Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

There is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article, but a number of expressions should be used with particular care to avoid poor style. It is almost always possible to improve on or eliminate expressions that are ambiguous, offensive, flattering, condescending, clichéd, or jargonistic. (This does not apply to quotations.) In treating contentious matters, avoid expressions that suggest Wikipedia subscribes to a specific point of view.

Synonyms for "to say"

A point of view may be implied by using loaded synonyms for the verb "to say." For example, "X noted," "X reported," and "X observed" imply that X was correct to note, report, or observe. "Revealed," "pointed out," "exposed," and "surmised" carry similar dangers. On the other hand, synonyms such as "stated" and "argued" express no point of view; "according to" can be used in the same way.

"X claimed" should generally be avoided, because it raises a question, particularly after a factual statement; for example, "Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs, but in a statement yesterday claimed he was not a racist."

Words such as "insist," "maintain," "protest," "contend," or "feel" are fine when used appropriately, but be careful not to imply that the subject is irrational for "feeling" or "insisting" something. Similarly, "admit," "confess," or "deny" should be used judiciously, particularly of living persons, because they can convey guilt. For example, "Supervisors said they knew nothing about the incident" is better than "Supervisors denied all knowledge of the incident," which hints that perhaps they really did know something.

Words that may introduce bias

So-called, supposed, purported, alleged

Please also read the introduction of this guideline on words to avoid if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

These adjectives (and related adverbs) can imply that a given statement or term is inaccurate, without being upfront about it. This has a similar effect to scare quotes, and such usage should be avoided. If doubt exists, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who is doing the doubting and why.

So-called means both "commonly called" and "falsely or incorrectly so named" (Webster's), and it can be difficult to tell the two uses apart. Its use should be restricted to the first meaning, for instance when introducing terminology that may be unfamiliar (though here, italics may be preferable). It should not be used to characterize a specific application of a familiar word.

Supposed and purported, like claim, cast doubt upon an assertion; writing "X is supposedly true" suggests that the author does not believe it. On the other hand, supposed can sometimes denote intent, permission, or prohibition. In such cases, the term will often be neutral, but may be too informal.

Alleged (along with allegedly) can also be misused to cast doubt on a statement, and should not be used as a routine qualifier; consider alternatives such as apparent or reputed. On the other hand, the use of "alleged" as a verb may be appropriate in a legal context, though care is needed particularly concerning allegations against living persons. Always make it clear in the article text (not just the footnotes) who made the allegation. In legal cases, this will usually be one of the parties, such as a prosecutor, government body, or plaintiff. In other contexts, consider alternative forms of words such as "X asserted that Y" or "according to X, Y."

Dubious use:

• "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". In accordance with the guidelines on naming conflicts, the term "pro-life" needs no qualification.]
• "Those who live near Chernobyl supposedly suffer from elevated disease rates." [Remove supposedly and prepend the sentence with something like "According to independent investigations,...".]
• "Feather wool is a type of knitting yarn that is supposed to resemble wool." [Informal, and may suggest that it doesn't actually resemble wool. Replace with intended or designed.]
• "The director allegedly said that he would break up the company if he were unable to find a buyer." [Attribute the allegation instead: "According to X, the director said that ..."]

Acceptable use:

• "Protons are not elementary, but are composed of smaller particles, the so-called quarks." [This introduces a new term, and so is acceptable use. Consider italicizing quarks instead.]
• "O.J. Simpson was charged with murder by the State of California after he was alleged to have murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994." [In the context of a legal action, alleged is understood to mean "alleged by a privileged source such as a prosecutor". Note how the sentence attributes the allegations.]

However, although, whereas, despite

These words can sometimes imply that one alternative is less favored than another. Structures where two alternatives are contrasted are more likely to have this problem than situations where the word is used to emphasize a notable change.

Dubious use implying preference:

• "Some people think Bin Laden is a terrorist. However, others think he is a freedom fighter."
• "Homeopathy says that dilute solutions can be therapeutic, although scientists say they have no effect."
• "Some people are convinced that the Church of Scientology is a cult, despite others saying that it is not."

In general, "A asserts Y. However, according to B, Z." favors the latter assertion over the former. Avoid this construction in favor of simply stating: "A asserts Y. Others, including B, believe Z."

Only, just

These words, when used in conjunction with a measurable trait such as time or distance, suggest that the trait being described is unusual or remarkable. Even in cases where the value judgment being made represents a widely held view, it is still inappropriate to lead a reader to agree with that view. In most cases, removing the word only or just will address the problem. If the circumstance is actually exceptional (if an athlete beats a record time, for example), proper attribution should be provided.

Dubious use:

• "At just three years out of law school, Griffin's family requested that Scarborough represent him at his trial."
• "Just five weeks after opening, a short section of the road near Sutton Coldfield was reduced to one lane to allow for repairs."
• "Only 500 copies of the album were sold."

Words that may imply unsupported links

Adjectives such as "linked", "associated", "affiliated", and "related" can imply a connection between organizations without stating the nature of the connection or discussing the evidence for and against it; this may make the connection seem stronger than is supported by the evidence. The same applies to corresponding nouns, such as "affiliation" and "relationship".

If the connection is not well known, it should either be explained within the immediate context or via a Help:Link and this should be done in a way that makes clear whether the organizations themselves affirm the association or if a third party is making the association. Statistical associations should not be implied unless they have been demonstrated.

For example, here are two unsupported links:

• "The Al-Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah"
• "The Enron-affiliated company"

Here are more precise claims that state the nature of the connection:

• "Jemaah Islamiyah, which shares upper-level members with Al-Qaeda"
• "The company, in which Enron owns a 51% stake"

Words that label

Some words may be used to label a group from an outside perspective, even though these words are used in accordance with a dictionary definition. For example:

• "The Peoples Temple is a cult."
• "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization."
• "Pedophilia is a sexual perversion."

Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral.

There are at least three ways to deal with this: attribute the term to reliable sources; replace the label with information; or use a more neutral term. These three approaches are illustrated as follows:

• "The Peoples Temple is an organization, described as a 'cult' by X,^[1] Y,^[2] and Z.^[3]"
• "The Ku Klux Klan is an organization that has advocated white supremacy and anti-Semitism."
• "Pedophilia is a paraphilia."

Extremist, terrorist, or freedom fighter?

Please also read the introduction of this guideline on words to avoid if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

The terms "extremist", "terrorist", and "freedom fighter" are often particularly contentious labels that carry an implicit viewpoint. "Extremist" and "terrorist" are pejorative labels, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term "freedom fighter" is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. These words are inherently non-neutral, so they should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article.

If a reliable source describes a person or group using one of these words, then the word can be used but the description must be attributed in the article text to its source, preferably by direct quotation, and always with a verifiable citation. If the term is used with a clear meaning by multiple reliable independent sources, then citations to several such sources should be provided for the sentence where it appears.

When replacing one of these labels with a less controversial one, the word to be used should be chosen on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the words' ambiguity, appropriateness, and specificity with respect to the context. Factual descriptions such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, hostage-taker, kidnapper, and suicide bomber are often suitable as replacements. Assassin may in some circumstances be appropriate, but that word can also reflect a non-neutral point of view (hence such euphemisms as targeted killing). Other words to consider using, but which may also reflect a non-neutral point of view, are insurgent, paramilitary, partisan, and militant.

When an article refers to the general concept of terrorism, extremism, or freedom fighting, those terms may generally be used (e.g., in the article Freedom fighter, the article on a scholar who studies extremism, or articles concerned with general anti-terrorism organizations such as Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch). Nonetheless, care must be taken in these articles when applying the label of terrorist, extremist, or freedom fighter to a specific person, group, or event.

Words that editorialize

Do not note what is being noted

See also: Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms § Don't peacock your facts

Please also read the introduction of this guideline on words to avoid if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Phrases such as "it should be noted" and "it is important to note/know/bear in mind" are usually unencyclopedic, because they highlight one particular fact as being especially important without attributing it. Instead of "It should be noted that /fact/", simply state "/fact/".

Dubious use:

• "It should be noted that the Vatican claims that the doctrine of indulgences has no natural connection with pecuniary profit, which they claim is evident from the fact that the abundant indulgences of the present day are free from this association." ["It should be noted" suggests a rebuttal of the claim without attributing it, and should be removed.]
• "It is important to note that waterboarding and dunking are not the same thing." [Suggests the two are commonly confused, without attributing that claim. Here it may be better to leave out the sentence, and simply describe what waterboarding is.]
• "It is important to bear in mind that /package name/ is the most popular instant messaging program in Europe." [Importance of the fact is subjective: just state it and give a citation to support it.]

Adverbs that editorialize

The use of certain adverbs requires care in encyclopedic writing, as they can imply an opinion or viewpoint without providing a source for it.

Fundamentally, essentially, basically

Adverbs such as these tend to imply a preferred viewpoint: the "fundamental nature" of a topic is inherently subjective.

Dubious use:

• "Jesus was at heart a millennial type of leader."
• "Napoleon Bonaparte was essentially a dictator."
• "Killbits are simply a flag in the Windows Registry."
• "This statement is basically factual."

The related adjective "fundamental" may be used in the sense of "central", as in "Schrödinger's Equation is considered fundamental to quantum physics" or "According to Jones, concerns about the difficulty of invading Japan were fundamental to the decision to drop the A-bomb".

Take care if applying this guideline to precise discussions of technical subjects, as many of these words, and their related adjectives are used uncontroversially, and often with a very particular meaning. Examples:

• "The resulting function is essentially bounded."
• "All simply connected sets satisfy particular properties."
• "The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus"

Clearly, actually, obviously, of course

Some adverbs can imply that a matter is without doubt or so obvious that no explanation is necessary, whereas they often express a viewpoint or are plain rhetoric. While stating the obvious often results in a better article, use of these words can be condescending, implying that the reader is too stupid to realize that it is obvious.

Dubious use:

• "Heinrich Himmler was obviously going to be found guilty."
• "The point of Brahms's work has, of course, been lost by critics."
• "The Huron-Manistee National Forests are actually two national forests combined in 1945 for administration purposes."

Naturally

The word "naturally" could be used in either of the above cases as well, and its use should be avoided. However, it is also used when referring to the natural world, and it has a precise technical meaning in mathematics as well as a qualitative one. Assertions of naturality in the latter sense may be uncontroversial statements of mathematical consensus, or they may promote a point of view; some judgment is needed to determine which.

Acceptable use:

• "Plutonium may occur naturally."
• "Cultural anthropologists assert that human beings are naturally social."
• "A finite-dimensional vector space is naturally isomorphic to its double dual."

Avoid editorial opinion

Please also read the introduction of this guideline on words to avoid if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

Wikipedia should not have a view as to whether a topic or event is amusing, interesting, ironic, happy, sad, (in)significant or (un)fortunate. Avoid using adjectives like these, and their corresponding adverbs, to express an editorial opinion or a personal observation in an article. If others have found something amusing or ironic, etc., then indicate who did so and why, citing sources to support the claim. If a matter is inherently amusing, the reader should not need to be told.

It may be appropriate to use "ironic" in a context such as "Alabama 3 made ironic use of a sample of a Jim Jones speech in their song 'Mao Tse Tung Said'." The ironic intent here is that of the artist.

Human-interest writing often uses adverbs such as happily and sadly when the reader is expected to empathize with the subject's successes or failures. These are better avoided in encyclopedic writing, where the purpose is to neutrally describe events rather than to entertain the reader's sympathies.

Similarly, whereas "Unfortunately, Smith could not attend" is an editorial opinion, the alternative phrase "unfortunately for Smith, he could not attend" may be acceptable if it is clear from the context why this was unfortunate. Still, it may be better to avoid the adverb altogether, and simply state "Smith could not attend."

The words "significant" and "significantly" require special care as they make a claim sound authoritative. For example, in "Significantly, Johnson did not cast a vote", the word "significantly" is unsupported, and should be removed unless it can be attributed, as in "Professor Bancroft found it significant that Johnson did not cast a vote", with a citation to support the claim.

In science and medicine the word "significant" means that a statistical test has shown that a result is unlikely to have occurred by chance (see statistical significance). Do not use the word in the colloquial sense when this technical meaning might be inferred.

While music journalists and music critics refer to certain musicians as "legendary" and call certain albums "classic" or "seminal" in their published reviews and articles, Wikipedia editors should not independently add these adjectives unless their use is supported by a reputable source. ("According to the Penguin Encyclopedia of music, John Smith was 'a legendary guitarist whose classic 1980s albums are considered to be seminal roots of rock records'.")

Death and dying

Please also read the introduction of this guideline on words to avoid if you came via a direct link to this subsection.

When writing about death, avoid editorializing phrases such as "died tragically", "untimely death", "unfortunate loss", or "horrible death". Everyone's death is sad or tragic to those who love and admire them; few are "timely". To show a death is tragic or sad, provide relevant facts from reliable sources. Whether a death is horrible or not is a subjective question: if the cause of death is notable, describe what happened, citing sources, and let the reader decide.

Avoid clichés about death, such as "he died doing what he loved" or "his death was the end of an era", and euphemisms such as "gave his life", "passed away", "passed over", "left his body", or "returned to God". The word died is religiously neutral, and neither crude nor vulgar.

First person and second person pronouns

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Grammar

First person and second person pronouns such as "I", "you," and "we" are inappropriate for encyclopedia articles.

Words with multiple meanings

Theories and hypotheses

Do not use theory to mean guess or speculation; however, the verb to theorize may be appropriate for learned speculation.

In the natural sciences and other academic fields, a theory is a coherent explanation that is consistent with available knowledge and that has passed multiple independent tests. Well-known examples are Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity, B.F. Skinner's theory of reinforcement ,and the modern evolutionary synthesis. Theories are open to constant scrutiny that often reveals their limitations, as with Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, but they remain highly accurate descriptions of observable data within these limitations.

In mathematics, theory is used to refer to a body of knowledge consisting of many theorems about related objects, as with Galois theory or Representation theory. A theorem is a proven result, and a conjecture is a proposed but unproven hypothesis.

In philosophy, the term theory is sometimes used to describe a historically well-established line of thinking, or a class of reasoned philosophical ideas, as with correspondence theory of truth or the consensus theory of truth.

In all cases, a theory is a system of thought used to explain phenomena. For speculations and guesses, use a word such as "hypothesis" or "conjecture" instead.

Religion

Words related to religion can create point of view problems. When is a belief system a "cult" or "sect" rather than a religion? What is "fundamentalism" or "heresy"? When these words are used, they need to be qualified, or supported by reliable secondary sources.

Cult has several different meanings, but usually with negative connotations. Its use should be avoided or attributed: i.e., do not say, "X is a cult", say "Group Y refers to X as a 'cult'" and give references. One exception concerns the technical use of this term in sociology to refer to a small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society: in that case, it must be clear that a neutral sociological usage is intended. The adjective cultic may be preferable in such cases. A second exception concerns a reference to a particular religious practice, such as "the cult of Demeter at Eleusis" or "the cult of the saints". See cult (religious practice).

Sect likewise has several different meanings, but has fewer negative connotations. Some groups that are described as cults by the media are classified as sects by sociologists. However, the word may or may not imply novelty or tension. It can also imply that the group is part of a larger movement, or a splinter group. Consequently its use can promote a point of view unless its meaning is clearly defined. For novel religions, the term new religious movement may be more appropriate: see list of new religious movements.

Fundamentalism refers to "the tendency to reduce a religion to its most fundamental tenets, based on strict interpretation of core texts." A fundamentalist is not necessarily an extremist. However, the meaning has shifted in popular use to mean "religious fanatic" as well as the original meaning. Consequently, it should primarily be used for groups that are self-described fundamentalists. For groups labeled as fundamentalists by others, the term should be attributed to the source.

Heresy refers to beliefs held by members of a religious group which are in conflict with the orthodox doctrine of the group. It should not be used to refer to external opposition to a religion, and its use should be supported by reliable sources.

Controversy and scandal

A controversy is defined as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views", but is often used in place of the words scandal and affair, and often by editors with a strong disposition against the article subject. The term should be used carefully and only when it is interchangeable with the words debate or dispute, for example:

• The AACS encryption key controversy was a real-life dispute regarding whether the AACS encryption key would and should be illegal;
• The Question Time British National Party controversy was a real-life debate about whether an elected politician with far-right views should receive an invitation to appear on a publicly funded political panel show;.

Whereas:

• The termination of Isaiah Washington's Grey's Anatomy contract for alleged homophobic remarks to his co-star was not controversial because there was no debate or dispute that Washington should be sacked for making the comments. The comments he made were not controversial either; while his remarks were offensive, this does not mean they were controversial.

When using words such as controversy or conflict, make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict. Consider using the term incident or other neutral wording when there is no dispute.

The words scandal, affair, and -gate are often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode or in politics to discredit opponents. They typically imply wrongdoing or a point of view. The use of one of these words in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it. They should not be used in article titles except in historical cases where the term is widely used by reputable historical sources (e.g., Teapot Dome scandal, Dreyfus affair or Watergate scandal).

Solutions

The word solution should be confined to its use in chemistry, mathematics and problem solving. It should not be used to refer to products, services, software or a combination of these things, since such usage implies that the product or service solves the problem it is intended to solve: the word "solution" should instead be replaced by a concrete descriptive term for the type of product, such as "software". Solution often is used simply as a buzzword that can be eliminated altogether with no loss of meaning.

Dubious use:

• "The company offers web hosting solutions for e-business..." Instead say "The company offers web hosting for e-business..." (if that is what it does).

Acceptable use:

• "A solution of sodium chloride in water..."
• "The solution to the chess problem involves the sacrifice of the knight..."

Myth and legend

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Religion

Myth has a range of formal meanings in different fields. It can be defined as a story of forgotten or vague origin, religious or supernatural in nature, which seeks to explain or rationalise one or more aspects of the world or a society. All myths are, at some stage, actually believed to be true by the peoples of the societies that originated or used the myth. In less formal contexts, it may be used to refer to a false belief or a fictitious story, person or thing.

Formal use of the word is commonplace in scholarly works, and Wikipedia is no exception. However, except in rare cases, informal use of the word should be avoided, and should not be assumed. For instance, avoid using the word to refer to propaganda or to mean something that is commonly believed but untrue.

When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion. Furthermore, be consistent; referring to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths" in a similar context may give the impression that the word myth is being used informally.

A legendary person can mean

• a fictitious person about whom legends and myths are written.
• a person who is so celebrated that they have taken on the nature of a legend.

These meanings are easily confused, and so it is best to avoid the word. Use "fictional" to describe a non-existent person.

The phrase "legend has it that..." should be avoided.

See and saw

A construction using the words "see" or "saw" to describe an event that took place should be avoided where it results in a sentence saying that an inanimate object, period of time, or any other noun without visual organs "saw" something.

Examples to avoid:

• 1999 saw the repeal of part of the Glass–Steagall Act by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
• Vanessa Hudgens's second album Identified saw limited chart success, reaching 46th position in the UK Albums Chart.

The above sentences could be replaced by:

• In 1999, the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act.
• Vanessa Hudgens's second album Identified experienced limited chart success, reaching 46th position in the UK Albums Chart.

The second sentence could also be replaced by "Vanessa Hudgens saw her second album Identified experiencing limited chart success, reaching 46th position in the UK Albums Chart", as Vanessa Hudgens has eyes and is capable of seeing things.

Neologisms and new compounds

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities. Neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because their definitions tend to be uncertain and unstable and it is likely that they will not be understood by most readers. By their very nature, many of them fail our verifiability policy. Attempts to secure one stable meaning generally run afoul of our policy prohibiting original research. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not lead to the creation of an English neologism.

Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non–, anti-, or –like to existing words to create new compounds can aid clarity and concision. While this practice is acceptable in some cases, care must be taken that the resulting terms are not misleading, ambiguous, or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a particular point of view. (For instance, adding –ism to a word may falsely suggest that there is a well-established belief system or political movement when there is not.) Where editors disagree over the use of such a compound that does not appear in major dictionaries, it is best to find a substitute expression.

Article and section titles

See also: Wikipedia:Article titles

Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint. For section titles, a compromise may be needed between a neutral and a concise heading, while for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. In other cases, choose a descriptive title that does not imply a particular conclusion.

For example, the title "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy" is inappropriate because it suggests a viewpoint on whether there was such a conspiracy.

The appropriateness of a word may depend on the topic. For instance, the existing article on "Sodomy" is an article about the word itself, both in common and legal use. This is appropriate, whereas it would not be appropriate to use the word in the title of an article about homosexuality.

A non-neutral title can make an article hard to balance. For instance article titles of the form "Criticism of..." should be avoided where possible. For critical reaction to a work, consider instead "Critique of..." or "Reaction to...".

See also

• Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
• Wikipedia:Elements of Style improvement project
• Wikipedia's NPOV tutorial