expected to take them seriously.

That said, I would be perfectly happy with a rule that says that we should never make unascribed use of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist". - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

... Yes, that would be in accordance with WP:VER and WP:NOR. ... with a little extra incentive attributable to Guantanamo Bay and other such phenomena. ... Kenosis 05:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get why they wouldn't be terrorists attacks if they weren't committed by Al Qaeda. Even if they were committed by the CIA they would still be terrorist attacks Nil Einne 06:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Sadly", "tragically", etc. in descriptions of death

I'd like to add to this guideline that editors should not use words such as "sadly" and "tragically" when referring to deaths. It's very common on Wikipedia and I think wrong for these reasons:

• It's POV. The death of a notable person (Stalin, for instance, or Pol Pot) may have been sad to some people but a joy to others. Who decides if a death is sad?
• It's telling, not showing. Editors shouldn't simply write that a death was sad or tragic; they should set out the information from reliable, verifiable secondary sources and let the reader decide.
• Death is not always sad or tragic. On one of the help desks we were discussing this and somebody quoted (and this is a paraphrase), "Eleanor Roosevelt, who tragically died at age 78...". In this specific case, she had bone cancer and had been kept alive on a respirator against her express orders for months. That might be tragic, but was her death? Is the death of someone at 102 tragic? Is the death of someone who had Alzheimer's for 15 years tragic? Perhaps not as much to the family as a third party would like to think. Again, it's a value judgment.
• It's a horrible, horrible cliche. Good professional obituary writers don't use it; it grates. It's up there with "he died doing what he loved". What, screaming in horror? --Charlene 00:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree Curtains99 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, I've always removed these on sight. Every time I read it the article instantly melts into a pile of sentimental sap in my eyes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Silly cliches should alaways be removed. May be there should be list of Cliches somewhere, classified into Silly, Stupid, Moronic, Senseless, Thoughtless, and, may be, Please, stop trying to write. - Aditya Kabir 12:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph - 2.7 - that includes most of the information I mentioned. Please feel free to edit. --Charlene 08:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's not just deaths but all uses of the above words should be avoided in most instances for POV reasons. The same applies to the opposite. Words like fortunately, thankfully, luckily etc. For example, see this. I did a search and there are also a lot of other similarly mis-uses of POV words. Indeed this seems to happen a lot in American sports articles, see 2006 Buffalo Bills season, 2006 San Diego Chargers season & 2006 New England Patriots season. While these events might be fortunate for the team, they are unlikely to be fortunate for their rivals. Nil Einne 06:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobic

I've seen editors often try to add this word when people disagree with gay rights. The term may work in a given context (e.g., someone who says "fags should die"), but I think in general, this would be a good one to add (much like "cult/sect", which can describe a group, but should generally be off limits). We could suggest other wording like "opposes expanding gay rights", "opposes homosexual marriage", or "believe marriage is sinful"? This might look like a biased request, but it's really not - homophobic is a pejorative and POV term, and should not be used to refer to people and their opinions. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Shall we likewise assert that it is inappropriate to apply the term "racist" regarding support of miscegenation laws and racial segregation? Durova^Charge! 06:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - I apologize if you see this emotionally. Personal views here are not what's important, and I hope you don't think that's what I'm doing. If you, I, or anyone else thinks that disagreeing with homosexuality is homophobic, that's our opinion. But it's still POV, as many people disagree. It would be similarly POV to describe people who disagree with, for example, with religious man Orson Scott Card as Mormon-phobic or Christian-phobic, who think it's "wrong" (e.g., "sinful") to follow their type of religion. Using the term "opposes conservative Islamic values" would be better. This seems to be in line with the NPOV policy - as much as not using the term "terrorist" with Osama bin Laden. Am I clear?-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:CIVIL, please refrain from speculation as to my emotional state. The question is literal: why should the term homophobic be disallowed in the context of gay marriage if the use of the term racist is appropriate in the context of miscegenation. It's a direct parallel. You seem to be asserting that Wikipedians should form a consensus that gay rights are fundamentally different from racial rights or women's rights or other types of rights. That's a political assertion that would set a bad precedent for ideological policy-pushing. Check out the current battle at white people to see what I mean. Durova^Charge! 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this should be made a broad prohibition, because I haven't seen enough cases (any in fact) to know how it's being used. It's definitely a judgement and an analysis, so if it's not attributed, isn't it OR to use it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Within articles it would be, obviously. The OP suggests that this refers more to talk pages. Durova^Charge! 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Patstuart that we should avoid the term homophobia within articles as much as possible. The article Homophobia itself (currently protected) says the term is a loaded one, and this would be perfectly in line with the existing guidelines on this page which say to avoid labels given only by external groups. Declaring someone homophobic should need to be given in the context of a specific person claiming so (and properly cited). We presently try to avoid even identifying people's sexuality unless it is relevant to the actions or notability of the individual due to WP:BLP concerns, why would this be any different?

To answer Durova's concern, I believe the proper descriptor for those groups which opposed interracial marraige would be racialist if they claimed to oppose it for reasons other than racial supremacism. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, thanks. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression there, Derova: I think I misinterpreted your response, and I apologize. But no, I was not talking about talk pages (then I would have brought this point up under WP:CIVIL); the point of talk pages is for people to voice their opinion. I was more going for articles.. Anyway, I am not familiar with the term racialist, though I think that, yes, that would be a better term. Interestingly, guys, you'll that even the article Homosexuality does not contain the term "homophobia", except for a link at the bottom.

For NightGyr, I did some basic searches for "homophobic" on Wikipedia, and found these:

• Westboro (disambiguation) - referring to Westboro Baptist Church a religious hate group based in Topeka, Kansas, United States, mostly known for its homophobic activities. - even if it's true, this is NPOV, and shouldn't be worded such.
• This one seems to contain a good chunk of weasel words.

I'm not saying the term should be outright stricken from the encyclopedia: I'm just saying, it should be a "word to avoid", like cult/sect or terrorist. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Westboro is a bad choice, because they openly admit to being homophobic and use the word themselves. But I know what you mean. --Charlene 08:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Homophobic" means fear. "Phobia" [5] means "fear" or an emotion closely akin to "fear". To accuse someone of fear, such as "you are afraid of wriggle worms so anything you say isn't worth a squiggle" is a way of wriggling out of the conversation. It is a way of reducing the communication instead of a way of bettering the communication. In addition the word has overtones of psychology. It would be WP:CIVIL not accuse an editor, "You are afraid !" and it would be civil to not accuse an editor of homophobia. It is not likely to be productive in most communications. But hey, we can't ban the use of a word. Terryeo 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem at all with the suggestion that homophobic be used in articles only when supported by a line citation. Durova^Charge! 16:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To say that someone who disagrees with Orson Scott Card could be called "Moron-phobic" or "Christian-phobic" is in no way comparable with homophobic. If you called someone with a visceral hatred of Card "Cardophobic" you might be on the same page, but disagreeing with Card is not the same as hating Mormons or Christians. That's simply ridiculous.

If "homophobic" should be avoided, what other term do you suggest for the fear and hatred with which people treat homosexuality? In the aftermath of the latest homophobe-turns-out-to-be-gay episode, it's probably true that fear is the major driver of anti-gay hate. Regardless, "homophobia" is a well-established term for this commonplace anti-gay hatred. If you consider this a word to avoid, what replacement do you propose for it? I think it's more neutral than the far more accurate "anti-gay hatemongering". Guettarda 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

it's still telling, not showing. We don't call David Duke a racist, we just point out the he was the head of a Ku Klux Klan organization, the criticisms of his views, his own description, and enough other information that anyone can see he's a racist for himself. It would be POV and/or OR to flat out state ourselves that he is racist, especially when he has claimed otherwise in the past. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• We should avoid ad hominem reasonings (e.g. "he's homophobic and therefore a liar"). We should not avoid factual statements for PC reasons (e.g. "John Doe has been accused of homophobia [link] here"). (Radiant) 13:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• A few ideas here:
  • Hate the crime and not the criminal: A statement can indicate a homophobic, or racist, or sexist, or whatever bias. We should not call a "person" such, only "actions". To describe an action as giving the appearance of being bigoted is one thing; to call a person specifically a bigot is a personal attack and decidedly uncivil.
  • Semantic arguements against using the term homophobic for some other term are inapproriate. Our society uses the term to mean "Bigoted against homosexuals" in the EXACT SAME way that our society uses the term racist to mean "Bigoted against non-whites" Wikipedia is not the place to change that definition; we merely reflect societal concensus.
  • We should never use a term to describe a person that the person themselves does not use. Self-identification is the principle here. If a person describes themselves as "homophobic" it would be OK to use the term; if the person does not use the term to describe themselves, we should avoid assigning it to them. As Night Gyr notes, we cannot rightly call David Duke racist as he does not self-identify with that term; we can only list the documented facts associated with his life, and let the reader make their own determinations. --Jayron32 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Murder

When is the word 'murder' acceptable in place of 'kill'? Presumably, some Palestinians see the assassination of Hamas leaders by Israel as murder while Israelis see suicide bombers as murderers, yet is murder an NPOV description for either event? 213.202.152.63 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

For NPOV, you can say who claims these to be murders. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "murder" is almost never necessary except when one is speaking of actual criminal conviction on that charge. - Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue is discussed extensively at Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_11#Murder, Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_11#Murder_continued, and Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_11#Should_the_article_refer_to_the_Holocaust_as_murder?. The consensus was to keep the term "murder", which is currently used over twenty times in the article Holocaust. -- Schaefer (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Murder is a legal term that implies that the due process of law has determined that a killing has been classified as a murder. It should ONLY be used in that context. To define any other killings as Murder is decidedly not NPOV. Even the Holocaust killings were ultimately determined to be murder (Re: Nuremburg trials). However, as the suicide bombings and the killings of Hamas leaders do not meet the defition of murder, it should be avoided. --Jayron32 05:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that a person convicted of murder in any jurisdiction may be referred to as a 'murderer' or that his killing should be referred to as 'murder'? For example, if a dictator kills a person but does so within the legal system of his own country, what do we call it? Or if a person kills another in self-defence and is convicted of murder in a jurisdiction that does not allow self-defence as a plea, can we still call him a murderer? My view is that the best thing to do is to say A killed B and to refer to the relevant legal circumstances so that the reader can make up his own mind. Curtains99 12:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

See my above comments on Homophobia. ALWAYS assign value-laden adjectives to ACTIONS and NEVER to PERSONS. Unless the person is a self-identified murderer, you should not use the word to describe them. The standard, always NPOV and noncontroversial, way to handle this is to only use words to describe a person that they have used to describe themselves. So, you can say "John Doe was convicted of murder for the killing of Jane Smith" but never "Murderer John Doe killed Jane Smith" unless we have proof that John Doe regularly and consistently refered to himself as a murderer. If a dictator commints killings, call them killings. We don't have to call them murders. Describe them in an accurate, neutral way, and readers will decide for themselves how to "feel" about the dictator. It is not our business to choose words that will influence how people will "feel". For example, choosing the word "murder" over "killing" is adding more value to the action, and causing readers to react to the word rather than the fact that a life has ended. If it meets the legal requirements of murder, then we can note that (John Doe was convicted of murdering his subjects by an international tribunal) but if it doesn't, then just use the neutral term (John Doe is widely regarded as orchestrating the killing of his political rivals) AND ALWAYS REFERENCE such assertions. Also, a dictator is often several steps removed from direct involvement in the death of those that die under his policies. Thus, we can report that Stalin had his rivals killed, by means of fixed trials and the like, or that government agents committed killings on his behalf. However, we would also never say that Stalin "killed", say, the rural populations that died of starvation under his economic policy. And we would definately never simply say "Stalin killed XXXX" if he did not actually kill them himself. We would say either "Stalin had XXXX killed" (he is not unconnected to the act) for those his political rivals, or "Stalin's policies of XXXX caused the death of countless YYYY people" for those types of policies. We never use the word "murder" for any of these, since murder is a legal term, and none of these deaths, tragic as they may be, are techincally murders. And as always, CITE REFERENCES. --Jayron32 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying, Jayron, that, where appropriate, you would favour describing an action as murder in the narrative voice of an article but not calling a person a murderer? Curtains99 17:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The word "score" should be avoided

It might seem only subtle but the word "score" inappropriately and unfoundedly implies something such as a test has merit which is a conclusion that is often disputed and definitely uncited as in "here is your IQ test score" (note: IQ tests and testing are highly disputed). The word "result" is much more neutral in that context, I am open to other alternatives. Just because someone wrote a "test" doesn't mean its "score" has any absolute meaning. Someone else claims that "score" is the most common way of describing IQ test numbers, but I think that within a neutral encyclopedia a subject should be presented using neutral words, not words cherry picked from within a controversial and disputed subjects' own paradigm. I propose we add "score" to the list of words to avoid generally within Wikipedia. zen apprentice T 21:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How does score imply the test has merit? If someone says, "I don't think this social skills test is very good, because I scored 82 one day and 37 the next," are they contradicting themselves? Even ardent critics of IQ testing use "score" to describe a test result. From Gould's The Mismeasure of Man: "His average score, the IQ itself, meant nothing, for it was only an amalgam of some very high and very low scores," "Surely we can weigh a brain or score an intelligence test without recording our social preferences," "Terman standardized the scale so that “average” children would score 100 at each age," and so on. Score is standard terminology whether you agree the test is meaningful or not. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really certain why you think "score" isn't neutral. If it isn't neutral then "result" is better, but I don't view "score" as being biased so favour its use as it is the standard term. "Here is your IQ score" and "here is your IQ result" appear to me to have identical meanings. Raoul 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The result of using a test is a "score", in the same sense that the result of using a ruler is a "length". It's the name of the measurement that you get. I understand that some rulers are inaccurate, but calling what you read off a ruler a "result" rather than a "length" does not fix anything. Perhaps this is better adressed by citing the test "His 2003 HSC score was 400". Paul Murray 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To merge or not to merge

I don't think Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms should be merged with Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Both this article and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms should remain as indipendent entries. Interconnected may be, but not merged. Or, would you rather prefer a labyrinthine and hoplessly long Wikipedia:Words to avoid article? Is it not a WP convention to break long articles down to smaller and simpler articles? - Aditya Kabir 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. Wikipedia:Words to avoid is already big, and these are each pretty concrete issue distinct from its main thrust. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Another agreement here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :) --DarthBinky 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, no merge. Mumby 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree these three articles should not be merged, as they convey different things. Dieter Simon 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, seems we're all in agreement here, no merge. Should we remove the tag? delldot | talk 18:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. Aside from the tagger a month ago, no one has expressed support for the idea. ×Meegs 14:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delete this guideline

This is an awful policy that is routinely ignored, as it should be. See Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Islamic extremism, and Islamic extremist terrorism which are blatant violations of these "words to avoid." This is supposed to be English Wikipedia, not French Wikipedia. KazakhPol 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Highly appreciated sentiments (I have taken a look at the aforementioned articles and found their very existence in their current form to be painful), but unwise recommendation. Do you think that someone breaking a law turns the law or judicial bodies unworthy? It is the violator who is to be held responsible not the guideline. If we had to delete a guideline that's routinely ignored then, I guess, the first candidate should be the guideline for image copyrights. Please, do not let the vandals, the bigots and zealots decide our policies. It should always be developed by people like you, i.e. people who care about fairness. - Aditya Kabir 12:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a sign that those articles should be improved, not that the guideline should be deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Its words to avoid, not a list of forbidden words. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism exists. Editorial decisions about terror, terrorism, or terrorist are best made in context on each page, using this page as a guideline, and modifying it as needed to reflect practice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Utterly despicable people, who would have made the world an appreciably better place if they'd simply died in childhood, exist, too, but it's not language we use in an encyclopedia article. And that is not a decision best made in the context of each individual page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

We should use exactly that language, if virtually all reliable sources use that language. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable

The term "notable" indicates the opinion that something is noteworthy, an inappropriate and unnecessary judgement.

Notable is fine as a term to use within projectspace, but it seems like its use on internal pages has led people to think it's ok to use in articles. We use it internally to refer to specific standards chosen by consensus, but those are still a particular POV--the "wikiconsensus" pov--which we shouldn't endorse with our prose, except by our choices of inclusion. A much better alternative is to specify whatever makes them notable directly, such as media attention, specific accomplishment, or some other aspect. Any comments on adding it to the page? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would view it as possibly worth mentioning, but there are many examples of legitimate use:

• Mark_Hittner: "He is most notable for officiating in the last three of five Super Bowls"
• Bloomsbury, London: "It is a largely residential area most notable for containing several of London's most famous academic institutions…"
• Zelda Fitzgerald: "Her school career was notable only for her failing grades and her utterly careless attitude…"

The last, in particular, I would hate to see changed. - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• The last is very elegant and isn't using "notable" to describe the subject of the article. The others can be changed to

  "He officiated in the last three of five Super Bowls" and "It is a largely residential area containing several of London's most famous academic institutions …" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 18 December 2006.

The first two are exactly examples of unnecessary use. Someone from Bloomsbury could easily have different ideas about what makes it notable. As for the third, I don't really like it because it's an analytical statement that needs support or is OR. The article has no citations, so the article has no support for what it includes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable is nothing more than a term of art used to describe something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. It has eluded definition. patsw 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable as term of art includes the objective attributes of only, first, last, best, most, highest, etc. as well as subjective criteria about which different editors can come to different evaluations of inclusion of the subject as an article, or a fact to be included in an article. Irony (see the Zelda Fitzgerald example above) and coincidence are examples of criteria where editors can disagree on the relevance to the subject. patsw 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of Wikipedia Policy

Please note that as provided under the official policy Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is NOT censored. Right now, one of the reasons to avoid a word is because it is derogatory or offensive. This is NOT a reason to avoid using a word under official wikipedia policy, as Wikipedia is not censored. Therefore, this should be removed. There are other reasons we don't use words like nigger routinely. Titanium Dragon 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not censored isn't the same as using these terms ourselves. We have an article on nigger and fuck but we don't write about "nigger fucking" in prose. None of this page says that words must be universally censored, only that they're inappropriate for us to include in our prose, and one of the reasons for that is derogatory or offensive nature. It's not censorship of ideas, it's taste in language. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of "purported" in conjunction with "psychic medium"

There is disagreement over how "purported" and "alleged" should be used in the article John Edward (history), particularly over these cases (with examples of relevant edits):

• "[purported/alleged] psychic medium" in the Occupation field of his infobox (added, removed), currently empty.
• ". . . best known for performing as a [purported/alleged] psychic medium . . ." in the introductory paragraph (added, removed), currently ". . . best known for performing on his show John Edward Cross Country."
• ". . . before working full time as a [purported] medium." in the third introductory paragraph (removed, added), currently "before entering his current career."

Under WP:WTA and WP:NPOV, should "purported" and "alleged" be avoided in these cases? Clarification would be greatly appreciated. — Elembis 23:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA clearly states that "purported" and "alleged" should only be avoided when the purporter and alleger are not specificied or are otherwise unclear. In this case the one doing the purporting and alleging is John Edwards himself. Therefore it is not against WP:WTA to say that he is a "purported medium". To say that he is a "medium" would be POV and would imply that he actually has psychic powers when there is no concrete evidence that he does.Wikidudeman 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between saying one works as a medium and that one is a medium, because the first is an indisputable fact: the man employs himself as a medium. I would say that the purported is unnecessary when saying that he works as a medium, but necessary when saying he is one. --tjstrf talk 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone "works as" something very strongly implies that the person actually is that something. If Edward were to find a way to make people give him money by convincing them he's the Prime Minister of France, could one say in a Wikipedia article about him that he's employed as the Prime Minister of France? -- Schaefer (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In complete agreement with .Wikidudeman and Schaefer in that both Edward is a self proclaimed (sorry about the weasel words) medium, something that cannot be verified by material actuality, and that if someone works as something then the implication is that what they are in fact. Now unless we want to start editing the meaning of medium (which I believe would be wrong) then his claims require qualification, and that qualification should be purported, this should apply in all cases where an individual claims to be something that is questionable, it is not a snipe at Edward personally which would be wrong, but merely a rational qualification of unquantifiable claims. Belbo Casaubon 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think saying one works as a purported anything is proper, if for no other reason than the awful grammar. We could always split hairs on meaning and use performs as in place of works as, since it can be taken as implying either. For the record, I don't believe in psychics. --tjstrf talk 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at this, too, and I trust nobody will complain if my views have changed any since the dispute began eleven days ago. I also hope that excessive length, detail, rambling or boringness will be taken as a sign of poor writing and debate skill and not as evidence of WikiLawyering. =)

As Dreadlocke has pointed out, "'Performing' can be taken either way, as in 'performing surgery' or 'performing an act'." For example, compare "Clarence Darrow performs as a lawyer" to "Richard Simmons performs as a lawyer"; both are understood easily, I think, because the legitimacy the reader gives the "lawyer" determines the meaning of the phrase. The word has multiple common meanings (unlike "purport") and thus allows multiple interpretations (like "purport"), so in my view it can take the latter's place in making the sentence neutral, making "purported" unnecessary and unpreferable in the phrase "best known for performing as a psychic medium".

Next, when we say someone works as something (doctor, author, actor, auto mechanic, priest, footballer), which is what the "Occupation" field says, we're implying quite strongly that they do or can do something that a fraud can't (practice medicine, write books, play a role, fix vehicles, minister, play football) and, most importantly, that this is verifiable in a widely-accepted way. Not everyone who says they're a doctor deserves to have "Occupation: Doctor" in their infobox. We can check their medical degree; look up their book; read the credits; see if the mechanic is licensed or has been formally trained; see if the minister has been ordained by their church (and perhaps see if the church is recognized by law); watch a football game. These criteria allow us to verifiably distinguish actual doctors from false ones, and without such criteria the title of a profession loses its meaning. (These criteria are also independent of one's personal beliefs about the person's legitimacy; whether or not they really are a doctor, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.")

There are, of course, no standardized tests or licensing boards for psychics. There are no verifiable, largely uncontroversial criteria by which we can currently distinguish the validity of the psychic abilities of John Edward, Miss Cleo (not a medium, I know), The Amazing Randi, and any phony with a neon "Psychic Readings" sign and/or a dimly-lit room (no reflection Edward or Harris intended) — if they were purported doctors, we could. I don't think we can say, verifiably and neutrally, that Edward is a psychic and Miss Cleo or Random Person only purports to be one, so to be fair we must put the same thing in the infobox of each (hypothetical) person and say that each either "works as a psychic" or "works as a purported psychic". The former subverts the common meaning of "works as"; if anyone who says they're a psychic medium deserves "Occupation: Psychic medium" in their infobox, anyone who says they're a doctor deserves "Occupation: Doctor" in theirs. I think that's plainly unfair and non-neutral, and I hope the reason is not that my chain of argument is missing a few links. =) Please pardon the length of this comment; believe me, I tried. — Elembis 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that instead of examining the meaning of what is said, we are splitting hairs, if we examine what Edward does in the context of the article, (particularly in the light of Dreadlockes most recent edit where edward is described as a psychic medium (It appears Okay to add the validating POV qualifier Psychic (please check out the meaning of this) to medium, but not the questioning purported qualifier), I am in full agreement with you in that if there is a question over someones claims, or qualifications then their occupation in the infobox should reflect this in all cases (I Guess that is what you mean, sorry if I am wrong) or then we don't have NPOV.

I am surprised that you are happy with an ambiguous word, which leaves things open to interpretaion, ratehr than a non ambiguous word which is a renders psychic medium as verifiable, i.e. psychic medium is not verifiable, but purported psychic medium is, all you need to do is ask the claimant about his abilities, and if they all come from inside his head then he is purporting, if he has bona fide certification from a recognised credible institution then doubt should be reduced.

The important thing here is that Edward has not been called a liar, he has not be libelled, his unverifiable claims have merely been qualified. Belbo Casaubon 10:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the term "psychic medium is not verifiable", that is said very clearly in the article, but it cannot be used in every circumstance because it would violate NPOV - the views of those that believe in Edward's abilities need to be represented - and they are not currently being adequately represented. This cannot be a purely skeptical article, NPOV doesn't allow for that. Dreadlocke ☥

Calling him a "purported psychic" is technically accurate but still undesirable because it implies he really isn't psychic. We should avoid the issue and say that he's a television performer who claims to have psychic powers. Lots of people claim to be psychic. Edward's notability comes from his having a TV show. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I dont agree that purported implies he isnt really a psychic, however, your statement that he is a television presenter who claims to have psychic abilities is true. the point here is that purport is not a perjorative term, but a statement of truth. In that Edward claims to be a psychic, but this is not verifiable, therefor its is purported , alleged , or any other qualifier that tempers his claims with rationalism.Belbo Casaubon 13:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Purported definitely implies he isn't a psychic, look at the definition for it: [6], which clearly says "often specious appearance", "specious" meaning "having deceptive attraction or allure" and "having a false look of truth or genuineness". It's definitely a pejorative term - there can be no doubt about that. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the term "Psychic Medium", "psychic" is not a POV qualifier, it is a type of medium. There are different types of mental mediums and physical mediums, so there's nothing POV about it. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The skeptic's position is that there has been no evidence yet supporting the idea that there are any mediums. Careless use of the term when applied to an individual, seems to endorse the view that there are mediums. — BillC ^talk 17:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what this discussion is all about. According to NPOV, we do need to represent the viewpoint of those that believe in mediums - the entire article cannot only represent the skeptical viewpoint. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right in that the article cannot represent only the sceptical viewpoint , Psychic implies bona fide supernatural powers, however Mr Edward has can not be proved to have psychic powers therefore cannot be described as being a unqualified psychic medium, I also unfortunately disagree that purportedly in entirely perjorative the Collins English Dictionary gives the meaning as "To claim to be or to do something", instead of purport we could use supposed.Belbo Casaubon 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It may not be "entirely" pejorative, but it's sufficently considered a pejorative and therefore a word to avoid - and should not be used in the Edward Article, unless it was said by a notable critic in a reliable source and can be added to the Criticism section. This is especially true in a WP:BLP, which requres a high level of sensitivity. "Supposed" is just as bad. Using 'claimed' or 'purported' is usually avoidable by using more 'detail', this also gives the user more to base an opinion on and improves the article. Reading an article using the word 'claimed' in every line, reads more like a legal document than an encyclopaedia entry. That's what the detail in later sections is all about. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should go over the differences between a gudeline and a rule again, it is clear that John Edward claims to be a psychic medium, this claim is not verifiable, to make it verifiable it requires qualification. I do believe that comments like using claimed in every line is a little hysterical, and it is certainly not what I propose, I merely propose that it is more verifiable to describe Mr Edward as a purported/supposed/claimed/self-proclaimed psychic medium than as a psychic medium, as for adding more detail, what would be the point of that, you are simply adding more to a flawed article, Mr Edward has made claims about his abilities, I see no problem with including this (as it is an accurate verifiable fact) rather than describing him as a psychic medium, a statement which cannot be verified. I relly can't see the problem with the use of these words, I understand from your edit history and user page that you have an interest in the paranormal (which is fine) however that shoud not preclude you from objectivity, I also have an interest in the paranormal, and am not a sceptic merely a pragmatist.Belbo Casaubon 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to say he "is a psychic medium", I'm proposing to say that he "acts" or "performs as a psychic medium", there's a big difference between the two. Also, a guideline is very significant and represents a wide consensus amongst experienced editors - it's not something that can be lightly ignored. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the guideline, maybe you are, please read it again and find the paragraph:

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.

It is clear in this case that it is John Edward who is the alleger.

In this case the experienced editors have reached a consensus which states

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not

They have also stated

there is no neutrality problem with using them

There is no ambiuguity in these statements .. you are opting to use ambiguous words such asact and perform as qualifiers as opposed to the non neutral, non ambiguous purported/alleged.

I believe you are misunderstanding the attempt to make the article NPOV and i believe using act and perform is Weaselish. Belbo Casaubon 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read those parts of WTA, but I disagree that purported and it's like should be used in the Edward article, their usage is pejorative and does not match my interpretation of what WTA states. The main thrust of WTA is to avoid using words that add bias or appear to give an opinion, which is exactly what "purported" does in the case of the Edward article, (which is clear from the Websters online definition's use of "specious appearance").

This is not the same as using "acts" or "performs" as they are not on the list of words to avoid, and they are both informative and describe what he is doing on the show: performing. There's nothing ambiguous about that, but it also does not make a statement either way about the reality of his presumed abilities. There's nothing "weaselish" about using "performing" or "acts" - because it is exactly what he is doing on the show.

You need to focus on finding alternatives to utilizing these words to be avoided, and properly edit the article with detail and not continue trying to force the use of WTA. I believe I have found an acceptable alternative by saying that Edward is "performing" as a psychic medium, and that these WTA do not need to be used. Period. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would be fair to simply not include him as having any occupation or if we do list an occupation list it as "performer", Not "psychic performer" just "performer". We should also edit the article so that anytime it mentions his supposed psychic ability it makes it clear that he isn't necessarily a psychic. Since we can't reach a compromise. And BTW Elembis. James Randi doesn't claim he is a psychic. James Randi is a "psychic debunker" a "skeptic" who often pretends he is a psychic to show how easily any person can do what they do using cold reading techniques.Wikidudeman 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew about Randi, but you're right, he's a bad example. — Elembis 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I really hope we can agree on a verifiable, neutral description of what Edward is; if we can't, it looks like the consensus will be "performs" in the article and a blank Occupation field (or one which reads "Performer" if no one objects). I still support "purport", but I understand that some people consider its use pejorative, so I'll propose something else: what about "profess"?

Webster's says the word means "... (2a) to declare or admit openly or freely; affirm (2b) to declare in words or appearances only; pretend, claim (3) to confess one's faith in or allegiance to (4a) to practice or claim to be versed in (a calling or profession) ...". Look up the linked terms and you'll see that, like "perform", the word has positive, neutral and negative common meanings, is not pejorative, and is not mentioned on WP:WTA or WP:WEASEL (which is not to say that it's automatically the right word). "Professed psychic medium" doesn't sound at all pejorative to me (it even sounds a little illustrious); at the same time, it doesn't sound like an automatic confirmation. I think it's perfect. — Elembis 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is not bad at all.Belbo Casaubon 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be continued on the Edward talk page. This page is for specifically discussing the article "Words to avoid", not the Edward article or its contents. This discussion is well beyond that scope. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific theories and laws

Rather than statig that a scientific law is "Scientific principles that are succinctly stated", it might be better to say that a scentific law is a statement that is universally observed to hold true. Thus "laws" are about observations, and "theories" are our explanations of those observations. Thus, the kinetic theory of heat explains (accounts for) the laws of thermodynamics. Paul Murray 19:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

I deleted a closing statement that was in contradiction with the wording on WP:NPOV. The proposal at Wikipedia:Criticism, has not been accepted by the community despite being a proposal for many months.. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bigot

Neutral or not?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad example of "claim" in this guideline

There is nothing wrong with suggesting dubiousness when such dubiousness cannot be disputed by any reasonable person; the paranoid schizophrenics are an example of that. This example should be changed to something where the dubiousness would be much more problematic, e.g., "Some religious believers claim that it is impossible to lead a moral life without believing in a deity."--Eloquence* 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The word "claims" is a loaded term that introduces bias. It is better to add detailed content to the article so the readers can decide for themselves whether the "claim" is dubious or not. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not how NPOV works. It's not "make a claim and let the reader sort it out for themselves", it's "phrase it in such a way that there can be no reasonable dispute about it". Which is the case when implying, for instance, that the claims of paranoid schizophrenics are dubious.--Eloquence* 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That is clearly not what I said. I said "add detail to the article so the reader can decide for themselves what is dubious" it is not the job of Wikipedia or it's editors to decide what is dubious for them, but to present all significant views fairly and without bias. What NPOV actually says is:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."

The word "claim" automatically introduces bias, which is against NPOV. NPOV concerns are met by providing the various key views on both sides of an issue, something which generally cannot be addressed by a single word, sentence or possibly even an entire paragraph. As I said above, it is better to add detailed content to the article than it is to use a loaded word that itself brings bias. NPOV means that the overall article must provide a neutral point of view, not that each word or sentence must provide for all the various views.

As WP:WTA states, "claim" is a word which can advance a point of view and should be avoided. I find this especially true in the introductory paragraph of an article. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To state or imply something which is not seriously disputed is not bias, anymore than saying that paranoid schizophrenia is a disorder would be. It is an undisputed factual statement.--Eloquence*

Oh, I completely disagree with that, a Wikipedia article should never “imply” anything, it should clearly state from reliable sources what the various and significant sides of an issue are. We should never imply, we should instead “state” – as you suggest - by using detailed content, not loaded words.

If we do allow biased words, such as “claim”, then who makes that value judgment? Wikipedia editors? That would violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If the value judgment is from reliable sources, then detailed content from those sources can be added to the article instead of merely using a loaded, biased word. Wikipedia articles do not benefit from our using loaded, biased words such as those on the WTA page.

It is very clear how to handle something that is "not seriously disputed". If an article's subject is in such a category, then it should be a simple matter to add detailed content that clearly describes the subject as being something not seriously disputed, instead of using one of the "words to avoid". Those details in the content would provide the undisputed factual statements you mention - and would be a much preferred state of affairs for an encyclopedia. Using a loaded word to indicate bias or even an "undisputed factual statement" isn't the most encyclopedic manner in which to address a subject. Besides, WTA is used mostly in situations where there is very much dispute, as you are well aware... :)

Wikipedia’s job is to fully inform the reader, adding a loaded word to provide the view that something is not seriously disputed does not fit that task.

For instance, in your example, it would be far better to clearly state why the “claims” of paranoid schizophrenics are dubious. It would be perfectly fine in the body of the article to say something along the lines of “psychologists say that the claims of paranoid schizophrenics are dubious because…xxx and xxx”, but it’s not our job to say so – we should never say “Paranoid schizophrenics typically claim that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them.” In a statement like that, it is proper to replace the word “claim” with “believe”, then explain why that is a dubious belief by adding detailed content that clearly informs the reader why it is dubious. The example that is currently in the WTA article is a perfect example that makes an editor add detail instead of trying to take a shortcut to show the dubiousness of a subject by merely throwing in a WP:WTA. That’s key to an encyclopedia of knowledge – details and content, informing the reader and not just implying

If we do blur the line for these WTA, then it’s a slippery slope and we will have editors making value judgments and being able to actually add a WTA with the express purpose of creating a subtle bias. I don’t think we ought to allow the line to be blurred or the WTA restrictions to be relaxed. Slippery slope. More disputes. Less informative articles. . Dreadlocke ☥ 01:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe "claim" can sometimes be used in an NPOV manner- but it is rare, and I can't think of an example now.

I agree with this: "clearly state from reliable sources what the various and significant sides of an issue are. We should never imply"

The most important thing to remember about the word "claim" is that it is seldom really necessary. Where the NPOV word "say" cannot be substituted, the text can almost always be redone to make such a word unnecessary. Where it is necessary, it should be obvious that it means not that the claim is dubious, but that the truth of it is, without bias, simply unknown. English, as with all language, is extremely nuanced, and this nuance is what we are talking about, not merely technical fact.

Thus, in the example by Eloquence "Some religious believers claim that it is impossible to lead a moral life without believing in a deity", one can simply make it NPOV by changing "claim" to "say." The word "believers" is here NPOV, but only because in the particular context of religion the word "belief" is not strictly contrasted with "knowledge" and not a near equivalent of "opinion," but is rather contrasted with "unbelief" which is negative. So from a context outside the religion, which is the Wikipedia perspective, the word "believer" merely says that the people are inside the system, not outside it.

In DreadLocke's example, "Paranoid schizophrenics typically claim that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them." becomes "Paranoid schizophrenics typically say that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them."

But replacing the word "claim" with "believe" would also be POV, because of the nuances stated above.

"If we do blur the line for these WTA, then it’s a slippery slope and we will have editors making value judgments and being able to actually add a WTA with the express purpose of creating a subtle bias."

Agreed.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist, terrorism section

KazakhPol just unilaterally split-off this section into his own version of the guideline, Wikipedia:Designated terrorist organizations. I think it should be redirected for now, as such actions should be done after a consensus is reached, not before. Khoikhoi 01:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems many central asian groups that oppose their governments labelled as terrorists in the narrative voice, and/or usually using questionable interpretations of references. see:

• Hizb ut-Tahrir
• Terrorism_in_Kazakhstan,
• Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan,
• Cooperation between Kazakhstan and the United States in Counter-terrorism
• Hizb-an-Nusra,
• Jama'at al-Jihad al-Islami,
• Akramiya,
• Islamic_Movement_of_Uzbekistan,
• Islamic_Movement_of_Central_Asia,
• New_Great_Game,
• List_of_attacks_attributed_to_Abu_Nidal
• Ahmed_Rashid
• East_Turkestan_Liberation_Organization
• Ahmed_Rashid

Aaliyah Stevens 11:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaliyah Stevens has gone to every page I edit to 'warn' other editors about me. That in itself speaks volumes about his activities. I copied and pasted part of this policy and another policy into a new policy that dealt with the use of the term 'terrorism' and 'terrorist'. It really was not that controversial. KazakhPol 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a she for the 2nd time, and no I haven't Aaliyah Stevens 11:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] are but a few...

The article Islam and antisemitism currently has the sentence "Cowardice, greed, and chicanery are but a few of the characteristics that the Qur'an ascribes to the Jews." Whether that is true or not I would argue that "are but a few" is unencyclopedic because of its attempt to portray a greater magnitude than is cited. How exactly would you describe this issue? It's not really weasel words or peacock terms... Thanks. gren グレン 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article then proceeds to explain what the other characteristics are. Beit Or 12:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The Late" in terms of the dead

I'm having some problems with the use of "the late" to signify that someone is dead or that the article's subject dealt with someone who has died. Examples include "the late Ronald Reagan" or "the late Steve Irwin". I don't think it should be used in most cases, as everyone dies sometime, and the fact that someone may be dead is usually not important in the scope of the article. And if they don't know that someone is dead, the name is usually linked, and they can find out that way. I would like something amended in this page to reflect that. Booshakla 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how emphasizing someone's departure from the living would be out of scope for an article where that person is mentioned. And I don't think removing every use of the term from Wikipedia on your part, will help in any way - you've already exceeded the three-revert rule in the PETA article. --Strangnet 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that is relevant. I'm just asking for some feedback, I've made some valid points and there are many other editors that have removed these mentions with similar intentions. I think that it can be relevant to use the term in some occasions, but not most. Booshakla 01:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's some feedback: I've raised your behavior as inappropriate with WP:AN/I. Until they respond, I would appreciate you stop your crusade of removing this expression wherever you find it. You have your reasons not to like it; other have their reasons to like it and NOT agree with you. Trying to force it on the WP community as a whole isn't the best approach, IMHO.--Ramdrake 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't see anything particularly wrong with removing "the late" from articles and I think that the term is generally unencyclopedic and entirely unnecessary. I will remind Ramdrake that content disputes should not go to WP:AN/I and that Booshakla's initial bold edits where in good faith and not disruptive. It will also remind Booshakla and others not to violate WP:3RR when dealing with content disputes. --Farix (Talk) 03:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "the term is generally unencyclopedic and entirely unnecessary". For more discussion, read on: We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, or a fan site, or a blog, or a branch office of "Entertainment Tonight". This means that every article stands on its own, and we use links to connect to other people with whom the subject was associated. To use the Nancy Reagan example: anyone who's ever heard of Ronald Reagan either knows he's dead, or can quickly click the link and find out. Those who've never heard of him don't care either way. The point is that Nancy's article is about her, not about her husband. Naturally, it must include reference to Ron because she achieved her greatest degree of notability through him; her article would be much smaller (or perhaps non-existent) if she was only ever a minor actress and never became First Lady. But that doesn't mean we have to refer to Ronald as "the late". Do this for him, and we have to refer to all dead people as "the late" - or establish some sort of cut-off point, and I can guarantee we'll never get agreement about how long after a person's death it becomes no longer appropriate to employ such terminology. Do it for everyone, or no-one: I vote for no-one. (At a stretch, I can see how referring to someone who died last week as "the late" might have some value, but even that would have to be removed within a short time. In any case, RR died almost 3 years ago so ...) JackofOz 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "the late" isn't encyclopedic - but! - just make sure the article doesn't imply the individual is still alive when they're not! Both can be easily addressed by using: Dates of birth and death. If there's a big push-back on the removal of "the late", then "being bold" becomes "being spam" until the issue is decided on the talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Any decision concerning the use of late would affect most biographical articles. I imagine that a consensus regarding this subject could also mean a change in wikipedia policy. It might be prudent to expand the scope of this discussion, moving this analysis to a more easily viewable and/or high traffic page (This, however, may very well be the right place to post this discussion).

I believe that the use of late (as in reference to the subject) in a biographical article can be inappropriate if not also redundant. That being said, however, I could see the merit in its use when in the context of a reference to another party, (stipulating also the use of said late party supports the subject) as is the case with the Nancy Reagan article.

In any event, changing articles to fit either opinion before a consensus is reached would be counterproductive. Kugelmass 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point, since there is a definite dispute about the issue, you are correct. A good place to start the discussion would be on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography page. I've notified them of this discussion as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a style issue about whether a word should be avoided. So the best place is here at WP:WTA. The WikiProject doesn't have "ownership" of this debate and it is inappropriate to move it there when it is already underway here. --Farix (Talk) 10:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There can be not policy change as there is no policy on the issue to begin with. --Farix (Talk) 10:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A better alternative to saying "the late" is to give the birth and death years in brackets after the name. This gives more information about when the person died. So, for example, talking about a new crocodile protection program, you could say "Crocodile Protector was inspired by the animal conservationist and TV presenter Steve Irwin (1962-2006)" or ""Crocodile Protector was inspired by the animal conservationist and TV presenter Steve Irwin, who died in 2006" or "Crocodile Protector was founded a year after the death of the animal conservationist and TV presenter Steve Irwin (1962-2006)". Carcharoth 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Carcharoth! Looks like great minds think alike...[7]..:) Dreadlocke ☥ 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this could reasonably be worked out case by case. Use it when it works, don't when it doesn't. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That offers no guidance whatsoever. And how does one define when it works and when it doesn't work? --Farix (Talk) 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not something about which we need to offer guidance. It's a minor question of style that editors can work out on the particular page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA is primarily concerned with undue weight and biased words, not sylistic concerns. Moving the discussion to WP:Project Bio would be perfectly acceptable and probably the best thing to do. It really doesn't belong here. And aggressively replacing it (even if it's right), can be viewed as spamming if overall consensus isn't reached. Apparently, this has gone beyond the single-article discussion. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I will chime in both places as I do not know how the internal debate of moving will turn out. I think the suggestion given above of putting the birth and death dates after the first mention of a name in an article would be a better idea then stating "the late", in as many letters we can achieve something much more informative and still maintain an encyclopedic style over editorial style. --NuclearZer0 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The dates instead of "the late" is only a slightly better idea. I would maybe put it (only when necessary) on subjects that don't have their own article. You don't need it when you talk about a dead person with an article here, cause you can just click the link to find out. I still think we need to think about keeping the subject in perspective and not get too irrelevant, and also removing clutter, and we want to assume that our readers are intelligent. Booshakla 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree, we do not want to assume our readers are stupid, however they may not know if the person is alive. You mention Carter, however if it was not for the recent media blitz over his death, many may not know he was in fact dead. I think if we remove "the late" we may be left with people reading articles and not knowing. For instance if I am reading an article and stumble across person X said Y about Z, I may use that as its cited and I verify the citations etc. However I may not know person X is dead. I didnt read their article cause the quote is of interest, not the person. Replacing "the late" with a date, allows for it to be apparent immediatly without requiring a link to be clicked. I think the issue is, does everyone click a link when they see it, is everyone concerned with the person, perhaps just with a quote, or noted presence at an event or on a list. I think if we can achieve an informative position in 9 letters and change "the late" in the same process it will only help. It also gets rid of that editorial voice I mentioned before. Some people come here looking for quick information, its almost like stating we should not list Carter as president Carter when referenced in other articles, since the person can click the link to find out he was president, the more information in a concise manner seems to be the best bet. --NuclearZer0 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography page but I thought I'd stick it in here as it might be useful. This is my take on the discussion above;

• "the late..." seems to normally be used in English language prose to indicate someone who is recently deceased. Including this phrase in articles means that at somepoint its going to look odd at a later date when someone is no longer recently deceased and so introducing the flaw of presentism.
• The key way to indicate "the late" is by adding their death date to their article entry, or if they are merely referenced in someone else's article add them there (although if they're not notable to warrant an article of their own, does it matter if they're late or present?)
• Another argument is that the phrase is "unencylopaedic" but as WP:NOT and the AfD guidance states, this is never a very good argument as "Wikipedia is not a paper encylopaedia". What I think is meant is that using the "the late..." does not sound like the tone of an encyclopaedia - more like an obituary, or newspaper article.
• Argument from existing usage, I have to say I've rarely noticed the phrase used in Wikipedia, but then maybe I'm not observant enough, but generally I've not seen the phrase used widely.

Madmedea 11:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments for Zer0:

• (1) Are you confusing Jimmy Carter with Gerald Ford, who died 6 weeks ago? Carter is very much alive, to my knowledge.
• (2) "if it was not for the recent media blitz over his death, many may not know he was in fact dead" seems a non-sequitur to me. How else would the outside world get to hear about his death, or anything, if not for the media? JackofOz 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A few more comments. Booshakla says "You don't need it when you talk about a dead person with an article here, cause you can just click the link to find out." - if the reader of the article needs to know that the person being mentioned is dead, then you must state that in the article in question. You can never rely on someone going to another article to find this out. Going to another article is for background information only. Each article must be self-contained and be able to be read as a whole, without requiring the reader to constantly look at other pages to find out relevant information. Of course, if the death and/or date is not relevant, then don't mention it at all. It is the context which is important. Another example is mentioning a 20th-century author in the middle of a paragraph about 14th-century literature. The mention would have to make clear that the new name is not another 14th-century author, but is a 20th-century author.

Madmedea said "Another argument is that the phrase is "unencylopaedic" but as WP:NOT and the AfD guidance states, this is never a very good argument as "Wikipedia is not a paper encylopaedia". What I think is meant is that using the "the late..." does not sound like the tone of an encyclopaedia - more like an obituary, or newspaper article." - I agree entirely. The AfD guidance mentions WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia to point out matters of article size and multimedia content and internal linking. It does not refer to 'encyclopedic tone'. That is non-negotiable. The articles still have to have a neutral, and professional tone. Newspaper journalism and editorial style is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Carcharoth 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that it "must" be mentioned. Everyone reads an article differently, and you can't cater to every single need when making an article. There is a guideline here that we should not spoon feed the reader, and putting needless details like that is exactly what you're doing. Booshakla 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

'The Late' can imply respect for the dead person. Thus, people write about 'the late Steve Irwin' but 'Saddam Hussein who was executed recently'. 'The late' is a relative temporal phrase and should be avoided for the same reason that Wikipedia articles should not refer to what happened 'last year'. Finally, 'Steve Irwin, who died in 2006' conveys more information and shows no disrespect or respect to the subject. So recommend avoid this phrase. Curtains99 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But again, the date of death only needs to be mentioned if it is relevant to the article. It can be in a few cases, but not most. Booshakla 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adjevtive and adverbs that convey POV: "merely", "only", "just"

There are lots more POV adjectives and adverbs, of course, but I've seen a lot of them used in this sort of way: "John Doe was fired as coach after just one season". This serves to create the impression that he was not given a chance and that the action was premature. It could be that these words are not on the list because they also can be used, with different denotations, in a way that does not convey POV. If this list is intended only for words that are generally inappropriate, rather than just inappropriate in a certain usage, then disregard. Croctotheface 06:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, I remove those types of words on the spot when I see them. Booshakla 09:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Recently"

Should "recent" and "recently" be added to words to avoid? Quite often editors who are too lazy to/unable to date an event write that it happened "recently", but the text persists in Wikipedia long after the event is "recent". Much better to put "in 2003...", or even "in the early 2000s..." (Or is this more an example of weasel words?) Rocksong 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that caused a lot of discussion. Not. But I still think it's important. If there are no objections, I intend to add a section named along the lines "Words whose meaning changes over time", and caution against the misuse of "recent", "recently", "current" and "currently". Rocksong 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with it, "recently" doesn't really make sense in an encyclopedia, and it's common to find neglected articles that describe events months or years ago as "recent". --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen "three years ago" as well as "recently". The standard, of course, is to make date references absolute and not relative to the editor's time frame. patsw 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I've just discovered Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. It seems the real problem is the lack of a decent Wikipedia Help Contents! Rocksong 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist vs Category Terrorism

I have a question, which may have arisen before. If calling a particular organization or individual as terrorist is inappropriate, then why is there a Category:Terrorism? My particular concern is with ASALA, an organization whose members were charged, convicted and sentenced for numerous bombing attacks killing civilians en masse as well as pointed assassinations. And also with Monte Melkonian, who was a member of ASALA, was convicted of assassinations and attacks, yet called a "freedom fighter" and not in Category:Terrorism. For some reason, my attempt [8] to insert Category:Terrorism on ASALA based on three references to the U.S. State Department classifying the organization as such [9], [10], [11] was countered with an argument that this term should not be used [12] and with reference to this page [13]. Can anyone provide an explanation on the policy and the category? Thanks. Atabek 10:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Scandal" vs "controversy"

I've added a new section at WP:WTA#Scandal, controversy, affair, which I hope is fairly self-explanatory and sensible. I'd appreciate any feedback that other contributors may have. -- ChrisO 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-life

Currently there is this sentence, which was introduced 19 June 2006: The so-called pro-life movement comprises those who believe abortion should be illegal. [So-called suggests that they are not, in fact, "pro-life". Whether this is true is debatable, so instead make it clear who calls them that—use self-described, or rephrase to "the movement generally known as pro-life . . .".] However, the general running consensus/compromise on WikiProject Abortion is to respect self-identity and to not add qualifications to the titles of the movements. This way, we avoid people using terms like "pro-death" "anti-choice" "anti-life" and so on. Also, "pro-abortion" is a misnomer because very few people are FOR abortion per see, while "anti-abortion" doesn't accurately describe the movement because euthanasia and stem cell research and other issues are often involved (see Terri Schavio). The working consensus is to use "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to describe the movements and the political position and leave it at that. However, these guidelines seem to suggest that its ok to question the accuracy of these terms in the article space (the pro-choice and pro-life articles talk about term controversy). I however do not feel that this debate through be brought out on every single abortion page that mentions "pro-life" and "pro-choice". I would suggest removing this as an example. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 00:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: law words and and other misplaced formality issues

I suggest we add a section on avoiding misplaced formality and fancy law words, such as:

• "hitherto"
• "thereunto"
• "notwithstanding"
• excessive use of "whereas"
• "whilst"
• "amongst"
• "in order to" (unless it's a complex situation or the opposite is needed)
• "thereupon"
• "notwithstanding"
• "utilize"
• "prior to"

We should be projecting our content succinctly and plainly, but without restorting to simple english. Our goal is not to write law contracts and Shakesperian plays, or to show off our vocabulary. As User:Tony1 says so well on his User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: "Wikipedia needs to appeal to a wide range of native and non-native speakers, many of whom are time-poor. Writing plain English is a good way to achieve this. Many writers want to write text with an air of authority, and use longer-than-necessary and/or old-fashioned forms in the hope of appearing more formal. In most cases, you'll get your point across more effectively by avoiding the following words and phrases..." — Deckiller 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the general sentiment, though not with your selection of words ("prior to" is perfectly fine, for instance). This might be better as an essay, because it probably won't get widespread support. A lot of people want to write in a stuffy manner; they think it's encyclopedic. See my user page for something similar. — Omegatron 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Most copy-editors oppose FAs when these words are used, so perhaps if Tony puts his guideline into a Wikipedia space essay, it'll get even more attention. — Deckiller 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I too would agree with the general statement but let's not include any list of words or expressions. That which one editor may find fancy or misplacedly formal the next might find plain and quite normal. I will write and say "amongst" and "whilst" without a second thought: nothing fancy or formal about them. Jimp 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] in his book X, author Y hints at Z

The guideline says nothing about "hints/hinted at". Can I cite an author like that, when I have the exact quote?

And, secondly, I didn't manage to find anything in the citation or ref pages about direct quotes worked into the footnotes. I vaguely remember reading about that. Can anyone tell me how, or if it is a good idea at all? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, can please everybody ignore this? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid "hints at" in article text. If you're providing a direct quote, obviously you have to present exactly what they said. It's not like we can change their text or expect them not to use these words. --Minderbinder 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purported

I think it needs to be made clear the word purported actually carries the connotation of falsehood or lie, and the prohibition against using it should be made stronger.

From the Webster's Online Dictionary:

Webster’s online definition of purported:

to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred) <a book that purports to be an objective analysis>; also : CLAIM <foreign novels which he purports to have translated -- Mary McCarthy>

Webster’s defines specious as:

2 : having deceptive attraction or allure

3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC <specious reasoning>

With these definitions, there can be absolutely no doubt that “purported” is a word loaded with bias and should not be used.

The word "Professed" can be used in cases where there is a need for showing that a person has made a doubtful claim. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)