Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid

Terrorism

I am just wondering why the word terrorist is OK for Al-Qaeda, but not for IRA Irish Republican Army or ETA. I find the enforcement of this policy very biased on WikipediaKarljoos (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WTA#Controversy_and_scandal

I asked Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#.22Attribution.22 if the phrasing "The use of one of these words [controversy scandal or -gate] in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it." meant textual attribution within the article (example "..use of public funds was called scandalous by Senator X" [footnote]) or merely applying a footnote to a reliable source that uses the term (example: "..use of public funds was scandalous"[footnote to a source that uses the term "scandalous"]).

The feedback that I got was that, particularly for WP:BLPs, that attribution should be within the text of the article. If that is the case, would it be possible to reword the guideline to be more specific? MM207.69.139.147 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Rock the !Vote!

Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Words to watch so it's in one place. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:Words to watch, then weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. You can determine the future of this page.—DCGeist (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The proposal has been accepted. Within a few hours, this page will be redirected to the new Manual of Style guideline Wikipedia:Words to watch.—DCGeist (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

No it is not accepted changes to this page should be discussed on this page. -- PBS (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And BTW changes are sought through consensus not through votes. -- PBS (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved this section to the bottom From the history of the guideline: "here is a clear consensus about this page--discuss, but do not edit war)" and even if there was the RFC should be run for a month before a decision is made.

You bold edit nothing wrong with that I reverted it, you should discuss changes to guideline on the talk page of the guideline, if the change is disputed and not make the change again before there is consensus for the change on the talk page of the guideline. -- PBS (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case I am totally opposed to the changes that have taken place in the wording that is on Wikipedia:Words to watch compared to what is currently on WP:WTA, particularly the section on WP:TERRORIST. This is a section that has been debated long and hard for a long time. Yet instead of copying the wording over to here, and agreeing a merge it has been changed, without any consultation on the WP:WTA talk page. I am willing to bet that many other sections have suffered in the same way. -- PBS (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The RFC involved multiple pages being merged into one new one. That requires a centralized discussion on one page. The most straightforward decision was made to have that discussion on the Talk page of the proposed page. The discussion preceding the RFC was extensive. The discussion of the broader effort to consolidate and make sense of the Manual of Style was also extensive and widely participated in. The RFC was widely advertised, including on this Talk page. The result was clear. Disagree with it you may, but you are way out of line to try to reverse it by reverting. Please go to Wikipedia Talk:Words to watch and do something productive: suggest how the page can be improved. DocKino (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not need a central discussion. Each merge can be looked at on its merits. Further the RfC has not been open for anything like a month, so it is not at all clear there is a consensus for the merge. Also when I tried to put in the wording that is currently on this page in replace of a new synthesis you reverted it. So please explain how it is a merge if the text is changing? -- PBS (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A merge doesn't mean material will be transferred word for word. The main aim was to make the writing tighter, so obviously not everything can be moved over; there would have been little point in the merge otherwise. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you for article space. But when merging two guidelines why should it not be done that way as it will certainly cut down on misunderstandings -- PBS (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Words to watch so it's in one place. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 08:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

For the merge yes but changes to the wording of this article should be discussed here. -- PBS (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

But the theory of evolution IS doctrine!

The part on -ist and -ism has this:

For instance, adding -ism or -ist to a word may suggest ... factual statements are actually a matter of doctrine (as in evolutionism).

The term evolutionism is an excellent example of the loaded use of the -ism suffix, but it's semantically problematic to characterize this as "treating fact as doctrine" because that uses the word doctrine imprecisely. The theory of evolution is rigorously proven beyond all reasonable scientific doubt, but in the sense that it forms part of the body of scientific teaching, it is scientific doctrine. Doctrine does often have connotations of faith-based religious or philosophical belief, but its basic sense just means "a body of teachings". The theory of evolution, and, indeed, any scientific theory, falls within this broader definition of the term.

For that reason alone, the example would deserve rewording, but it has an even bigger problem: science itself is philosophically doctrinal. Its principle dogma is that by the skeptically rigorous analysis of empirical evidence collected under controlled conditions, truth―or at least an increasingly accurate approximation thereof―may be induced. That is an epistemology. The theory of evolution is a truth induced through the application of the scientific method, and when scientists regard evolution as fact, they do so because they believe in the epistemological doctrine of science.

The more I think about it, the less sense this usage of the word doctrine makes in the first place. What would the suggestion that the theory of evolution is a matter of doctrine even mean?

Creationists like to describe evolution in ways that make it out to be just as much a matter of faith as any religion. That is the sense of "doctrine" meant here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)