Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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)

Proposed guideline

I have put back the template {{Proposed}}. If it is agreed that as of yet there is no consensus for a merge, then it is not wise to have a new guideline repeating what the older guidelines say is slightly different wording, that leads to confusing on the talk pages of article with people arguing over which is the guideline to use. To avoid confusion this page should remain a proposal until such time as the other guidelines become redirects. -- PBS (talk)

From the history of the article: (it is well settled that this is the style guideline for neologisms and for vulgarities and obscenities--there is no other DCGeist are you sure it is settled what about Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:Offensive material. This to avoid confusion this should remain a proposed guideline until such time as the other guidelines become redirects, or we can comment out the sections that are replications of other guidelines that are still active. -- PBS (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
NEO has largely been incorporated into the Not a dictionary policy page, after our audit determined that it was primarily content/notability-related, rather than style-related. Something similar happened with Profanity, which was identified as primarily content-related (and misnamed). That page was uncontentiously retagged as a content guideline and renamed Offensive material. Words to watch—and, among style guidelines, only Words to watch—now offers style guidance on these subjects.—DCGeist (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I do like the term "audit" and no doubt when in the future I want to make some changes I'll use the pomps term, after all imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Given that these are relevantly minor parts of this text and are still covered in other guidelines -- {{Proposed}} is appropriate for this article until the merge is agreed upon and has taken place, as is not wise to have a new guideline repeating what the older guidelines say is slightly different wording, that leads to confusing on the talk pages of article with people arguing over which is the guideline to use. --PBS (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there's no need for the proposed tag. It's a guideline, and certain mergers to it are under discussion--which is properly tagged as is.—DCGeist (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Until the merges are agreed the wording here only a proposal. Why is it necessary to have more than one set of text covering the same issue why not wait for a consensus to emerge for or against merging? -- PBS (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Quotations

Since this article is for newbies, among others, shouldn't the lead clarify that any word that appears inside a reliably sourced quotation is automatically exempt from the restrictions on this page? In other words, these "words to watch" only apply to our own words as Wikipedia editors when summarizing the sources, not the sources' own words when quoted verbatim. To experienced editors this may seem obvious, but not necessarily to newbies. Crum375 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Better define quotations as text placed inside quotation marks or equivalent template, such as {{Blockquote}}, in the article - to avoid any room for misinterpretation. Ty 01:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I added a couple of sentences on this. I didn't specify what a quote was, but I figured that referencing MOS:QUOTE was better than that anyway. Ozob (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Seems OK to me. Thanks. Crum375 (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
"Text placed inside quotation marks" isn't a very good definition of a quotation anyway. The other "very" common use of "so-called" quotation marks is to insinuate points of view while "cleverly" excusing oneself from "proving" anything. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 11:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Positive and negative labels

I've made a major change to the negative labels section. Rather than being about negative labels only, it is now about both positive and negative labels. I tried to think of as many positive labels as I could but I'm sure that I missed some. I did try to avoid overlap with the puffery section. Everyone is welcome to improve it as they see fit.

I believe this is an improvement. It addresses several inappropriate labels, and in particular it now includes freedom fighter. However, I'm open to ideas to make this even better. What does everyone else think? Ozob (talk) 03:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that most words are labels. "Soldier" and "singer", and "brown" and "wet", for example, are just as much labels as the words in your list:
Holy, impartial, honest, normal, beautiful, expert, authority, prophet, freedom fighter, cult, racist, perverted, sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, terrorist, militant, insurgent, paramilitary, partisan, controversial, scandalous, propaganda, affair, -gate, pseudo-
Maurreen (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I've returned this to the previous version for now. Some of these words are often perfectly fine.
This had "Words that give a positive or negative label to a group, person, or practice—such as calling an organization a cult or a person honest—need in-text attribution."
I don't think in-text attribution is needed for "holy see" or "holy eucharist".
We might write, "Experts say blah blah. John Smith, who holds a doctorate in the field, says blah blah. Mary Smith, president of an international organization for the field, said, blah blah." But we it shouldn't be a problem that we don't cite a source that said Smith and Jones are experts.
We could write Authorities suspended the search for the missing swimmer, instead of identifying, in the same sentence, several organization that could be involved in such a search.
Etc. Maurreen (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. This is a good point. My objection is that positive labels can be used to introduce bias just as surely as negative ones can. People are more likely to complain when negative labels are applied to them or to groups they like, but that does not make them any less accurate than positive labels. Here is an example of an inappropriate sentence: "The beautiful and honest Sarah Palin may be seen as a conservative freedom fighter." You can actually provide citations for some of that: She was a beauty queen, and she was vindicated of corruption charges (which is rather impressive, I think, but then again I think all politicians are corrupt). That still doesn't make the sentence appropriate; every word of it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
I think "Holy See" and "Holy Eucharist" are a bit of an exception, because they are proper noun phrases. I was more concerned with uses like, "John Doe, despite being controversial, is a holy man." That's pro-Doe bias.
At the moment there is nothing on the page about misuse of positive labels except in the puffery section. Where do you think it ought to go? Ozob (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Appropriate stuff could go in Puffery or maybe Positive and Negative Labels. But it shouldn't be as strict as it was.
Here and elsewhere on the page, I wonder how many of our examples are actually problems on WP. Maurreen (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
With other guidelines, the examples have been added because they were problems at least once. I know terrorist has been a recurring issue; freedom fighter is the opposite side of the same problem; and the others are probably in the same category. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I for one think we need freedom fighter somewhere. Maureen, you were the one who reverted the positive and negative labels section to being about negative labels alone [1]. Do you have a specific objection to having a list of positive labels, or did you object only to my wording? Ozob (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think positive labels could be included, one way or another, but the text needs work. The original version was too strict.
And I generally prefer that we don't add stuff for the sake of adding, but add items that have been a problem. Have there been problems with "expert," "authority" and "holy"?
I also wish we could figure out better section titles than "Whatever labels" and "Editorializing." But I don't have any suggestions on that right now. Maurreen (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference between "positive labels" and "puffery"? Maurreen (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
In principle, nothing. But as it stands right now, the puffery section has abstract adjectives: Legendary, great, astonishing, etc. All of them approximately mean "good"; they don't say anything specific. The words that I'm concerned about are problematic because they're specific. "Abdullah is a freedom fighter" means something very different from "Abdullah is a militant." The same goes for "expert", "authority", and "holy". (However, I put them in because I was trying to think of words that could be abused, not words that I've seen abused.) Ozob (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If freedom fighter is the only known problematic positive label, maybe that could have its own section. Maurreen (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Freedom fighter and terrorist need to be linked together because of the term "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". The terms "terrorist", and "freedom fighter" are particularly contentious labels because they often carry an implicit viewpoint. Terrorist is a pejorative label, frequently applied to those whose cause is being opposed. Similarly, the term freedom fighter is typically applied to those whose cause is being supported. -- PBS (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Compromise idea?

Food for thought: Leave all the pages, other than WP:NEO, which apparently hasn't aroused any controversy. This one can be a summary and point to the others. Maurreen (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest as it stands Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words will be back here soon and WP:NEO should already be. WP:PEA points here. Support is growing. So the only issue is Wikipedia:Words to avoid and 1 or 2 editors Gnevin (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a declaration of intent to go on asking until you get your way. Please stop now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Question for Slim re: Add to Neo section

The edit summary for this [2] says "per Talk", but I can't identify the thread you're referring to. The added material really seems to treat a notability/content issue, not one of writing style.—DCGeist (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I added it because of an objection in the RfC from someone who supported the merge, but said NEO had information not merged over, so I hoped adding a couple of sentences would do. I appreciate your concern about style versus content, but I wouldn't want to see people oppose the merger for the want of a few sentences. If you prefer we can link to whichever page the content side of NEO has been moved to. SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd been thinking that was the proper way to do it. Take a look—the properly formatted details link is rather long.—DCGeist (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That's fine by me, thanks. SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the "notability" parts of WP:NEO have been merged into WP:NOTDICT along with the shortcut. The only parts that need to be merged here are the parts that actually dealt with content rather than article suitability for inclusion. (at most a few sentences) Gigs (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if it is entirely relevent but this might interest you all --Jubilee♫clipman 20:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

It is all getting a little nasty in here, at times. Can we try to be less cynical and more cooperative with each other? Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 03:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean reach a consensus on change before pushing changes through? -- PBS (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I mean stop making sarcastic comments like that found at the beginning of this post. They are not useful. You are by no means the only one doing this, I just used that as an example to make my point clear --Jubilee♫clipman 05:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It was not my intention to be sarcastic, and I am sorry you read it that way. It was meant as a complement because I think it is clever wording because it sounds formal.
Did you mean "No"? Does that mean you are not in favour of reach a consensus on change before pushing changes through? -- PBS (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I meant "no, that that's not what I was talking about". As for consensus... I lost track ages ago: I have been leaving this in the far more capable hands (than mine) of Slim, Dan, Tony, Gnevin et al. Cheers --Jubilee♫clipman 17:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

What does "Words to watch‎" mean? Given that watch (as in the tab at the top of the page) has a specific meaning in Wikipedia dialogues, I would have though that "words and phrases to avoid" is a better page name. -- PBS (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That was discussed several times before: it is used ironically and on purpose in the sense of "watch your language". "Words to avoid" sounds like "List of proscribed words" and proscription is not part of WP's agenda. Indeed, the watchlist is also a good analogy: we watch articles that might be vandalised or otherwise need "watching" i.e. those we are most concerned about --Jubilee♫clipman 05:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You may call it ironic it is in my opinion confusing for editors who are not into doing their own ironing. -- PBS (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You would do well to read my comments elsewhere on this page: I also found the name unhelpful to begin with but have come round to thinking it the best choice by a long margin --Jubilee♫clipman 17:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent merge

The so-called "merge" of WP:WTA into this page has been nothing of the sort. A simple redirection has been applied, and none of the content has been moved to here. Furthermore, the merger has left umpteen legacy links hanging (such as WP:TERRORIST) that are frequently used by the community. This whole matter has been conducted poorly, with decentralized discussion over several talk pages. The so-called merger should be reverted immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There is clear CON for this. A merger occur last week and was reverted, CON has grown strong since then! Edit this page instead of demanding that we revert Gnevin (talk) 11:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there is a consensus for merger; however, you have failed to perform the merger correctly. Much information has been lost, and many shortcut links have been left hanging. If you insist on performing a merger, you must do it responsibly instead of insisting that others do your work for you. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
A bot will fix all the double redirects. It did the last time Gnevin (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the change, you ought to discuss it first, there have been several suggestions as to how the two pages could be merged if there is a consensus to do so. The months is still not up so why are you in such a hurry. Particularly as content of this page is not agreed and not stable. -- PBS (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Your reverting a change with 26 -6 in favour of . I am Reverting Gnevin (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
What is your hurry? The idea is you make a bold edit I revert it we discuss it. -- PBS (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes we did that a week ago and CON grew to merge ,while one one else objected. So now we are where the community supports. WP:BRD has been done Gnevin (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There a lot of editing going on at the moment this page is not stable. If you make this change and the bot goes changing all the redirects then reverting them becomes much more complicated. Why are you forcing this through in such a hurry? -- PBS (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that as an involved editor you are not in the best position to close this RfC. I suggest you leave it to a neutral administrator to do it. -- PBS (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest that instead of throwing up road blocks you generate CON for keeping this page Gnevin (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have been actively engaged on this talk page making suggestions for how consensus could be reached, but I will be interested to hear any suggestions you have on what else we can do to reach consensus, and would much rather discuss it with you than edit war over content. -- PBS (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
26-6 would appear to me to be CON. Do you have a different definition ,perhaps it's only a CON when you agree with it? Gnevin (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the number of people who support a merger is greater than the number of people who do not. I myself support the merger on this basis; nevertheless, it is clear from the edit warring and the issues that I raised earlier about how important material was being lost with an improper merger procedure that some additional discussion (and perhaps planning) is necessary before the trigger is pulled. This heavy-handedness by Gnevin is completely unacceptable, and not at all in the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not being heavy handed PBS refuses to accept the CON we have here . If material is lost add it, you've had a week to do so and can do so after the merge. What is this merger procedure you speak of? Gnevin (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If you are unaware of the correct procedure to follow when doing a merger, you should not being doing it! Furthermore, insisting that other people clean up your mess is not acceptable behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If I am not aware of the procedure then I can't be aware that I am not following the correct procedure. It's not people its a Bot which was designed for this task Gnevin (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You are aware that a bot fixes the links, but you are not aware that people have to move all the content? Didn't you look into any of this before you began your "merge"? WP:MERGE, Help:Merging? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

but you are not aware that people have to move all the content?I am aware and as far as I am conserned anything that was to come from the page is now here and was moved here when this page began Gnevin (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If this had been a copy of the original text from the other guidelines would have been on this page. The creation of this page was not a copy of the original text. -- PBS (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge please

Due to WP:3RR I can't edit this page can some one redirect Wikipedia:Words to avoid here per the massive CON above Gnevin (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The fact that 3RR is an issue is a clear indication that your edit is problematic. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you will find it's not my edits that are ignoring the CON on this page . Gnevin (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think you will find that you are missing my point entirely. You do not have a consensus for fucking everything up, with all due respect. The consensus is for a merger, not a de facto deletion of important material. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
[3] Gnevin (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to perform a merge, do it properly, or don't do it at all. If you are unable to perform this task in an appropriate manner, politely request someone else to do it. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
All I can see that is missing is {{R from merge}} and the optional part 8 .If you can do this better than me then please help me out Gnevin (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You are missing this crucial point: "Cut/paste the non-redundant content from the source page into the destination page." -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It's all redundant Gnevin (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We have an ongoing RfC about this. It might be best to wait until that's over, and ask an uninvolved editor to close it, then take things from there. The people commenting can compare Words to watch with the other four pages when making their decision, so if they support, there will be a clear mandate for the merge and the tightening. SlimVirgin talk contribs 13:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Why the users objecting like PBS and Scjessey aren't contesting the CON they are wikilaywering . Throwing up nonsence about missing content. The fact of the matter is the merge will be a simple redirect whether it happens now or 15 days from now Gnevin (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please: calm is required. I do think, although I'm a mergist from way back, that a few days are required before anything major happens. Let it settle and then we can act with greater sureness. There might well be tweaking to do, too. Tony (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Gnevin whether or not the pages are merged, what you should not do is overwrite the current talk pages with a redirect as you did with this edit. The correct procedure if there is significant content on a talk page of a merged page, is either leave it where it is, or archive it and add its link, and any other archive it contains, to the archive box in the target page's talk page. If you have redirected any of the other talk pages (like this one) then please revert the edits. -- PBS (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware talk pages should stay. Sorry about that Gnevin (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Labels

I recently changed a "Labels" title to "Biased labels." People are apparently seeing "labels" as somehow bad. Most of language consists of labels. Maurreen (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I changed "biased" to "contentious" for this subsection title, simply to avoid the repetition of "bias", which appears in the section title.—DCGeist (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. That's good. Maurreen (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Claim

The handling of claim is inadequate on this page. It is currently in a section called "Statement characterizations".

It says "Said, stated, wrote, and according to are neutral in almost all contexts. " yet and then goes on to say "To write that someone claimed or insisted something can raise a question of the truth of the claim, particularly after a factual statement"

Yet that is just as true of almost any statement phrase as in the one given as an example: "After Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs, he claimed he is not a racist"

"Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs but according to Jones he is not a racist"
"Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs, but Jones stated he was not a racist".
"When Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs, Jones said he was not a racist".

All of them get the MRD repose "Well he would say that wouldn't he?"

It is the construction of the sentence not the use of the word claim that is the problem. This is made clear in Wikipedia:CLAIM#Claim (a subsection of "Synonyms for say") in a way it is not in this page. -- PBS (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've edited the passage to remove the example and broaden the summary of the negative points raised in WTA.—DCGeist (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The structure of the whole section is questionable what make "according" neutral in almost all contexts? Because AFAICT it has exactly the same problems as "claim". This is much more a question of rhetoric/semantics than it is of any specific word. I do not know what the name is for this particular trick is but it would be helpful if someone could identify it. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I've given your comments considerable thought. A few observations:
(1) The central point I believe you're driving at is absolutely right—in many cases the problem addressed in the subsection will be at least as much a matter of syntactical choice as it is of lexical choice (both, of course, are rhetorical issues, and semantics actually has more to do with vocabulary than it does sentence construction).
(2) Given that, a page titled Words to watch is clearly preferable to one titled Words to avoid.
(3) A full examination of the rhetorical subtleties of syntax is obviously beyond the scope of this tightly focused page. The evidence of Words to avoid makes plain that a successful examination of the issue was well beyond that page's capabilities as well, even given its logorrheic bent.
(4) That said, we do try to focus here—to the extent reasonable—on how words are used as much as on which words are used. Simply look at the brief text in question: "Ensure that the way Wikipedia characterizes people's statements is neutral and accurate"; X "can imply Y, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement"; X "can suggest Y, when that is unverifiable"; X "can raise Y"; "be judicious in the use of X...because these verbs can convey Y when that is not a settled matter".
(5) It does appear that claim is widely identified by experienced Wikipedia contributors as a word that is often used problematically in article space. I agree that the description of the problem here did not quite work; but nor does it work in Words to avoid, not by a long shot. I have recast it so that the description of the problem very closely tracks the actual dictionary definition of the word.—DCGeist (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You have made an assertion "Words to watch is clearly preferable to one titled Words to avoid" but I have yet to see it demonstrated that it is true!
You assert 5 but I disagree particularly when it is written "Said, stated, wrote, and according to are neutral in almost all contexts." I can easily put all those words into a sentence which carries an implicit biases. It is to do with the construction of the sentence not the the use of the word claim that causes the problems. The current wording is placing a prohibition on the use of some words and endorsing others without any context. WP:WTA#Claim does a far better job on this issue, because it explains to someone who does not appreciate the subtleties of its usage some examples of where and here it is not appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It is evident that you did not read and contemplate what I wrote with a fraction of the care that I gave to what you wrote. It is also evident that you do not know what the word "prohibition" means. Furthermore, your defense of WP:WTA#Claim is completely incoherent. Given these facts, I see no purpose in continuing this discussion any further.—DCGeist (talk) 07:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That is a shame as the only way to reach a consensus is to talk about differences and see if we can reach an accomdiation.
"To write that someone claimed something can raise a question of the credibility of the claim, as the word emphasizes any potential contradiction." So can "said" it depends on how the sentence(s) are phrased not on the use of the word claim. As there is no examples given this sentence is not helpful either the section should be expanded or deleted. -- PBS (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Terrorist", etc.

Changes related to "terrorist" have been reverted with the objection of being too long. In the interest of working toward a compromise, I suggest comments about appropriate length. Maurreen (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Two sentences are currently devoted to terrorist/freedom fighter. That strikes me as an appropriate length. The addition of a third sentence would not be intolerable lengthwise, but it is not clear to me what significant point such a sentence might contribute to the guidance.—DCGeist (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Guidelines should explain to someone who is new to Wikipedia not just "what" the guidance is but "why" as well. We have policies, these can be terse, providing that the guidelines give suitable guidance. Guidelines need to give sufficient guidance to all Wikipedance editorial levels. Without the why the what becomes a set of rules that make little sense and will be followed mechanically, (if followed at all), and the whole point of this guidance is to give indications of what type of wording causes problems not just what specific wording causes problems.
Taking the word terrorist for example: "Use them only if they are widely used by reliable source". Many reliable sources called the Mandela a terrorist, therefore its OK to call him a terrorist in a Wikipedia article. That is not what WP:TERRORIST says. If this is the only guidance to be given then there is a fundamental change in the advise being given and it will lead to embedded bias in articles, not because anyone wants bias, but because there is a real problem with Wikipedia:Systemic bias in this area. -- PBS (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Maurreen requested comments about appropriate length. You have failed to address her clear request. You talk in abstractions. This is unproductive and very boring. If you can express, in a clear, concise sentence, a significant point concerning terrorist/freedom fighter that is currently missing from this guideline that you feel should be added, I'll be happy to work with you toward its inclusion. If you cannot, that is a strong indication that what you want is not appropriate for a viable, comprehensible, focused Wikipedia style guideline page.—DCGeist (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

how to access older versions?

I'm having trouble seeing how one can access the older versions that this page is intended to replace. The automatic re-directs prevent you from being able to access the history of the older pages. If there's no way to trace it back, that would seem to be a Bad Thing. -- Doom (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When you arrive at a page from a redirect, there's a link at the top saying "(Redirected from x)". Clicking the link ("x" in my example) navigates to the original page without a redirect (by appending "&redirect=no" to the url). From there, you can access its history etc. PL290 (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A convenience list of the old versions might be helpful. Here is a start:

Please fix list or add any others. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You cannot prevent "unsupported attributions" (weasel words) by creating a list

Sorry, but my opposition rested on the fact that a list of phrases is being created which everyone thinks would do fully justice to the method and the sense of weaseling, when it is not doing any such thing. Creating lists of phrases to avoid, to watch or do anything else with will fail. People would just avoid using such phrases and would carry on merrily weaseling in their own sweet way. It is the spirit of weaseling, the concept of how they do it, their withholding the full facts; the lack of substantiation of what they are saying; the full explanation of why "this product is cheaper" and who made mistakes in "mistakes were made" which needs to be brought out, 'not' a list that can be circumvented. You can't prevent the practice of weaseling or using vague attributions through warning against phrases and words.

Now, if you had a closed list with a limited range of items which could not be added to because the range is complete, that would be fine, but lists such as the one you are proposing in this "manual of style" are open lists, in other words, they can be added to ad infinitum. You will find, the one and only thing that will happen is that people from all shades of conviction will forever try to add to this list - and it won't be newbies, anons and other unregistered editors, it will be seasoned editors, admins even, autoconfirmed users, etc. who have every right of doing so. In other words, you can't even protect these pages against them.

Frankly, I don't understand this effort of compressing everything into a mere list, when what is needed is a way of explaining, yes even laboriously, the process of how people are using "unsupported attributions, vague attributions, weasel words" or whatever other synonyms of the concept they are having recourse to; how they avoid giving us the full facts; what methods they are employing to avoid being held responsible for what they are saying in their statements. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The main point here—that you cannot prevent unsupported attributions by creating a list—is valid...and completely irrelevant to the merger. "Avoid weasel words" had just such a list. Far from an attempt to "compress everything into a mere list", this page in fact focuses on principles. Lists of pufferies and contentious labels, for instance, could run into the scores—the fact that they come nowhere close is telling. The boxes clearly provide examples and will not, in practice, be "open" to endless expansion, as their very design indicates. Yes, people may try to bloat and clutter them, but they are enough eyes on this page, and it is sufficiently focused, that I warrant they will meet with little success.
Here is the Unsupported attribution subsection's current narrative, its most important part. What would you add to it to further define and defeat the "spirit of weaseling"?
Phrases such as these [above] present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information, and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed.
I am happy to support the addition of a sentence or two if there is a resulting amplification of the meaning and force of what is already there.—DCGeist (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, having a list raises awareness, changes culture, style and tone, so that things of the same nature but not listed tend to become more obvious to more people and get fixed, creating a virtuous circle. Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC).
What does all that mean? Raises awareness of what? How does it change culture, style and tone? These are all weasel words because you are not saying what kind of awareness is being raised, how it changes culture, style and tone. What do I have to look up to complement your meaning?
I am not concerned with the merger so much as the fact that your list is so woefully incomplete. The list only applies to the missing who has made a statement. What I am saying is, that by far the greatest list of unsupported attributions consists of statements made of which the substance is not "substantiated", not who says what, but what is being said. The substance of "the statements is missing not who is making it:
"Some people say, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it was proven".
That is fine as far as it goes. However, there should be a far greater list such as:
Is now 20% cheaper (than what and at what period), is now improved (to what), mistakes were made (by whom), now better than ever before (how so, and when was it worse).

Take a look at weasel word. there is so much more to be cited if you want to make this more satisfactory. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WEASEL was a mess. That is why it has been replaced. If you can express, in a clear, concise sentence or two, a point that is currently missing from this guideline that you feel should be added, I'll be happy to work with you toward its inclusion. If you cannot, that is a strong indication that what you want is not appropriate for a viable, comprehensible, focused Wikipedia style guideline page.—DCGeist (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
In your opinion it was a mess, not everyone has to agree with you, particularly when you do not explain why. Guidelines should explain to someone who is new to Wikipedia not just "what" the guidance is but "why" as well. We have policies that can be terse, but guidelines need to be more expansive to give guidance to all Wikipedance editorial levels. Without the why the what becomes a set of rules that make little sense and will be followed mechanically, (if followed at all), and the whole point of this guidance is to give indications of what type of wording causes problems not what wording causes problems. -- PBS (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Phrases like "particularly when you do not explain why" are unlikely to persuade the large number of people who have already explained why that they are making a mistake, particularly when it's abundantly clear to all who read the remark that the person to whom it is addressed has just done so, trenchantly. Neither are unwillingness to identify any content that's felt to be lacking from the new version, or calling it "a list ... without the why ... to be followed mechanically" when nothing could be further from the truth, likely to convince us we're in error. PL290 (talk)
The point is, someone now has to create a separate guideline to explain what a weasel word really is, because very little is explained by "unsupported attributions" and "euphemisms". An attribution by its very nature and definition is "ascribing something to a particular author, artist, or period". So, insofar as attribution to missing speakers and writers is concerned that is fine. But numerically vague expressions (eg. "some people", "many", "the majority agree", etc., constitute the smallest class of the examples that should be given in a guideline of this kind. By far the greatest and most important part in that guideline should be concerned with the weaseling statements rather than the missing originators of these statements.
What is not stressed is that in certain statements parts of what should be there can be deliberately withheld in order to give a misleading effect to that statement, or can lead to a different emphasis of the statement than appears at first sight. Statements can be misleading without the use of certain keywords, it all depends on the context of what is being said, surely.
Yet other statemens can be made that in their imprecision convey the true position of what is said, statements that cannot possibly be verified because historically they go too far back in time, for example: "probably" in certain etymological statements are made in all encylopaedias and dictionaries, why should this not apply to Wikipedia?
No definitions are given of generalizations; grammatical devices such as qualifiers, the passive voice examples that do not clarify the person who did what; pronominal subjects. Where are your examples "savings of up to $100 or more have been made"; "...up to 20% more women are now at work"; "...is now among the few who, etc."; "more people are using this type of..."?
Weaseling as a guideline needs a lot more than lists of keywords, it needs to explain what differentiates a weaseling statement from one that does not weasel. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Much of what you're discussing are tricks of phrasing and statistical manipulation long familiar from advertising and marketing—it's not clear at all to me that they are a particular problem on Wikipedia...at least not in articles that don't have much, much worse issues (like notability, rampant OR, et cetera). Much of the rest is explicitly covered by Verifiability, a policy whose relevance and importance we signal by reminding users of it in the lede of Words to watch.
Wikipedia's Manual of Style, insofar as it covers issues of good literary style, can not and should not wade too far into the depths of general writing instruction. As has been explained many times on this page, there already exist a host of excellent literary style guides to assist those interested in improving their general skills. To be effective, we need to stay tightly focused on those prose issues that are both of unusual significance in the Wikipedia context and occur here frequently.
Speaking of focus, I ask you for the third and last time: Are you capable of articulating one or two effective sentences that if added to the Unsupported attributions subsection or any other will help cover an important point from WEASEL that is currently missing from this page? If you can, I pledge my support, and we can continue to move forward from there—perhaps with still another such concise, productive addition. If you cannot, we will have all the evidence we need that the argument being made in this thread is not worth spending more of our time on.—DCGeist (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
And I am telling you for the umptienth time, it takes more than one or two "effective sentences" to illustrate the most important aspect, that of half-truth statements in any article in Wikipedia or elsewhere. That is what weaseling is about. You have made up your mind about it, and that seems to be it, bearing in mind a most important aspect has been ignored. It is not a few phrases about the lack of the "who" as the author of a statement but the many aspects of "what" is left unsaid in a statement, and isn't taken care of by citing sources. Things can still be said in such a way that a wrong slant is given. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Then here's two other requests to whose fulfillment you may be more amenable:
(1) Please cite a specific passage in a specific article of otherwise decent quality where you find the sort of problem you're talking about. Again, something like "it is now 20% cheaper", wherever it's a problem at all on Wikipedia, would seem much more likely to be a pure issue of Verifiability than it would be of Words to watch. But I want to be sure I'm not missing a crucial point here, so please show me the problem you're encountering in context.
(2) Apparently you don't believe one or two sentences can make a difference. I continue to disagree strongly. ("In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"—there's a sentence.) Be that as it may, could you give us one tight paragraph, plus example (along the lines of our Puffery section) that would materially improve this article? Again, work doesn't have to end there—but how about starting it there?—DCGeist (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminder of our obligations to maintain social harmony at styleguides

Not to make a big deal of this, but I think we should take heed of ArbCom's view, recently reiterated, that the stability of styleguide pages and the maintenance of harmony on their talk pages are a serious consideration. I include myself in this respect. Tony (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Editorializing" query

Should the only/just duo be added to this subsection?—DCGeist (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably (perhaps joined by "merely"). PL290 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

"Relative time references" query

Should the winter, spring, summer, fall/autumn set be added to this subsection?—DCGeist (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:SEASON obviates the need. PL290 (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link—I had a feeling this was explicitly covered somewhere. Looking at it, I have to say it's one of those overlap areas that belongs in Words to watch as well. Note just above the Seasons subsub, there's Precise language, which clearly overlaps with what we have here. Thinking on it, these five terms are precisely "words to watch".—DCGeist (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it. See how it hits you.—DCGeist (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
An edit summary of "per talk" is misleading when only one person is supporting. Maurreen (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a controversial statement there, Maureen. "Per talk" can mean "per the consensus reached in Talk" or it can mean "per the explanation I offer in Talk because it's too long for an edit summary". In either interpretation, interested editors know to find the relevant thread. (And, speaking of controversial...)—DCGeist (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I would have used "See talk".
There should be a word for a controversy about whether something is controversial. :) Maurreen (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
"See" would have been a mot juste-er, I agree.
I'm working on your word. Concontroversy sort of works but isn't too attractive...however, if you figure the concon cancels itself out...a troversy?—DCGeist (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as successful. Comment seems to have dried up over the last several days, and I see a strong consensus in favour of the merges (most of which have already been performed) among those who have participated. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's proposed that Avoid neologisms, Avoid peacock terms, Avoid weasel words, and Words to avoid be merged into Words to watch. Please give your views Gnevin (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

(no threaded discussion in this section, please)

  • Oppose. Words to watch? What exactly is there to watch? I can watch a word all day long and it does absolutely nothing for me. As I have said elsewhere, a weasel word is a weasel word, it is a term wellknown, well-understood and appreciated in its refusal to knuckle under the endeavours of the mealy-mouthed brigade to bowdlerize everything out of sight. In fact, the term "words to watch" is another weasel word in its own right. If someone claims things that amount to a weasel word or term we should condemn it as the practice of weaseling should not be encouraged. Unless, of course, it isn't a weasel word and only looks like one, but that is amply explained in the Wiki article weasel word. It is not a neologism (as some people have claimed elsewhere) as it has been around since 1900. Whether the term "weasel word" is apt or not doesn't come into it, it has been part of the English language so long the term is like an old friend. The practice of weaseling, however, is another thing altogether. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry I meant "oppose". The problem also with any guideline about and including "weasel word" is that it isn't just the words which are being used to constitute what makes a "weasel word", it is their meaning, or lack of meaning. See my "comments" of 18 April, and further today, below. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I haven't looked at the details of the implementation, but any problems with that can be fixed later as they are noticed. There is a natural tendency for rules to multiply and expand, and without countermeasures one soon gets a situation where nobody has an overview and there are lots of contradictions. This merge is an essential step for maintenance of our rules. Hans Adler 00:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support—This is such a sensible move, and part of the bigger picture of making the MoS usable by ordinary editors who want quick, convenient advice that is well managed. Tony (talk) 03:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Reversal of instruction creep is a good idea. A quick look through the page and I don't see anything I disagree with. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I support any effort to condense the MOS, and this merge retains the important principles of the separated pages in one concise guidelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support The precise present title may or may not be useful—I myself have questioned the phrase Words to watch elsewhere and for the same reasons as Dieter Simon—but condensing the advice on unhelpful words and phrases into one centeral location can only be a good thing. The title can be changed if necessary as Gnevin explained. Furthermore, all the old pages will serve as redirects to sections of this page: editors will still be able to search for a precise terms such as "weasel" or "peacock" and end up (respectively) in the section on Vague attributions which describes weasel words or in the section on Puffery which describes peacock terms. "Words to avoid" is perhaps not good since it seems to suggest that WP is making judgements on these terms as has been explained further up this talkpage --Jubilee♫clipman 15:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: WP:AVOID and WP:PEACOCK are unreadable. Most of WP:NEO has nothing to do with a Manual of Style. And, contra the hilarious wails atop, most ordinary editors don't have a bloody clue what we mean by WEASEL. Support this page, support this merge, and give thanks to SlimBabe for rockin' the concision HARD.—DCGeist (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: The MOS needs to be more readable and usable for the average reader, and this is a good step in that direction. Nice work to the drafters! Dana boomer (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: As someone who initally opposed this change. I have to say they all the editiors involded have done a great job in condensing these pages. Be now have all of the content and none of the filler Gnevin (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Excellent work at summarizing and distilling several often bloated MOS pages into one readable page with a common memorable theme. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • comment while the MOS is difficult to use, the key reason for "watching" for most of these words is because of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V concerns, not style. MM207.69.139.147 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support with thanks to DCG and the others for sorting it all out. A nice example of constructive collaboration. :) SlimVirgin talk contribs 03:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This is much more concise and ties together the mess that we had before in a much cleaner way. My respects to everybody who worked on it (I didn't see this til fairly late). RayTalk 23:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think this is a process abuse which will irritate a lot of editors, the vast majority of users of the page having not seen this obscure and marginal discussion. --BozMo talk 19:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we please just say support and oppose. Any emphasis can be placed in the comment that follows the bolded bit. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC) - update: since refactored, thanks. 00:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose too - I certainly didn't see this proposal. It seems pointless. Don't do it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Wikipedia:WEASEL and Wikipedia:PEA are well developed articles and will not be made better by merging. To the contrary, merging will make it harder advise new editors because the topics will have to be summarized to make the merged article a reasonable size. Strong oppose. Q Science (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I opposed the proposed merger of WP:PEACOCK here (MOS talk, March 28). PEACOCK needs to be on its own because it is often used to alert editors in general, or a particular editor, that some text has peacock problems. Linking to a section within a larger style guide is just not sufficiently helpful. See links to peacock from pages and links from user talk pages. Similarly, I see no benefit from the other proposed merges: merging would lead to compromises in the text (helpful explanations and examples would be removed as too much detail), and someone being directed to PEACOCK or WEASEL would find too much distraction. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons that user:BozMo. Further who ever did this should think long and hard about the failures of WP:ATT. One of the major reasons it failed was not only did it try to merge two pages. Simultaneously it tried to edit changes into the new page. In this case I am totally opposed to the changes that have taken place in the wording that 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) 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support with a qualification: WP:NEO treats articles on neologisms. The neologism section on this page treats neologisms as a word choice. Since WP:NEO is not about style, it should not be merged into WTW; instead there should be a "See also" on each of them. Other than that I have no objections. Ozob (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support — too many guidelines and policies already. A newbie can easily get lost, or be scared away from our massive wall-of-text approach to content and editing rules. I would like to see everything streamlined and simplified. This merge is an important step in the right direction, for newbies and everyone else. Crum375 (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Reducing the length and combining these related articles strongly increases readability. It's time to counteract some WP:CREEP. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support new layout is much clearer and having these together is an advantage because of overlap on questionable words. Quite impressed with the work on this. 01:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Makes a lot of sense. As well as rationally combining these into one guideline, the proposal removes the wording problems the old guides exhibit in their own titles. PL290 (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: Merging the pages eliminates some duplication, facilitates an overall rationale and organization, and encourages consistency of approach to the several categories of problematic words and phrases.—Finell 02:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support To address earlier concerns about WP:NEO... the parts of NEO that were inclusion guidelines have been merged successfully to WP:NOTDICT, so whatever remains of it as an MoS style guideline can be merged safely without losing anything. The NEO shortcut will continue to point at the inclusion guidelines, not at the MoS, since that was by far its most common use. Gigs (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. This sounds like an excellent and logical proposal. It makes a lot of sense, and is the appropriate way to go, to consolidate and coordinate related pages. -- Cirt (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I've always disliked the way pages like "Avoid Weasel Words" make it sound like there's a list of Forbidden Phrases. The way the issue is framed here is much better. -- Doom (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose - merging MoS issues with content issues is not even remotely acceptable. Further, I echo the concerns of others that rewriting was done to the individual sections, changing meaning and watering down enormously. If a serious merge is proposed, I suggest a real merge - actually combine the pages, as sections on one page. Then have full community input into any modifications made after that. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Could we please just say support and oppose. Any emphasis can be placed in the comment that follows the bolded bit. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support of the strongest possible sort in Wikihistory (deep breath, DevilDog). A significant step forward in Wikipedia's style guidance. Of course major rewriting was done. Thankfully, that was the point. The chaos of "Words to avoid"--filled with examples that don't demonstrate what they're supposed to, ridiculously inconsistent formatting (words as words are in quotes! now they're italicized! and back to quotes! hey, guess what?!), and painfully verbose prose--was a good representation neither of "style" nor a "guideline". A serious merge is proposed, and it will consist of a serious, and long overdue, redirect. DocKino (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Could we please just say support and oppose. Any emphasis can be placed in the comment that follows the bolded bit. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support immeasurably greater than the strongest possible sort in any Wiki anywhere in any point in history. (As per others.) As an aside, I'm tempted to propose an RfC whereby editors are not permitted to qualify their "support" or "opposition" statements. Can any editor really believe that statements such as "Strongest possible oppose", "Strongest oppose" or even "Very strongly oppose" carry more weight, influence or effect than (the adequate) "Oppose"?  HWV258.  06:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Could we please just say support and oppose. Any emphasis can be placed in the comment that follows the bolded bit. Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess that's exactly what I was saying (but obviously in a clumsy way). The issue was over before my comment, however I now chastise myself for not appending the necessary smiley.  HWV258.  21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion taken to user talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • (copied from above) Oppose. Words to watch? What exactly is there to watch? I can watch a word all day long and it does absolutely nothing for me. As I have said elsewhere, a weasel word is a weasel word, it is a term wellknown, well-understood and appreciated in its refusal to knuckle under the endeavours of the mealy-mouthed brigade to bowdlerize everything out of sight. In fact, the term "words to watch" is another weasel word in its own right. If someone claims things that amount to a weasel word or term we should condemn it as the practice of weaseling should not be encouraged. Unless, of course, it isn't a weasel word and only looks like one, but that is amply explained in the Wiki article weasel word. It is not a neologism (as some people have claimed elsewhere) as it has been around since 1900. Whether the term "weasel word" is apt or not doesn't come into it, it has been part of the English language so long the term is like an old friend. The practice of weaseling, however, is another thing altogether. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment The name on this guideline can change and is a minor consideration. Weasel still exists here. Gnevin (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • (copied from above) Strongest oppose I think this is a process abuse which will irritate a lot of editors, the vast majority of users of the page having not seen this obscure and marginal discussion. --BozMo talk 19:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
This is simply false. There have been repeated advisories on the involved talk pages (on WP:WEASEL, for instance, there was a major thread and template tagging on April 1 announcing that a process like this was in the formative stages, and then short, straightforward, relevant posts inviting you to join it on April 7 and April 17). There has also been considerable discussion on the main MoS talk page, in addition to templates on top of all the involved pages. It is your tone and your reliance on falsehood that are abusive. Apologize or be ignored.—DCGeist (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Please calm down, both of you. By the way, it was also briefly mentioned on the village pump, and it is being announced on WP:CENT, which is transcluded to many of the busiest Wikipedia pages.
Speaking of process abuse: I take it, BozMo, that you have reasons other than bureaucracy to object to the merging of several closely related small guidelines? Hans Adler 20:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I wish you could put your hand on my heart, Hans. I'm perfectly calm.—DCGeist (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep, as it happens I am calm too (and do not see what I have written above is "false", I think the process was an abuse thats all). There have been a series of proposals of this form over the past few years on the weasel page, for example fairly recently Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_words#RFC which is still visible on the talk page. They seem to attract far more attention from contributers, last longer and involve more people than this discussion off on some project page no one even knew existed and reveal quite a lot of support for keeping the page as is and specifically for not summarising it as "avoid vague attribution" which is not the main point of the guideline. Taking the discussion a long way away from the guideline is not a good idea. And "Rock the Vote" as a heading does not sound like it carries any serious discussion, it just sounds utterly childish. Personally, I do not think this move and 90% deletion helps and find the existing page useful. But I am a grumpy 45 year old in busy full time employment with a young family who generally takes a dim view of the fact policies keep being pointlessly tinkered with in a way which makes it very difficult to keep sufficiently up to date to be an effective admin here. A lot of people seem to mess about with things which were thought through properly once because of a preference for their own kind of order. In general therefore I think this move runs against an established precedent of opinion and has insufficient mandate as well as being in the wrong place. The start of Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy comes to mind concerning the idea that as well as watching talk pages I should actually read every talk page comment on every policy I care about. --BozMo talk 22:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
According to the self-admittedly jargonistic WP:Avoid weasel words, "On Wikipedia, the term refers to evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution." You have claimed that "avoid vague attribution" is "not the main point of the guideline." What do you believe is its main point?—DCGeist (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Listen, I do understand that you are trying to make things better but do you think vague covers "evasive, ambiguous or misleading"? For example 50% of weaseling is mischeviously "calling into question a statement" for example by changing a statement by the subject from explained>>claimed on a BLP. Today I can point to the text refering to this and it is sufficient for why an edit is unacceptable. That possibility is lost with the compression. But tomorrow what do I say... "claimed is vague attribution"? It is not it is misleading attribution intended to encourage doubt in veracity. Core weasel, nowhere in vague attribution.--BozMo talk 22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps if you'd taken just a couple of minutes to actually read this page, you would have seen that this point is directly addressed earlier in the very same Words that may introduce bias section, under the header Statement characterizations. Please take those couple of minutes, then come back here and tell us what, if any, main point of WP:WEASEL is actually not addressed by this page.—DCGeist (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Weasel redirects to a specific section on the page which does not cover much of weasel. It is true there are elements of weasel covered in "statement characterisation" and other places in the page. This makes it much less usable than at present and carries little gain. Why should established editors and admins have to relearn where everything is in this rather odd rearrangement? Now we need a second window open to track where policy has gone to now if we are to work on improving the project and change in policy is hugely destructive to the community for this reason. At least put all of weasel back together where a redirect points to it. And don't call it vague attribution per well established consensus. --BozMo talk 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It is petulant to whine about "well established consensus" when there is evidently a new one. (Among other things, the new consensus recognizes that Wikipedia's use of "weasel words" is jargonistic. But for those who want to go on playing with their "well established" code language, we've provided an explanation of the term and a pretty little picture.) "Change in policy"? What policy would that be? "Hugely destructive"? That wouldn't be one of those "utterly childish" statements you love to oh-so -civily chastise others for, now would it? Sleep tight, kiddo. And remember, abuse is bad.—DCGeist (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I find remarks like BozMo's here to be rather grimly amusing:"Sorry, Weasel words talk page has 1200 discussion edits going back 8 years, which is a lot of prior discussion building consensus around the guideline. This includes a lot of opinions on possible mergers including consensus against merging -- " I'm throughly familiar with the history of the "Avoid Weasel Words" guideline, and there has never been anything like a "consensus" about the state of that page. What that page has had since it's beginning is some very bull-headed people behind it who are resistant to any sort of compromise. Any interest from the wider community of wikipedians was bound to overwhelm the small clique in love with that page... -- Doom (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants to change the content of WP:WTA then discuss those changes on its talk page. -- PBS (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

As this RFC is well under a month old it is way to early to be pulling up the stumps and declaring that there is a consensus for such a large change. AFAICT there is no where near a consensus on this proposed merge. -- PBS (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Has no one anything to say in favour of such a speedy the merger? -- PBS (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah the 10+ people above who said yes Gnevin (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
For one thing, did you see the proposal below to suspend? Maurreen (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Then please revert this edit to Wikipedia:Words to avoid and all the other changes to the redirects such as WP:WTA and WP:TERRORIST -- PBS (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree there is a clear process abuse here, and no adequate community consensus as yet. As recently as Oct 2009 16 people opppose moving Weasel to "avoid vague attribution" and as far as I can see 6 of the 16 views here also oppose that move. It is all very well trying to write a master manual but if you have the conversation away from the policy talk pages you are not getting a genuine consensus of people on those policies. --BozMo talk 09:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Will you stop with this process abuse, it's non sense. All pages where informed several timesGnevin (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Weasel words talk page has 1200 discussion edits going back 8 years, which is a lot of prior discussion building consensus around the guideline. This includes a lot of opinions on possible mergers including consensus against merging to a paragraph similar to the one it was merger into. In my opinion taking three weeks during vacation time from the first mention on a talk page to a multi-page merger (which does not even seem to include a case by case discussion) and removing much of the content on the basis of ten editor votes is a process abuse. --BozMo talk 10:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Is weasel on your watch list? Gnevin (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yep. That is how I eventually found out there was a serious proposal to merge it. I watch a lot of pages but on weaseltalk saw edit summarises go by of "proposed replacement" (no mention that this was of the whole guideline) and "Rock the !Vote!: new section" which I reasonably assumed was someone's announcement of impending puberty. I missed the 15 April merge edit on the actual page and only on the 22 April did I see "proposal accepted, redirect in a few hours" at which point I looked at the talk page. If there had been a decent discussion on the talk page I would have seen lots of edits with summaries flagging the discussion. --BozMo talk 10:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
So you choose to ignore numerous notifications and the template. "proposed replacement" was clear and if it wasn't you should of clicked the link. It is not our issue if you choose to ignore every attempt at notification or would you like a personalised message on your talk page about every discussion relating to pages you have on your watch list! Gnevin (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
"proposed replacement" is the usual edit summary for people thinking about replacing a sentence or word with another. And even if we set that aside a week is inadequate for substantial changes to an eight year old guideline which should have been discussed on the talk page. My own view is that those seeking to make radical changes to policies and guidelines carry the onus of ensuring proper discussion: claiming a discussion has been somewhere in WP for a while is not a proper process for this scale of change. I am not sure why you are struggling to see this: in the end it is your own hard work which risks being tarnished by a premature claim of victory. --BozMo talk 11:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - apart from anything else, this has been a procedural disaster. I stumbled upon this discussion by accident, and was immediately taken aback by the possible consequences. I am dismayed at the lack of respect being afforded Wikipedians who have concerns about these proposed mergers. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment. The problem with the phrases associated with "Weaseling" is that it isn't just a few hackneyed phrases which constitute what is normally associated with this term, but the problem that certain facts are being witheld, half truths are being given, the total of the statements concerned are not made to give readers the full truths. How can you put that into a few quotable phrases. It is the full facts behind a statement if they are withheld, which constitutes a "weasel word". Try to put that into a conglomeration of diverse "words to watch". Dieter Simon (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment Some or all of these pages can be merged. But title Wikipedia:Words to avoid (or even Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms) is much explanatory title than "Words to watch". Strange and ambiguous title "Words to watch" is against the spirit of Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Article titles. --Snek01 (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Response: There is no title that is perfect. Words to watch is memorable and accurate, though it might strike a few as ambiguous. Words to avoid is simply wrong.—DCGeist (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment:What you need to make clear about weasel words (as the Wiki article does) is that it is not just the few sample phrases trotted out such as: "some people say"; "it is believed that;" as shown in this project page, what you certainly need to give space to are the many different ways weaseling is done. Where are the references to the advertising gimmicks: "...up to 50% off";"...is now 20% cheaper"; "Four out of five people would agree that..."; etc.
Where are the different ways people are using in making claims which they do not substantiate? Statements they do not cite sources for in general?(I do not mean within Wikipedia, that is taken care of by the various guidelines). What about the usage of the passive voice to avoid having to state, who did what, as in: "Mistakes have been made", but who made them? The way "spin" in politics is being used is another type of weaseling. The way you have set it out in the "Words to watch" project page doesn't cover 10% of the "weaseling" problem, and doesn't even begin to deal with the subject. If you were to include all of those different aspects, this subject alone would take over the greatest amount of space within "Words to watch". Please don't make light of this. It is an important subject. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • (copied from above) Support with a qualification: WP:NEO treats articles on neologisms. The neologism section on this page treats neologisms as a word choice. Since WP:NEO is not about style, it should not be merged into WTW; instead there should be a "See also" on each of them. Other than that I have no objections. Ozob (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As part of a largely separate process, WP:NEO, which primarily dealt with content, was successfully merged into the policy page Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The points pertinent to the scope of Words to watch were incorporated here. At this level of style guidance, as has been discussed elsewhere, there is a natural and desirable overlap between style and content considerations, and between style guidance and policy.—DCGeist (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
(copied from above) comment while the MOS is difficult to use, the key reason for "watching" for most of these words is because of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V concerns, not style. MM207.69.139.147 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Response: In fact, considerations of literary style on Wikipedia overlap considerations of our core content policies. This overlap is natural and desirable. In Wikipedia terms, part of what makes good literary style good is that it abides by policy. It would be supererogatory to create a literary style guideline that treated questions of good writing applicable but nonspecific to Wikipedia—there are myriad worthwhile works to which contributors interested in improving the overall quality of their writing may turn, from Tony's tutorials to Fowler's Modern English Usage to Follett's Modern American Usage.—DCGeist (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Why, exactly, shouldn't we? Many points have been raised for "doing it." A vacuous oppose at this late date defines pointless.—DCGeist (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • (copied from above) Oppose I opposed the proposed merger of WP:PEACOCK here (MOS talk, March 28). PEACOCK needs to be on its own because it is often used to alert editors in general, or a particular editor, that some text has peacock problems. Linking to a section within a larger style guide is just not sufficiently helpful. See links to peacock from pages and links from user talk pages. Similarly, I see no benefit from the other proposed merges: merging would lead to compromises in the text (helpful explanations and examples would be removed as too much detail), and someone being directed to PEACOCK or WEASEL would find too much distraction. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • In your scenario, "PEACOCK needs to be on its own because it is often used to alert editors in general, or a particular editor, that some text has peacock problems", the alert of which you speak has jargon problems. Thus, before even understanding your message, a new editor must first learn some jargon. That problem is removed by the new arrangement. PL290 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Next step

The RFC has been up for about six days and it is clear the proposal is meeting with community approval. The proposal can be actualized tomorrow, at the seven-day mark, by removing the guideline templates from WP:NEO, WP:PEA, WP:WEASEL, and WP:AVOID; moving them to the Wikipedia:Historical archive, if desired, or simply redirecting to here; and placing a live Manual of Style template on this page.

The next matter is what the ultimate full-length title of this page should be. There is an effort, currently building consensus on the main MoS talk page, to title all subpages of the Manual of Style according to a standardized convention for the sake of consistency, clarity, coherence, and cross-page compliance. The current naming convention—applied to roughly half of the recognized style guidelines—is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (topic). Please join the discussion of whether that convention should be maintained or a new one employed, according to which we will then name all MoS pages, including this one.—DCGeist (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be very inappropriate to mark the original pages as historical. They won't be historical, they will simply be merged, and their history will be available in the redirects. Otherwise I fully agree. Hans Adler 07:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Calling this spotty reception consensus is a falsehood; any merger on this basis should be undone immediately.
The main MOS page is - and always has been - an illiterate disaster area. Any effort, like this one, to spread its influence should be met with sanctions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Six days? Give it the requisite 30, at least. What is your rush, are you concerned editors might actually find out about this, as I did, just today? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of sanctions, are you permitted to comment on MoS pages/issues?  HWV258.  03:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
One reason I oppose MOS-creep. If it applies here, then the aquadron of bullies could merge all of WP-space into MOS and rule it all (and sometimes it seems they would like to). I don't believe I have technically infringed, but if I have, after opinions were solicited on a non-MOS page, my opinion stands. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
However, you do provide another reason against the merger: style guidelines (which is what the separate guidelines are now) do actually have respect from the community. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Pmanderson has had sanctions imposed (here and here), and I believe these discussions transgress those sanctions. If so, could I ask a clerk to remove all comments made by Pmanderson in this debate? The hysterical nature of Pmanderson's comments ("spotty reception", "a falsehood", "aquadron of bullies", "illiterate disaster area") are sadly reminiscent of the reason he received sanctions last year.  HWV258.  03:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
How will NEO be merged? Gnevin (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It has been merged already. What remains at WP:NEO is not style advice. Ozob (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Should WP:NEO point here? Gnevin (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Never mind I see it's done already now Gnevin (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing this RfC

  • I note User Killer Chihuahua's proposal that this RfC be sustained for 30 days. This would be most unusual: the request has aleady been open for a full two weeks; the result is well beyond the grey area in which consensus might be in the slightest doubt; and the sample size is well over 30 (statistically significant, especially given the result—I can calculate a p value if you want). I wonder whether an uninvolved admin/crat could be asked to close it in the next day or two? Tony (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • It is normal to keep a request open while people are still commenting. I'm about to comment on this proposal, but it is not clear whether the merger has already taken place or not. If it has, then this section should have been closed with a summary first. I would also suggest that in places where the merger removed text, that supporting essays be allowed to preserve that text. These would not be forks, but alternate views and preservation of views that will come up again and again if they are lost to the page histories of the redirects. Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the RfC still open?

It is not clear whether the RfC is still open or relevant any more. Could someone please clarify this? Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's still open and relevant but only for Wikipedia:Words to avoid all the other merges have occurred Gnevin (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's still open, but I've posted a request [4] that an uninvolved admin close it as the comments are tailing off. SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Developed countries, First world, Third world and other similar

Capital_punishment#Abolitionism :The use of the death penalty is becoming increasingly restrained in retentionist countries. Singapore, Japan and the U.S. are the only fully developed countries

Islam_and_other_religions:This period also saw the beginning of increased migration from Muslim countries into the First World countries of Europe, the UK, Canada, the US, etc. This has completely reshaped relations between Islam and other religions.

Any thought here?Gnevin (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is "retentionist"? Maurreen (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably more to your point, I think we should allow any of those (except "retentionist"). That way, we don't take a stance on PC-ism. Another option would be to check references. Maurreen (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Well in the context of the article retentionist is ok as they are in favour of keeping the death penalty. What triggered this for me was the phrase fully developed countries are there partly developed countries? Also it reads like the term developed countries and especially fully developed is being used to imply or label these counties as backwards or undeveloped. Also the countries of Europe, the UK, Canada, the US is clearer and doesn't label other countries are third world.Gnevin (talk) 09:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with First World and Third World. They have generally accepted meanings and they're mostly neutral (now that the Soviet Union has dissolved). I think we should prefer the euphemism Third World to the label backward.
The other common euphemism for such countries is developing. I don't like to say fully developed countries or developing nations. Are they teenage girls worried about their bust size? I hear something like America is more developed than China and I go, "Heh heh heh." It sounds and is ridiculous.
I have a real point, which is: What is "developed" supposed to mean, anyway? Does it mean industrialized? Morally and spiritually fulfilling? Governed by the rule of law? Or just that you like it there? I'm an American patriot, so I say that the United States is the most developed country in the world. I'm sure there are those who disagree. But since the word defies a clear description, it's just an opinion; we might both be right or both be wrong. We should avoid such ambiguity whenever possible. "Developed" and "developing" should be left to the teenage girls (heh heh heh). Ozob (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial"

I'm OK with restoring it—though I see it often used perfectly appropriately. At any rate, it's not all that close to any of the other words currently discussed in the Contentious labels subsection. If we're going to have it in the example box, it needs its own sentence in the narrative.—DCGeist (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In my experience it's almost never used except as a means of poisoning the well. All it really means is that the editor in question doesn't like whatever it is he/she's referring to; it provides no specific information. What sentence would you suggest? Jayjg (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what the sentence would be because, as I've suggested, I don't have a feel for the problem here. I know controversial appears in the lede of Elvis Presley, where far from poisoning the well, it is the best, most succinct way to make the summary point there. I used the word myself in an article that I happen to be the primary author of, Leo Ornstein—again it is used descriptively and in a way that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I like or don't like. Both of those happen to be Featured Articles. Could you please point us to an existing article that is in other regards at least semi-decent where this word is actually used to "poison the well"?—DCGeist (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I hardly think the use of "controversial" in the lede of Elvis Presley is helpful. What does it mean? What exactly does it describe? Was he controversial because of his use of African-American songs? His overt sexuality? His dating a 14-year-old? His relationship with "Colonel" Tom Parker? His drug use? His alleged racism? His alleged non-racism? The word, as usual, tells us nothing specific or meaningful. As for an example of its typical poor use? In Iranian presidential election, 2005 we see "Mostafa Moeen, the most controversial reformist candidate". What does "controversial" mean here? Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, now. The meaning of the word in the Presley article is most certainly helpful and perfectly clear in the context of the sentence: "His energized interpretations of songs, many from African American sources, and his uninhibited performance style made him enormously popular—and controversial."
The example you provide is a bit more on point. The passage gives the reader no clue what made Moeen any more controversial than any other Reformist candidate. But this still hardly seems like an example of "poisoning the well." It's simply one instance of unclear writing in an article whose overall level of writing is fairly poor.—DCGeist (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The word "controversial" is often not problematic. If it's going to be included here, maybe something like, "When using 'controversial,' give readers enough information to know what the controversy is about." Maurreen (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I like that. It addresses the actual problem in the example Jayjg provided, which I suspect is the most frequent problem with its use here. In practice, that is, when it's a problem it's not so much a "contentious label" as an "expression that lacks precision/clarity". However, it obviously doesn't fit into any of the latter's four subsections. But I think it's worth including your sentence, Maurreen. Do you think the issue is closer to "contentious label" or "editorializing"?—DCGeist (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that we already deal with "controversial episodes" in "contentious labels", I guess the answer to my question is pretty clear. I'll put it in and we can take a look.—DCGeist (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a reasonable first attempt, at any rate. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Episodes"

Speaking of "controversial episodes" in "contentious labels" ...

We now have: "The suffix -gate is often used in journalism to refer to a controversial episode."

"Episode" doesn't seem right to me, but I haven't figured out a good replacement. Episode (see WP entry and definitions) mainly makes me think of TV episodes.

The only possible substitutes I've thought of are "event" or "incident", but those aren't quite right either. Maurreen (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps just "used in journalism to refer to controversies"? SlimVirgin talk contribs 08:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Nah, we wouldn't have "abortiongate", for example. But if we don't figure out anything better, maybe "certain types of controversies"? Maurreen (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
A "controversial matter" perhaps?—DCGeist (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Abortion is a controversial matter.
But we could simplify by just shortening the sentence: "The suffix -gate is often used in journalism." Maurreen (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Per the article The suffix -gate is often used in journalism to suggest the existence of a scandal Gnevin (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Sounds good to me. Maurreen (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I've edited along those lines, dropping the unnecessary "is often used in journalism". It's used the same way in realms other than journalism, of course, and it doesn't add anything to the point we're making here.—DCGeist (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Then it should be The suffix -gate is often used to suggest the existence of a scandal Gnevin (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Why? The meaning of "is often used to suggest" is virtually identical to that of "suggests"—the four extra words add nothing of value to what we're saying.—DCGeist (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
OK fair enough Gnevin (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible candidate for merge Wikipedia:Self-references_to_avoid

I think we could merge this here very easily Wikipedia:Self-references_to_avoid Gnevin (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that that document has a very specific, purely practical purpose, though, unrelated to the core content policy issues addressed here. ("This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places, online and off. Do not assume that the reader is reading Wikipedia..."). Best kept separate for mutual clarity, imo. PL290 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I thought it maybe a bit of a push Gnevin (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Euphemisms and Cliches

These sections seem almost as indirect as the terms they describe. They never get around to saying exactly why not to use them. I removed a part of a sentence which said "dead people are not resting", as it seemed POV and self defeating (the section is about avoiding vague, confusing expressions that can lead to misunderstanding and offense). I think these sections could use reevaluating. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment confuses me. I am confused. "Dead people are not resting" is a simple statement of fact. It is useful in context to drive home the point that "resting place" is an unencyclopedic misnomer, a euphemism to watch (and avoid). What in the world is "POV and self defeating" about it?—DCGeist (talk) 06:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The cliches section doesn't fit with the rest of the page. Maurreen (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
A simple statement of fact? It could easily be misinterpreted. The paragraph is warning against statements that could be misunderstood. See how it defeats itself? Specify, please: in what way are they not resting? Are you implying that they're in motion; that is, opposed to 'at rest'? Are you implying that they are not in a 'restful' state of mind, and thus have feelings like anger? Are you implying that their bodies/whatever are not lying in a grave, but somewhere else? The sentence makes an assumption on something that is both hotly disputed and unverifiable. So, if Wikipedia has a stance on what the state of death is, other than what is said in this article, please link it here.
Also, I'm not sure whether the statement "resting place" is an allusion to Jesus' words referring to Lazarus, a reference to a discontinuation of motion (most dictionaries with resting place' simply say similar to 'a place to rest' which does not necessarily mean to "regain strength by pausing"), or some other origin. Can we find some data on the origin, if that's necessary?
I agree that it serves to drive the point home, but its not acceptable. Perhaps we should make comparisons to Hitler in order drive a point home? Hah. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that if there's anything to say about "resting place", it is simply that it is unencyclopedic in tone, not that it can conceal bias or hidden meaning. Among the connotations of "rest" is simply "remain", so the phrase, while admittedly a euphemism, is literally true. I don't think it's one we really need to include here. PL290 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words

awww, that weasel is cute. Did I mention? BLEH (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nutshell

The nutshell "choose your words carefully" is really inadequate. It barely says anything, it's very close to a vapid motherhood statement rather than a quick summary of what the page is about.

My claim is that what the page is really about is a listing of idioms that have frequently been warning signs about other concealed problems. It's not a collection of "forbidden phrases", it isn't even necessary a collection of phrases to avoid, it's phrases that should make you look for buried problems such as an NPOV violations.

My first try was "Be careful with phrases that often hide problems", which I still prefer to "choose your words carefully". My second try was "Be careful with phrases that can conceal bias", which is admittedly less comprehensive.

I suppose the trouble is that there are two kinds of warnings in this guideline, which might necessitate two clauses in the nutshell description:

"Be cautious with expressions that can hide bias; Use simple, direct expressions" -- Doom (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think all your suggestions are improvements.
I also think the page should more narrowly focus on bias-type problems. But I might be a minority of one on that point. Maurreen (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I certainly think the Expressions that lack precision and Vulgarities, obscenities, and profanities are worthwhile here.—DCGeist (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I could go either way on whether the page should focus on bias-only. It's true that there are two different issues talked about here, one more about content, the other more about style, and because of this there are funny problems, like the way it has to lead off with two nearly separate topic sentences. But on the other hand, both types of problems do fit together under the general flag of "phrases to be careful with, albeit not forbidden". -- Doom (talk) 21:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I like what you're getting at above—of course, many expressions don't "hide" bias, but flaunt it. Tracking the article's language a bit more closely, how about: "Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias. Use simple, direct language."—DCGeist (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let's try that one as a new starting place.
Myself, I would say that when the bias is "flaunted" there's barely any need for this guide. I would say the real problem is opinion dressed up in phrases that sound impressive. -- Doom (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Given that the page currently covers more than bias, I think the new nutshell isn't quite nutty enough. How about a nutshell like, "Brilliant prose depends on careful word choice"? Ozob (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Brilliant is a bit peacocky for me Gnevin (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of brilliant prose in the sense of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. I don't think that a peacocky term like "brilliant" is out of place in a nutshell like this one; but if peacock terms are unacceptable here, we could say "Featured article quality prose" instead. Ozob (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The points covered in the article apply to Wikipedia writing in general, not just work striving for Featured Article quality. It would certainly be nice if every contributor and every article aimed for that level, but they don't. We can't base our summary of this page on the presumption that they do.—DCGeist (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea was that since we've got two kinds of things going on, we need to say two different things in the nutshell, hence: Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias. Use simple, direct language. The "Use simple, direct language." is supposed to cover avoiding euphemisms and cliches. Oddly enough, just putting a period between them doesn't imply a break strongly enough. What if they were numbered? Like so: 1. Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias. 2. Use simple, direct language. --- Doom (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My hope was that we could combine the two different things into one, and because of that, I chose to focus on the title of this page, Words to watch, not on the page's division into sections. I think I accurately summarized the idea that went into the name Words to watch. That's not quite the same as what the page says, though, because what it says is framed in terms of bias and ambiguity. You could equally well separate some of the subsections (such as "Unsupported attributions", "Expressions of doubt", and "Editorializing") into a new section on NPOV word choice, but the page doesn't do that. I suppose then, that the right question is: What do we see as the page's true purpose? If we can answer that then we will have our nutshell. Ozob (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer that the page focus on bias. Maurreen (talk) 05:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The old Words to avoid identifies in its lead two different effects of lack of clarity, which I would paraphrase as
  1. To mislead—by omission or commission—because not only can certain words introduce bias in interpretation of facts, but vagueness can (deliberately or otherwise) withhold or suppress the facts themselves;
  2. To produce poor prose style.
In my view, this guideline should encompass the former (and, hence, more than bias) but exclude the latter. I therefore offer "Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias or leave the facts unstated. Use clear, direct language." PL290 (talk)

Why is bias more important than the other sections

Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias. Use clear, direct language.

it should at least be

Be cautious with expressions that may introduce bias,lack precision or offensive material. Use clear, direct language.

This at least gives each section the same standing . However my preferred option would be Choose your words carefully . Use clear, direct language or something like this Gnevin (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin asks: "Why is bias more important than the other sections"? The idea isn't that it's necessarily "more important", the claim is that the various sub-sections here split loosely into two categories, one which can be summarized as something like "be careful with words with built-in bias". The other category is more stylistic and needs some other phrasing to cover it. Once again, I can't say I see how "Choose your words carefully" works as a summary at all, it could be applied to many different guidelines. -- Doom (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Speculated

I propose adding the word "speculated" to the list of synonyms for "said" to avoid, as it is used by non-neutral POV editors to cast doubt on the accuracy of a sourced statement. Blackworm (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ain't got no style

Anyone here notice this guideline makes no stylistic recommendations ? Gnevin (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

On going discussion about removing this page from the MOS. See here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Ain.27t_got_no_style Gnevin (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course this page makes stylistic recommendations. This matter has been discussed several times in the past. No, it does not address maters of spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and typographic arrangement as do many other parts of the Manual of Style. Rather, it addresses matters of expressive style. While anything having to do with words will naturally overlap to a certain degree with the question of content, the issues covered on this page are ultimately much more matters of style. The guidance here is not so much concerned with the substance of what is expressed (content), but with recommendations concerning the best manner of expressing it within the context of Wikipedia (style).—DCGeist (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Can we keep this centralised, thanks Gnevin (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I've given a fuller response on the main MoS Talk page.—DCGeist (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Laurels

I can't believe I have been around so long without seeing this style manual. A brilliant exposition! I have figured most of them out "for myself" after watching other editors. I have suggested on their page, that the WP:PUFF label be transferred here, where IMO, that label better belongs. It is easier to remember. (They will doubtless, not be amused by my suggestion  !). Student7 (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Stated

"Stated" is a wikt:factive verb, and should probably be listed with "noted" instead of being endorsed for unqualified/general use. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. It is not a factive verb. For a good layman's guide to test whether a verb is factive or not, see [5].—DCGeist (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Norms vary"

An editor, intending to be helpful I'm sure, has added "Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled persons." I do not find it helpful but confusing. If "norms vary" should there be a guideline at all? What does "vary" mean? What is subtle in Australia is not in Scotland? We can't use regionally varying euphemisms here. It's a global encyclopedia. Norms vary by disability? We can call someone missing a limb "handicapped" but we can't call someone missing IQ "mentally handicapped?" We must use "mentally challenged?" There aren't that many handicaps that they can't be addressed separately I would think. Deliberately leaving it vague allows future editors to quarrel over what is "the norm." Why have it there at all? What problem did it address? Student7 (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Labeling

An edit was removed that read, "you probably would not say, 'My friend is cancerous.' but rather, 'My friend has cancer.' Similarly, 'My friend has autism.' can be preferred to, 'My friend is autistic.'"

I think this addresses labeling. While the examples themselves may "need work", I would think that this could be placed under a supertitle "labeling" under which the current subtitle "contentious labeling" would still exist. I think that labeling people is incorrect and should be explicitly mentioned. A person is "convicted of theft." They are not a "thief" in most situtations outside the original crime. In the case of disease, the examples above make this clear, but they need cleanup. A person is not gratuitously a "Nobelist" outside of his original award. He has (rather) "won/been awarded the Nobel prize."

Labeling people is subjective. The MOS should try to halt this, if possible. Student7 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Quotations exception

I am looking for the new home of Wikipedia:Peacock#Exception_for_quotations for criteria on adding quotes using "peacock" terms. The words previously used to conclude a dispute were quoted as "Such indirect or direct quotations may be useful in presenting important perspectives, especially on contentious subjects, or in summarizing a widely held view."

Do we still have a guideline for Peacock wording in quotations?- Sinneed 04:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is more the remit of WP:NPOV. This guideline addresses editors' choice of words, and, as the lead states, does not apply to quotations. If we include a quote, we are simply presenting the verifiable fact that a party employed those words. PL290 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The advertising on the back covers of books, for example. The advertising for biographical articles, for another, like (made up): "I am here today to interview Fred, whose amazing heroism in (insert random conflict here) saved many lives. Fred's brilliance is amazing too, he won the science fair when he was 12!" This was addressed in the past because it is a wp:peacock problem, but it vanished at some point. Anyone know where it is? Or has the guidance simply been lost?- Sinneed 17:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge Wikipedia:It should be noted here

I just came across the essay Wikipedia:It should be noted and realized it's extremely short and its sole recommendation is completely in line with the "nutshell" summary of this policy to use direct writing. It would fit well here, so I propose that this essay be merged here. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The point that brief essay makes is already explicitly covered in our Editorializing subsection. I suppose if you'd like to propose that the "WP:NOTED" shortcut redirect to here, that would be fine.—DCGeist (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't notice that. Thanks. I may move some words over and then convert the essay to a shortcut. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed: hyperbole to replace puffery and peacock term

A well-established English-language term for adjectival excess is "hyperbole" and its contraction "hype". "Puffery" is old slang suggesting both hyperbole and verbosity. "Peacock term" is a neologism, an awkward construction, two words where one would do, private WP jargon, and wrong: both female and male editors misuse adjectives, don't they? Guideline should emphasize hyperbole, and deprecate both "puffery" and "peacock term". Also add WP:HY WP:HYPE and WP:HYPERBOLE, and remove WP:PEA and WP:PEACOCK shortcuts. Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

A well-considered proposal, but I must disagree on hyperbole vs. puffery. My Webster's defines the former as "extravagant exaggeration," and the latter as "exaggerated commendation esp. for promotional purposes," which is clearly more on point. And is it really slang? I think it's been in the language long enough (since the late 18th century) and is sufficiently acceptable in serious writing to have transcended such status. I know that it does derive from the Anglo-Saxon "puff", which wins it style points over its Latin/Greek-derived competitor.—DCGeist (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hm. Interesting about "puff". I think both hyperbole and puffery are on point for different problem texts which I've encountered. And there are degrees, as well. But both are better than peacock term. I wonder which of hyperbole or puffery the majority of WP editors would prefer as the "catch all" term for exaggeration. Uh oh: WP:EXAG? --Lexein (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I like puffery better than hyperbole. It sounds more fun: Puff, puff, puff! Puff puff. Puff? Puff! Compare: Hyperbole. Hyperbole, hyperbole. Hyperbo-blah... Ozob (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There's always, "Hype, hype, hype" - it's universally understood. --Lexein (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "peacock term". There is a long established precedent. The original article Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms (now a redirect to this article) was a lengthy detailed article on the subject, having many authors and almost a thousand edits since July 2003, seven years ago. The subject has long been known by that name on Wikipedia, including the often-used shortcut links. I'd call that a consensus. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The first editor in the link you cite, while creating an important and valid guideline entry, seems to have made up "peacock term" out of the whole cloth, citing no references, and (oddly) ignoring the existence of the words "hyperbole," "exaggeration," and "overemphasis." The failure of other editors to challenge this does not imply affirmative consensus: it is only evidence of (at worst) apathy, or (at best) focus on other goals such as improving the guideline itself. This is the worldwide English Language Wikipedia Style Guidelines, with an encyclopedic responsibility to no original thought. One of the things these Guidelines should not be: a parochial Backwater Gazette Guide to Writers, encouraging the use of made-up or slang terminology. If "peacock term" has been in use for so long, with such wide consensus, why did I encounter it for the first time in my college educated, literate, worldly, travelled life, only on WP in June 2010, after editing here for over four years? Because it's de facto _not_ a popular, well known, commonly used term. It seems, instead, to have become a precious WP phrase, in spite of the fact that it's a little ridiculous on the face of it: a bit of anti-intellectual cheeky affront to every literate writer and editor who first arrives here to edit, but finds no guidelines on hyperbole - oh, but to be sure, there's one about "peacock term". I'm not unreasonable: I already said "peacock term" has a place in the guideline's text, just not in its title or shortcuts. --Lexein (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Your personal first encounter with the term doesn't really matter. I had heard of it far longer than 10 years ago. I have no problem adding additional shortcuts. I am uncertain if by "remove" you mean "delete" or "remove from this document". I'm in favor of keeping the original WP:PEACOCK shortcut in place for historical reasons, and substituting the WP:PEA shortcut (which I rarely see in use) with something else like WP:PUFFERY. I'll point out that deleting the shortcuts from Wikipedia would break a lot of talk page discussions, as WP:PEACOCK widely used. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
10 years?[citation needed] I can see keeping WP:PEACOCK if the guideline itself is renamed. And if WP:HYPE is added, then WP:PUFFERY can come too. I'm really pressing for widely-known (outside of Wikipedia!), standards-based (as opposed to parochial) editing terminology and guideline naming. --Lexein (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
We have already deprecated peacock term as a guideline title. While the phrase is jargonistic the way it is employed here, the fact is that it is well-established and I therefore agree with Amatulic on practical grounds.—DCGeist (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
While hyperbole is simply not the right word, hype—"publicity; esp. promotional publicity of an extravagant or contrived kind"—is an acceptable alternative to puffery. I'm neutral between the two.—DCGeist (talk) 23:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Usage-based sources seem to say hyperbole is the right word, but historical sources say it isn't. Dispute => can't use. I'm in favor of the most widely known, most easily understood term, and unsourced exaggerative adjectives are at the core of this section of the Guide. So, I'm back to WP:HYPE and WP:EXAGGERATION. As a 20th-century American, I'm partial to hype, but is that slang and regionalism again? GB, CA, NZ, OZ, SA, EU: thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Original proposer appears to suggest that npov term be used, normal for text itself. But we are trying to get an editor's attention here, often a new editor. S/he will remember "peacock" the next time they edit. Hyperbole may be more npov, but less memorable IMO. Student7 (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cliches and idioms

I boldly added a bit to the "Clichés" section, as follows:

  • Included "idioms" in the heading. This is a more accurate description of the phrases to be avoided, and also more widely used. "Cliché" is derived from French and I'm skeptical about its worldwide usage in English as oppposed to "idiom".
  • Added a short couple of sentences explaining that using idioms can make text incomprehensible to foreign English speakers, because most idioms are regionally dependent. English speakers in Croatia, for example, would have no clue what phrases like "down the drain" mean (as I know from actual experience during a presentation to a Croatian university).
  • Added a link to the list of 6000+ English idioms on Wiktionary.

My edit was reverted as being too "chatty". Upon reflection, I agree. I have tightened up and restored it.

As it currently stands, my change adds only two lines of text to the section. I believe my change qualifies as "tight" as well as being justified and necessary, for the reasons I describe above. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

An idiom[6] and a cliche[7] are not the same thing. In fact, they're rather opposites, I think. MacDaid (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that's an argument to simply re-name the entire section as "Idioms" and drop "Cliches", because all the examples given are, in fact, idioms (and they all appear on the Wiktionary idioms list).
Nobody has claimed they are the same thing. "Cliche" and "idiom" are two sets of phrases that intersect. A cliche can be idiomatic, or an idiom can be a cliche once it becomes hackneyed through over-use. Both involve English usage that is not standard worldwide.
Regardless of whether they are the same thing or not, they should be avoided on Wikipedia for the same reasons: (a) they are indirect, not to-the-point, and (b) a literal interpretation of an idiomatic expression often has no contextual meaning for an international audience. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
With a possible copyediting tweak here or there, I support Amatulic's addition. I would retain Clichés in the subsection title, in part because there are a few different definitions of idiom. Retaining cliché (a) helps the reader instantly focus on what sort of idiom we mean and (b) emphasizes the most objectionable sort of idioms in an encyclopedic context.—DCGeist (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I approve of the addition, now that it has been written concisely, particularly as the examples in the section were all idioms. Jayjg (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I like DCGeist's copyedit; thanks! ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

use of "perhaps"

What does it mean when someone is "perhaps best known" or "perhaps the most famous example of" ... etc? Doesn't "perhaps" equivocate? I don't think it's encyclopedic. Better would be "so-and-so is known for..." or "so-and-so is a famous example of... . MacDaid (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In this usage, it's similarly vacuous to the way "arguably" is often used. So, two questions: (A) Is "perhaps" and/or "arguably" misused often enough on Wikipedia to merit inclusion here? (B) Does the "perhaps"/"arguably" issue fit more naturally under Expressions of doubt or Editorializing?—DCGeist (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I am equally annoyed by "arguably" and just grit my teeth when I see either one. MacDaid (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward including them, in Expressions of doubt—renamed Expressions of uncertainty, which is a bit more encompassing. Opinions?—DCGeist (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
My immediate thought is that yes, they're unencyclopedic, but plainly so, i.e, should be caught by WP:V and hence need no special treatment or mention here. PL290 (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Our guidance already includes many words that should be caught by WP:V. All of Unsupported attributions is...arguably in that category. One of the services this page provides is MoS support and specification for aspects of our Verifiability policy. By no means should overlap in this regard be considered a reason to exclude particular words from the guidance.—DCGeist (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I see "perhaps" in FAs, which is what prompted me to bring it up here. MacDaid (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree--the question is when to stop adding words. We've always said this shouldn't be an exhaustive list. These two are plain silly in an encyclopedia. But it certainly won't hurt to add them here. They perhaps arguably most constitute Editorializing. PL290 (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, whenever etymological references are included in an article the terms "perhaps", "possibly", or their synonyms should be allowed if, as happens in most dictionaries the derivation or origin of a word under discussion, cannot actually be substantiated. I know, this flies in the face of what we believe and advocate in Wikipedia re verification, etc., but it is common practice in most of the dictionaries I have ever used. Since many Wikipedia articles do actually include etymologies, especially of slightly more obscure but often encountered keywords, this should be seriously considered. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what you are suggesting. Could you clarify? MacDaid (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, where the etymology or derivation of an article keyword is uncertain, such as the real McCoy or Mornay sauce in Wikipedia. I should have included also "unclear" as used in the real McCoy, but which could easily have been paraphrased as "perhaps" (derived from) or "possibly" (originating in), as has been done in dictionaries such as Encarta, etc. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In "Mornay sauce" "perhaps" is in fact used. This no doubt is a very common occurrence in Wikipedia articles, so much so that the usage of "perhaps", "possibly", "is uncertain", "is unclear", is surely quite legitimate. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

DS makes a crucial point: there are certainly legitimate usages of perhaps (and similarly of possibly, probably, likely, etc.) that we must be careful not to discourage. Thus in adding perhaps to Words to watch we will need to spare as much as a sentence to affirm its use where appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 03:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There are legitimate uses of "perhaps" no doubt, but the word is vague for encyclopedic use. Surely in the suggestions above, "is uncertain" or "is unclear" gives more information than "perhaps" which doesn't clarify anything to me. In most cases "perhaps" makes the statement it precedes sound like an off-hand hypothesis with no indication whether it is an idle thought, a rumor or a serious contender for the truth. MacDaid (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that the whole point though, that in etymology the statement that something is "perhaps" the case means that a source cannot be ascertained and that it is therefore "vague". It is the "vagueness" that makes the difference and which very often can actually be traced to various sources as well. Something that is "unclear", "uncertain", or is "perhaps" the case, or "possibly" so, doesn't "clarify" anything anyway. I can see your point, though, that some people might feel that the whole statement might have been concocted on the back of an envelope.
The trouble is that you actually encounter both "perhaps" and "possibly" in dictionaries and encyclopaedias. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the point is even more general: there are no forbidden words. (The guideline's opening statement.) If "perhaps" and "arguably" are used to editorialize, that is not encyclopedic. If they are used to report that a cited source states something to be uncertain, that is encyclopedic. PL290 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
How can you tell what the contextual meaning is? Is it editorializing or used as "uncertain"? What are the decision rules? MacDaid (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
See WP:V. PL290 (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

EXcuse my ignorance

Where was the discussion on the Merge from Wikipedia:Words to avoid into here I can't Find it! Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_watch/Archive_2#RFC—DCGeist (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone might wanna get the archive working again on this page, it seems to have issues

Adding "Hate Group" to "Contentious labels" Section

This one seems pretty Clear Cut to me, I will add in one Week if there are no objections Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's unnecessary. The page cannot and does not presume to offer a comprehensive list of every word that should be used with caution. The existing guidance ("Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution) clearly applies to a phrase such as hate group.—DCGeist (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The list is not meant to be exhaustive, but merely representative. It's quite rare that Wikipedia describes a group as a "hate group" in its narrative voice (e.g. "Y is a hate group"), rather than attributing that label instead to another group (e.g. "X has described Y as a hate group"). Examples should be of things that are common, not rare. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

`

Actually, i have been seen several article as such and in Discussion i try to use WP:LABEL, it has been pointed out that the term is "not here" or the other argument "to many people say it is so we can't list them all" the addition is much needed in my humble opinion. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Several articles? Really? Can you provide, say, four examples? Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if there are several articles, I'm still not convinced that this needs to be added. Someone intent on trolling an article will write around whatever restrictions we impose. If we tell him he can't write "The Beatles were a hate group" then he will write something else just as wrong. The only reason to add "hate group" is if many good-faith contributors do not understand why it is problematic. If you can point to examples where good-faith contributors who clearly respect NPOV were convinced that "hate group" was acceptable, then (and only then) should we consider adding it. Ozob (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I submit, the only one that got into an extremely lengthy debate appologies for the tardiness in follow up Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
another Recent example Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I have provided to high-profile examples where good-faith contributors who clearly respect NPOV were convinced that "hate group" was acceptable. Thus we should consider adding it Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
But both Ku Klux Klan and Westboro Baptist Church provide in-text attribution for "hate group". In both articles, an inline citation is directly attached to the phrase where it first appears. This guideline is concerned with editor's words, not those used by cited sources to describe the subject. On a side note, I was surprised by your edit comment suggesting the response to your proposal is WP:SILENCE, given that all responses so far express at least mild opposition. May I add my voice to that opposition: this change is neither necessary nor appropriate. PL290 (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The question is: who is doing the characterization of "hate group"? It is self identified? Or is it some other organization that is doing the characterizing? Is "hate group" a neutral term? MacDaid (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not convinced that it matter who is doing the characterizing, just as long as it's not us. My position is still that the label hate group needs to be attributed. Once it's attributed, then there is no problem: It's not our label, we're just quoting. If it is not attributed, then it is problematic. As I said above, if a large number of good faith editors believe that "hate group" is an acceptable description, then we should consider changing the guideline. But what I see in the linked discussions is arguments over the attributions: Who to attribute this to, how many attributions, and so on. Those discussions may have been heated, but they're not quite relevant. Ozob (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
"Hate Group" is POV term applied to various groups That is commonly Presented as Fact in wikipedia articles regardless of whether it is accurately applied in should be in the contentious labels section. We should Say "A" has been labeled a "hate group" by "X", "Y", and "Z" like any-other contentious label. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this statement that it is a contentious label and needs to be presented as such with supporting citations. MacDaid (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there's consensus on that point. And again, there's no evident need to add this word to our present list, which is representative, not exhaustive.—DCGeist (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I just Realized why i am getting so utterly confused here. This is not Where this originally was. Now we Watch theses word instead to "Avoid" hmm not good Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Unsure whether it must be here. Clearly our guidelines are to omit pov words that the media commonly uses to "drum up interest" in their articles and to (frankly) sell space on the air or in print. Nothing to do with an encylopedia, however. If we allow it, we have every group terming every other contending group as a "hate group." A "hate group" is one that contradicts me!  :) Student7 (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Procedural comment

I have neutralized the RfC pending the production of a concise, neutral, signed summary of the issue in accordance with the directions at WP:RFC. As it is written, the entire multi-paragraph first comment is dominating the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines subpage. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops my bad, does it look sufficiently trimmed? Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Certainly much better. I'll reopen it. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Passive voice missing

Wikipedia:Passive voice redirects to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch), specifically the "Unsupported attributions" section, but there is no mention of passive voice in that page. Was there once a suggestion to avoid passive voice for simply readability reasons? This search yields several suggestions to "avoid passive voice" if possible. For example, is both my edit and summary here a reasonable change of passive to active voice? -84user (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the constructions in "Unsupported attributions" use the passive voice, and they use it to avoid attributing a viewpoint to a specific person. E.g., "it was proven" uses passive voice to avoid saying who proved the fact in question, and therefore denies readers the opportunity to investigate the proof themselves. Refusing to reveal sources on Wikipedia is an error. Passive voice alone is not, no matter what your English teachers taught you.
Your edit to Antimatter is a big improvement, but not quite ideal. The problem, I think, is that the NASA article you are citing for the fact that antimatter is the costliest substance on Earth does not say where it got that fact from. So you are left with "scientists say", which is eerily similar to WP:WTW's "science says". I'm not sure what to do about this, unless you think it's appropriate to say "NASA says". Ozob (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There once was more detailed reasoning given for why editors should avoid using the passive voice, but while this guideline was accepted by consensus, precisely why it should be never reached a consensus. As I recall, it had to do with accepting guidance The Elements of Style by Strunk and White in the Wikipedia. My take is that the passive voice makes sense only when the implied subject is fully identified in a preceding sentence and its use is to avoid repetition. One version of the old wording was:

* Passive voice. The passive voice, while not weasel-like language by definition, may be used to suggest agreement with a point of view without naming anyone who actually agrees with it. The passive voice allows an action to be described without its actor, as in "mistakes were made" rather than "I made mistakes".

Today, the {{who}} template helps draw attention to this. patsw (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Restoring stuff From "Words To avoid"

I appreciate the Condensed Version Represented in this current article very much but three Section from Words to avoid seem severely Watered Down or Lost in the merge. This Text Was from the orignial verision in[8] important on Several Levels

  • Words that may imply unsupported links" Words that may imply unsupported links has Completely Disappeared when it Was Probably the Most important of all the thing to Disappear! Why it Disappeared i am not sure but it laid down the ground work of how not to use "Linked" and not only said the issue but said appropriate Way to utilize such connections.
  • Words that label I Personally Work with New Religious Movement section of Wikipedia, The most disturbing thing here is the complete removal of Text the improper way and proper way to address groups. This is the most distressing to me, as It used to be you had to Explicitly Say Who had LABELED the group as such. Now it appear all that is needed is a implicit citation. As such Labels are inherently POV and Such Labels should alway be explicitly who labeled them as such.
  • Extremist, terrorist, or freedom fighter?The Section formerly label WP:TERRORIST watering is equally as disturbing as i know it was hashed out with much pain and debate.

I Propose these Sections be Restored as "Words to Avoid" since now they are mere warning to "watch when to use them" how Ever i am not opposed to Alternative suggestions thus i am filing this as RFC to Gather suggestions so that we can come to a conssensus on what if anything we should do. Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Suggestions for the mentioned Sections

Agree. MacDaid (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I also agree. Ozob (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. PL290 (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

In no way is this a viable proposal. We got rid of the unworkable mess that was Words to Avoid. We're not going back to it. There is a consensus as to the proper guidance to offer our editors, and Words to Watch is it. If you can succinctly and in plain English suggest a sentence or two to add to the page that would materially improve it, we're happy to take that under advisement, but we are not restoring "stuff" from WTA, which was notorious for being overstuffed with "stuff."—DCGeist (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the older versions of this project page is editors were just too bold, it is became an unstable mess. Getting discussions into this talk page and obtaining consensus for changes in the project page is the way forward. patsw (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The guideline needs to maintain a clear focus, and a distinct role complementary to other WP guidelines and policies. The proposed action would be a backward step in both respects. PL290 (talk) 07:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

I note that we include controversial... but what about the related word "Controversy". It shows up a lot, especially in article titles. Often this word is used as an end run around accusations that an article is a POV-fork. I think that to label something as being a controversy we need reliable sources to establish that a controversy actually exists... as opposed to there simply being a few people who hold a fringe or extreme minority view about the topic, and who wish there was a controversy (as it might make their fringe POV more prominent).

I think this is worth more expansion and explanation. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you've nailed a significant issue with the word that we grappled with in the past. I copyedited your addition, which I believe is a worthwhile one. Take a look.—DCGeist (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree; I'm one of the editors concerned about the misuse of words such as "controversy" and "criticism", which are misused so much on Wikipedia it's unbelievable. I'm also dismayed it got removed in the merge. For example, was there a controversy over Isaiah Washington's dismissal from the Grey's Anatomy cast for calling T.R. Knight a "faggot"? No. He was sacked with little hubbub over the comments, which weren't controversial; they were offensive, yes, but not controversial. However, the matter of Nick Griffin's invitation to appear on Question Time was controversial, as there was a debate on whether a (elected) politician with t views should appear on a publicly funded political programme. Y'see? Sceptre (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to split off a new section for just four words, as proposed. The self-referential nature of the additional narrative is something generally to be avoided, and the lengthy examples don't add enough to the clear guidance to justify their inclusion. Some of the language in the narrative (e.g., "abnormal impropriety") is itself highly questionable. Finally, there does not appear to be a consensus that the words scandal and affair—which are often perfectly appropriate—are used improperly often enough to warrant their inclusion here. In sum, this material is covered satisfactorily by the existing, concise Contentious labels subsection.—DCGeist (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The prevalent misuse of the word, both on- and off-Wikipedia, merited their inclusion in the precursor to this guideline, WTA. Definitely off-Wikipedia, the misuse of the word is staggering; for example, there was quite recently a high-profile "scandal" here in the UK which was simply a politician the press didn't like performing his constitutional duty. Likewise, even the more "highbrow" papers thought that another politician doing the pragmatic thing was scandalous too. Sceptre (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
DCGeist you wrote in the history of the article "rv--no consensus for major split and addition; overemphasis and excessive detail on just a few words no more problematic than any others here" How do you know that there is no consensus? But more the point one of your your justifications for not expanding the terrorist section is that "As before, the material you wish to insert is verbose, repetitive, and wildly disproportionate to the treatment of any other words in this guideline." So now you are using the same justification of comparable brevity for another words. The point had been made by several editors both directly and indirectly, that the treatment of some of these issues is so terse as to be of little guidance to editors who are not familiar with the concepts and are looking guidance. I do not think that one can justify removing text just because there is a less detailed explanation of other words. The argument reminds me of the war song "We're here because we're here because We're here because we're here;". I think a better argument would be found in the song: "Here we go, here we go, here we go" -- PBS (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to Blueboar's point which I have made in several article edits. Something given the label controversy or controversial needs to be cited not merely asserted and the sides need to be identified, not merely implied. Often content is added which is newspaper-like and assumes a context relying upon the reader's independent knowledge of current events and renders the article incomprehensible with the passage of time. For example, if you are under 30, does a free-standing reference to the "Iran-Contra" controversy mean anything to you? It would have been instantly understand by most Americans in 1986-1987. patsw (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote recently added is all very well to illustrate a general principle, but I would query its inclusion, particularly with such prominence, in this guide. Being news-centric it has limited applicability in an encyclopedia (although some articles do of course relate to recent or breaking events). PL290 (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Patsw's comment, there is an article Red Scare, a title which would not be recognized by the people of the era, 1920s and 1950s. I don't have a problem with renaming an event by historians. For example, World War I instead of the Great War, but accepting pov titles, media-driven titles, for articles, does not seem encyclopedic to me. In this case, the pov is that people were unwarranted in their frightened reaction to socialism/communism, because thw West ultimately won. While the excesses of the period should certainly be reported, lumping all reaction under this title is clearly pov IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The name itself, Red Scare. is well-established in histories of that period. It presents a POV similar to self-congratulatory Age of Enlightenment and critical Dark Ages. The bias applied by historians in these retrospective labels can be discussed in the articles themselves, typically by citing authors with an opposing view. patsw (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Describing topics as "Notable"

I'm interested to know your opinions on this essay. If I remember rightly, the old Words to Avoid page used to advise against using the word "notable" to describe topics, which I feel is very important. Am I the only person who loses a bit of my hair every time I see "notable" in the main article space? - filelakeshoe 13:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Editorializing subsection explicitly addresses both notably and it should be noted. Or are you talking about the sort of use that falls under Puffery?—DCGeist (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Broadly speaking I mean things like "(article subject) is notable because..." or "notable people associated with (article subject) include..." - filelakeshoe 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
My initial reaction to this was parallel to my reaction in the immediately preceding thread: The page cannot and does not presume to offer a comprehensive list of every word that should be used with caution. On reflection, however, notable as a peacock word is sufficiently different in tone from most of the other words we currently list in Puffery and (I'm under the impression) widely used enough that the guidance might be improved by its inclusion. I'll mildly support.—DCGeist (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The use of the word is not only okay, but even preferred, when mentioning items, people, events, that have a Wikipedia article. They are, by definition, "notable." I flinch at calling these same people, places, etc. "distinguished" or some other puff word. Adjectives other than notable should certainly be avoided, because they are not supported by Wikipedia convention. Student7 (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
They are notable by definition within the scope of Wikipedia's processes, but simply because a topic has been graced with a Wikipedia article does not mean that it is advisable to characterize it as notable in our encyclopedic prose without attribution. Many, many things that are not notable in the ordinary sense ("worthy of note, remarkable; distinguished, prominent" per Webster's) have Wikipedia articles.—DCGeist (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh. You ask "Am I the only person who loses a bit of my hair every time I see "notable" in the main article space?" You are not alone! "Notable" has to be the most over-used word in Wikipedia articles. Whenever I see it, I try to find a way to remove it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added notable in place of fantastic, which I don't perceive as common and which is so obviously inappropriate when used without attribution that it clearly falls within the orbit of the several similar words that already appear in the subsection.—DCGeist (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how this word wound up on the proscribed list. See WP:NOTE. There are accurate uses for this word, alone of all the puffery examples given. My example may be lame and needs work, but "notable" needs to be either explicitly allowed for some uses or omitted from the list of puff words. Student7 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
(1) There is no "proscribed list". The page explicitly states that no words are forbidden. Yes, it is possible to use "notable" appropriately, just as it is possible to use "legendary" or "leading" or "great" appropriately—this page warns editors to watch out for inappropriate uses, not all uses, of each given word.
(2) Your edit summary on the guideline page suggests that my explanation in this thread above didn't do it's intended job. I'll try again. Yes, notable has a specific and significant meaning in Wikipedia processes, but that does not in any way make it more appropriate generally for encyclopedic prose than similarly commendatory words.—DCGeist (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't care much for adjectives in encyclopedic articles, generally. I dislike the list of words that begins that paragraph, and generally remove them. Except "notable," the only one on the list that has a Wikipedia-acceptable definition. I don't see anything that allows the use of the word, other than the phrase "without attribution" whatever that is supposed to mean. Since you have removed my admittedly lame example, I agree that you (or someone) should come up with a phrase that prevents someone from going through many articles and wholesale deleting "notable" when the word is correctly used, thinking they are doing us a favor. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
(1) I'm afraid you're mistaken. Notable simply does not have a "Wikipedia-acceptable definition" applicable to its use in article prose in some way that celebrated or respected do not.
(2) To better judge if there is any practical problem here at all, please show us a couple uses of the word notable from Good or Featured Articles that you feel are (a) appropriate and (b) likely to be threatened by this guideline.—DCGeist (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable is a word that is often used in lists which cover things that are quantitatively, qualitatively, or otherwise objectively prominent: biggest, smallest, first, last, most numerous, most rare, award-winning, ... and also cover the arbitrary choices of the list maker for significance or importance, for example, most batting titles but never played in the World Series, or a large building which was demolished as obsolete after only 20 years, etc. The problem with notable showing up in article space is that often editors don't mention the rationale for inclusion, or that the rationale for inclusion is disputed among that article's editors. My own preference is to not use notable as an assertion of importance or significance but to let the text itself demonstrate it to the reader. patsw (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about FA or GA, but "notable" is a word that is used to describe people and events on which there are articles in Wikipedia.
Looking at the FA lists for awhile back, I am struck by the obscurity of most of the topics. It appears difficult to get a topic to FA when there are a lot of editors. The word "notable" is apparently struck out. Editors do not use FA articles as a basis for development. This is a case of people imagining they have a great following, and in fact, having a lot less influence than they think. Few "places" appear to male it to FA. I am most familiar with "place" articles. I could care less about "FA" status, except to avoid editing when some poor soul(s) are attempting to get an article to that status. Student7 (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
(1) It is entirely inappropriate to describe something as notable in article prose on the basis that there is a Wikipedia article on it.
(2) It appears that it is not possible to identify even a single usage of the word notable in either a Good Article or a Featured Article on any topic whatsoever that is (a) appropriate and (b) likely to be threatened by this guideline.
Conclusion: This discussion can end.—DCGeist (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Understand that in the many articles (excluding the exclusive FA and GA categories, which most articles are not in and never will be) that contain the word "notable", the intent is to constrain eager newbies from entering material on which there is no article. It save a lot of work. Also I was looking for the subtitle "notable." I don't know that even the wonderful GA and FA articles might contain the word outside of a subtitle. I didn't bother looking. You are the one establishing them as a criteria to be followed. I didn't. Student7 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RELTIME proposed addition

I'd like to propose adding "currently" to the list of words at WP:RELTIME. I've come across it recently, and through searches discovered it used in a surprisingly large number of Wikipedia articles - over 2 million, if Google can be believed. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support the addition, though we would have to distinguish between its inappropriate (syn. for "at the present time") and appropriate (syn. for "at a given moment") uses.—DCGeist (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about this one. While I'd deprecate it without hesitation in a printed work (unless an ephemeral one, such as a newspaper or magazine), I think a web-based resource such as WP is different: it's known to be dynamic and expected to undergo ongoing updating to keep it ... current. I'm inclined to think this makes the usage okay. PL290 (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Upon further reflection, and reading of a couple articles that deal with current affairs, I'm reinclining to agree with you. There is a problem with currently in the sense of "at the present time", but it is one of redundancy with present-tense phrasing (e.g., this real-life Wikipedia sentence: "He currently writes a regular column for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution titled 'The Barr Code', and is a contributer for CNN"), which is outside the purview of this page.—DCGeist (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
But those are the kinds of sentences that should be re-written so that they don't go stale. It should say something like "As of 2010, he writes a regular column for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution titled 'The Barr Code'" or "In 2007 he started writing a regular column for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution titled 'The Barr Code'." Otherwise, we're setting ourselves up for an additional maintenance issue - one which is already overwhelming enough. Jayjg (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. There's a debate here more fundamental than the one over the word currently, between whether our content "is known to be dynamic and expected to undergo ongoing updating to keep it current" (and thus can freely use words referring to the present time) or "should be re-written so that [it] do[es]n't go stale" (and thus should avoid using words referring to the present time). If that debate is resolved in favor of the latter position, then yes, currently should be deprecated, but not if the debate is resolved in favor of the former position. And my sense is that this is not the ideal venue for resolving that debate. (It also strikes me as possible that this debate may well have been argued and a consensus reached elsewhere...anyone?)—DCGeist (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't seem to make sense that we would deprecate the usage of "recently, lately, presently" but not "currently". How does the latter differ significantly from the other three? "Presently" and "currently" in particular are basically synonyms. Jayjg (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That did occur to me, though the primary meaning of presently is "before long"; it is only secondarily synonymous with currently. Your general point is logical, but again, I think we need a more prominent venue in which to debate this.—DCGeist (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Scare quote reversion

Recently, DCGeist performed a reversion[9] of an addition concerning scare quotes, with the edit summary "those are not "weasel words", those are unsourced, unverifiable quotations--a related problem, but outside the scope of this guideline and, once again, covered by WP:V."

While I agree with the reversion because quotation marks aren't actually words to watch, I am finding that there is absolutely no guideline regarding the use of scare quotes beyond Wikipedia:Etiquette discouraging their use on talk pages. WP:V doesn't mention the topic. WP:MOS does, but gives no guidance other than how to format quotation marks.

I have seen scare quotes crop up in main space article edits. Shouldn't they be discouraged explicitly in a guideline somewhere? Perhaps WP:NPOV might be the most appropriate place. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps their use in certain ways (such as for irony or scorn) should be explicitly discouraged, but we need to be careful. So-called scare quotes are often the best, most efficient way to handle useful, appropriate, but in some way unusual terms where neutral distancing is called for: "Enclosing a word or phrase in quotes can also convey a neutral attitude on the part of the writer...the quotes are used to call attention to a neologism, special terminology (jargon), or a slang usage".—DCGeist (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Expressions of certainty

For symmetry, I would like to add a section for expressions of certainty (in contrast to the existing section Expressions of doubt. Start with a factual statement X, and then add "it is certain that X...", "it is a fact that X...", "it known that X", or "it is well-known that X". If the certainty of X needs to be emphasized, it should be spelled out in the text. This seems a cheap way of preempting the inclusion of evidence to the contrary. These expressions of certainty are redundant. patsw (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

How about "Expressions of certainty or doubt" with both types of examples? Student7 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Whereas expressions of doubt can, per this guideline, subtly introduce bias, undue emphasis of certainty is, by definition, not subtle. I'm not convinced the concept of redundancy has a place in this document. Prose can be improved without recourse to a guideline. PL290 (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Well said. The central aspects of the matter raised here fall under (a) the existing subsection Editorializing and (b) the general prose issue of redundancy, which is outside the focus of Words to watch.—DCGeist (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As copied from Village pump (miscellaneous)

Perhaps someone might comment on the following section as copied fro the above project page. Quote:

  • ==The abundance of also, in Wikipedia.==

First off, let me say sorry if this has been brought up before or if it doesn't belong here. As I look through Wikipedia one thing I am noticing is the over use of the word also, in most cases it can be deleted and still get the same point across as in the the case of my edits in the Eddie Murphy [10] article. I do realize this is a common article to add additional information in a sentence, but it seems to be used too frequently, by editors, to add more information. I am sure there are other cases of extra wordage, this happens to be the one I noticed, more so as a disruption to reading of an article. I am going to try and clear up the ones I notice and thought it may be best to bring it to the attention of some others, to keep an eye out for it.

I doubt we could do anything about it permanently, but more just wanted to get this off my chest and see if I was the only one noticing this. - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that too, and cleaned up some excessive uses where I've seen them. Perhaps we can get a report generated listing pages which have a high proportion of the word "also" relative to the amount of text on the page? bd2412 T 19:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I catch myself using also too many times in my edits, also :) I also notice that a lot of people tend to overuse however for everything, and that can also cause some problems as far as inadvertent editorialization of content is concerned, not just increased wordiness of sentences. –MuZemike 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I am only including this because I feel it should be in this discussion page rather than in the original "village pump" pages. I have not removed it from there up to this point.

If I have done this contrary to normal practice, I apologise. Well, we have people here who have probably gone into this before.Dieter Simon (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The comments are copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Dieter Simon (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Please feel free to include them here.Dieter Simon (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking through this project page, it appears that it is concerned with words whose meanings can cause problems, whereas this issue of too much use of "also" is not. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I see it as one of the consequences of collaborative editing. As different editors expand an article by adding bits and pieces of information, usually trivia, it starts looking like a unintentional point-form list rather than flowing prose. So copy-editors come along and in a good faith attempt to weave all the fragments together they end up overusing words like "also" and "however" because sometimes it's the best way to accomplish that. -- Ϫ 03:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

I think that archiving after 10 days is too short -- it should be put out to a month (30 days). -- PBS (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Altered to 30 days. -- PBS (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Strange, that seems to have stopped it working at all. Nothing obviously wrong with that tweak on 24 May, but nothing's been archived since, even though MiszaBot II is evidently archiving other pages. PL290 (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Mystery solved: it was unrelated to this change. The rename to Manual of Style (words to watch) omitted to take the archives with it. Now fixed. PL290 (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Tag creep

When discussing tags that may be applied to articles, I believe we should encourage use of the most specific tag possible. A tag that names a specific isssue, attached to a specific word or phrase, preserves the precise concern the tagging editor has identified. The more general the tag, and the more general its application (e.g. entire article), the less effective it becomes in conveying the issue to the reader (and also, hence, in promoting appropriate corrective action). I therefore encourage us to avoid tag creep, and only to include tags that specifically address the point the guideline is discussing, rather than listing more general tags that cover the same area. PL290 (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

To avoid tag creep, are you suggesting, for example, that the 4 tags {{Who}}, {{Which?}}, {{By whom}}, and {{Attribution needed}} in footnote 3 of the section Unsupported attributions be consolidated into one tag, such as {{Attribution needed}}? --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Since that would constitute a generalization, no; that would be the opposite of what I'm suggesting. If anything, I would suggest removal of the more general tag, {{Attribution needed}}, and retention of the other three, each of which shows the specific kind of attribution needed. PL290 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
PL290, Looks like we were editing at the same time so I need to add this... I resist your suggestion of eliminating the {{Attribution needed}} tag (although I am not opposed to eliminating it as a verbose alias of the {{fact}} tag) because not all of these tags are about attribution as much as they are about clarification. Sometime clarification can be a citation and other times it can be a simple wording change. See my comments below. 66.102.198.108 (talk) 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
In this issue I think to some reasonable degree a variety of tags is highly desirable. It helps the challenged editor to understand exactly what fact is being challenged. It also is a friendly way of asking for clarification versus citation.
A good example is the common use of the weasel word "recently" in an article ... while {{Attribution needed}} -- or better, the simple {{Fact}} tag -- might be technically correct, the tag {{When}} is vastly more helpful in this case.
An attribution request might also be incorrect as an article can actually have a valid citation in place but the wording may be the only issue. Helpful tags like {{Where}} & {{When}} may help to cleanup articles when a fact challenge is not really appropriate.
Another reason tag variety is valuable is that {{Who}} (requesting id of a person mentioned in the article) is not the same as {{Whom}} ((requesting clarification of a vague source)). Likewise {{Which?}} is a variety of {{Who}} but is more appropriate when the requesting id for an entity which is not a person. Just as we seek precision in the article wording, we should seek precision in the clarification requests that we tag articles with.
Finally one last note. Some tags are basically a variety of aliases to help editors not have to remember exact tag naming. An example of this would be {{Who says}} and {{Says who}}. Making an editors life easy is no more offensive than having WP:AGF as an alias for the many keystrokes of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith.
In summary, I would strongly oppose any effort to eliminate such helpful tags. 66.102.198.108 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I note your (later) second comment further above, and I agree that {{Fact}}, {{Citation needed}} and suchlike are helpful in general. In no way do I deprecate them; they are helpful when a plain statement of fact lacks attribution. However, the focus of the section in question is more subtle: phrases that imply there already is attribution. To quote the guideline, these "present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint". It seems to me that we are in fact saying the same thing. The example you provide sums up my exact point: " while {{Attribution needed}} -- or better, the simple {{Fact}} tag -- might be technically correct, the tag {{When}} is vastly more helpful in this case.". PL290 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Words like "recently" are addressed in the section Relative time references, rather than the present section under discussion. However, I thought that the template {{When}} that was brought up here would be a good addition to that other section so I added it in a footnote in that section, like the footnote in the section Unsupported attributions that is presently under discussion here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that {{Attribution needed}} is not a general tag. Here is an excerpt from the page that describes it.

To identify when perspectives and opinions in Wikipedia are asserted without stating whose they are, an [attribution needed] flag may be inserted.

Example 1:   Many people say that Earth is flat like a pancake.[attribution needed]
Example 2:   Earth is "flat like a pancake".[attribution needed]

And this comment on the template's talk page may further elucidate that it isn't a general tag.

Also, the phrase "attribution needed" seems to fit in well with the title of the section and the use of the word "attributed" in the text of the section. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • General tags have their place. When you have an article that's chock full of weasel wording it's much more aesthetically pleasing to have just one general {{Weasel}} maintenance tag rather than muck up the page with a slew of inline tags. -- œ™ 03:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps there is some misunderstanding regarding what I meant by "general tag". In the previous discussion it was mistakenly thought that {{Attribution needed}} applies to more situations than it does. It is not a general tag like {{Citation needed}}, but is more like the other tags mentioned footnote 3 as being not general. Please see my previous message regarding this.
Nevertheless I agree with œ that "When you have an article that's chock full of weasel wording it's much more aesthetically pleasing to have just one general {{Weasel}} maintenance tag rather than muck up the page with a slew of inline tags." --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What's happened to this?

I can't find any discussion of this. It was removed by someone now effectively banned from such discussions because they couldn't avoid pov editing. Our NPOV article assumes there is a discussion here, see WP:RNPOV.

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.

Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My initial reaction is that we don't need to deal with legendary. Our Puffery section covers its most likely inappropriate use. The idea that the different meanings of the word are "easily confused" in most contexts is simply implausible. I'm sure our readers can tell the difference between fictitious and real people within the framework of almost all articles.
On the other hand, it might be worth adding myth to our Contentious labels section.—DCGeist (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope that's a joke. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope that's a joke.—DocKino (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
My initial reaction was, "hmm, a lot of verbiage here, specific to two words: contrasts sharply with the nicely focused and principle-led form this guide has now assumed." My considered reaction is to agree with DCGeist's initial thoughts: legendary needs no mention, but myth could be a contentious label, where beliefs are cited that are not shared by the writer. PL290 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Please stop confounding "legends" and "myths". Also try not to confound literal use and metaphorical use

A legend is a written tradition, typically of medieval origin, typically adding non-historical, fanciful detail to persons or events that are actually historical (typically saints).

A myth is not a written text but a basic archetypal storyline (set of mythemes) that can be extant in lots of different written and oral versions (one myth, many variant texts). Thus, the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 is not itself a "creation myth", it is a specific account (in this special case, the only surviving) of an Iron Age Hebrew creation myth. Compare the Rigveda. You cannot say that "the Rigveda is a myth". The Rigveda is a collection of hymns, and many of these hymns contain references to a single myth, the slaying of the dragon by Indra. This is only a single myth, even if it is attested in dozens of phrasings in dozens of Rigvedic hymns.

There is a considerable difference. A "myth" is never "written". What is written is invariably one specific account of a certain myth. A myth necessarily does have a sacred connotation, and originates in religious ritual (more precisely, the two co-originate). You cannot just make up a myth without a religious tradition attached to it.

The expression "legendary person" is highly dubious (except in figurative use). A person may be the subject of legends, and the events told about that person can be legendary, but the person itself (typically a saint) is not "legendary".

I really wish that people who take it upon themselves to argue at any lengths about the use of these terms make sure they have an accurate and detailed understanding of the terms.

An explanation of these things in any detail doesn't actually belong in the MOS, and would be more at home in detailed wiktionary entries. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your attempt to restrict the definition of these terms simply ignores how they are often used in the English language. Please take a look at a good dictionary to learn more.—DCGeist (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
User:Dbachmann, per WP:INDENT it's difficult to know what you're responding to when you say 'Please stop confounding "legends" and "myths".'—the original poster? one of the responding editors? or perhaps the body of text copied in by the original poster? Perhaps you could enlighten us. PL290 (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where any of this is going, but "myths" can be fictional or real. Nearly everything historical has been compressed to a "myth" at one time or another. There is the myth of Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, blah blah (who spoke in a squeaky voice and who bored a crowd with the Gettysburg address which sounded much better on paper), the myth of the American role (or Allies) in WWII, nevermind the war crimes committed by the Allies: murder of surrendering soldiers, rapes, etc. The Myth of the Kennedy "Camelot."
Basically, we either don't have 'all the facts from history, or if we do, cannot possibly give them all or understand them all. Therefore nearly everything is a "myth" because it omits so much of the (elusive) truth. The Creation Myth has to be a myth, cause none of us were there, nor the now-ubiquitous Evening News, nor could we understand it all if we were there, nor does it have "today's" perspective, whatever that is. Most of Genesis is (sorry) a myth. Compressed. If people want to think it is because it is "false", that is rather, their decision. But myths are not automatically false any more than they are automatically true.
Not sure I can assign this to any story myself one way or another. Except on the talk page!  :) Student7 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has lost any sign of direction. Nevertheless: It seems to me that the word "myth", in any sense, is used to show disapproval and the opinion that such a story is false. In some cases, it might be necessary to use a similar term to describe, for example, the Founding of Rome; this wording to communicate that the account is unreliable, false, or in some other respect fanciful.

I'm drawing a blank on what would be acceptable usage of the word. Despite the fanciful nature of that Romulus and Remus story, what alternative explanation do we have for the existence of a city? And even if that alternate explanation is correct (which might be unverifiable), whose to say that many elements of the story did not also happen?

And should we refer to scientific theories that have some origins in religion (such as the Many Worlds theory's relation to Buddhism, or the Big Bang theory's relation to Greek Mythology) "myths"? Or does tacking the word "scientific" to something disqualify it from being a myth?

I personally think we should forgo the use of "myth" in our articles altogether. Simply because "other academic sources use the word" does not seem to be an excuse to me. Why are we inseparably linked to the traditions of some academic societies? -- IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In the article you cite, Greek mythology, even before the end of the first subsection the word myth occurs 21 times in singular or plural form. What do you suggest we do about that article? PL290 (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with IronMaidenRocks that "myth: is used to disparage. Not sure what to do. We can agree on the Romulus myth because no one has an axe to grind.
But probably not on certain bible stories. The writers of the bible were determined to "find" a good reason for tribal names, for example. If they found a tribe named the "Georgians", they would assume that it was because the tribe was founded by "George", personally as patriarch many years before. Maybe even tie him into Abraham, if they seemed Semitic. But it was a myth. There was no way to tell where these people came from or who founded them. The writers of the bible could have been right! But they were only guessing some hundreds of years down the way, with nothing written in between. Student7 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so convinced that tribal names is a good example here. There are, after all, still tribes in Africa where everyone learns their genealogy by heart. A better example is Exodus. The book of Exodus both describes a historical fact (a large tribe called the Israelites migrated from Egypt to Canaan) and provides Jewish commentary and interpretation of that fact. Do we call Exodus myth, even though it has historical content? Do we avoid calling it myth, even though it contains supernatural events? I think you can make the case that Exodus is myth in the jargon sense of the word, but not in the ordinary sense. So the word can be used appropriately, but it's tricky; I think that makes it a good word to watch. Ozob (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

PL290, you're right. "Mythology" is used to describe the study of such stories, and we perhaps have no better way of describing the compilations of some religious stories, as they seldom exist in centralised belief systems and writings.

To the others: Genesis, for example, is commonly understood to be a collection of oral tradition. It would fall under what the OP describes as a "myth". However, it is generally acknowledged that Hebrew writing existed in what is thought to be the time of Moses (c 1510 BC); thus, it is not unlikely that writings held to such a high regard would be transferred from generation to generation by written record. Accounts directly copied from one source could not be labeled "myth" in this sense; it becomes more unlikely that later Bible books could be labeled myth - considering the growing Hebrew literacy and copyist tradition - in that these stories were not transferred orally.

However, I question the logic in suggesting that a story is false, simply because it is old enough for the origin to be unclear. I think it might add undue weight to modern stories that are clearly fanciful, whose origins are know. For example: By the OP's definition, the doctrines and stories of Mormanism might not necessarily be labeled myth, whereas Hindu traditional beliefs could be. Who is to say that one belief system is more or less fanciful than the other - or who is to say one is more or less reliable than the other? But the label - or absence thereof - "myth" in some respect makes a distinction between the two.

This could be a difficult issue to work out. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that it's simple! Our role here is not to debate what is and is not a myth. It is to present what reliable sources say. Therefore:
  • If a WP:RS terms the thing in question a "myth", we use that term too.
  • If a WP:RS does not use the term, we do not use it.
  • If different WP:RSs disagree about the applicability of the term, we represent them, in suitable proportion, per WP:NPOV.
That leaves this particular guideline with nothing to say on the subject. PL290 (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia wants to be academic. I do not see anything wrong with quoting an academic source as saying something is a "myth." The problem that makes the word a pejorative, is when we quote the Evening News or Dan Brown as claiming something is a "myth." Then it falls under non-academic and unusable, for that reason, IMO. PL290 pretty much said this already. Sorry to be redundant.Student7 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the argument has been addressed that calling something a myth gives undue weight to ideas not called myths. My comments about how something which might obviously be a myth to some would never be termed such? It seems odd that a derogatory term can be attached to something simply because the idea is untestable, whereas an idea which can be falsifiable would never be given that derogatory term, simply because of differences in age. Wikipedia wants to be unbiased foremost, and then academic. Which academic system does Wikipedia "want to" replicate? There are many academic systems, categorically differentiated by culture and viewpoint. It seems like the argument is, you slap the word "academic" on something and it becomes correct or unbiased. In actuality, academic systems are biased generally; otherwise there wouldn't be separate academic systems.
Another argument that I'd like to bring out is that calling something "myth" or "legendary" does not stop editors from speaking about such apparently false stories in a tone as if they actually happened. See: Roman_Kingdom#Legendary_kings_of_Rome. I suggest that this voids the idea that calling something a "myth" is a method for indicating that a story is unreliable. Thus, calling something a "myth" has no purpose other than being derogatory. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Home to"

I have been trying replace a phrase that I found lame, "home to" as in "New York is home to JPMorgan" (excuse to repeat "New York" which is most likely in the title). "Home to" usually sounds lame in any event IMO. Are there any other precedents or guidelines for informal language? (BTW the first declamation seems to me better expressed as "JPMorgan is headquatered (t)here" (at worst. Probably a better way). Anyway, no good deed goes unpunished and I have been called on the practice of replacing the phrase. Student7 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism

see /Archive 2#"Terrorist", etc.

During the merge there has been a substantiate changing to the treatment of the use of the word terrorism and the phrase freedom fighter, so I am reinserting the original text and look forward to helping to make any constructive changes to the wording that would help to illuminate the issue, not not alter the meaning. -- PBS (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No way. As before, the material you wish to insert is verbose, repetitive, and wildly disproportionate to the treatment of any other words in this guideline. There is nothing so spectacular about "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" that they require this breadth of coverage. It is already noted that they "can be especially provocative"—the combination of that, the emphasis on wide use in authoritative sources, and the list of possible alternatives is perfectly sufficient.
I will repeat the offer I made before that you choose to completely ignore, benefiting neither yourself nor the guideline. If you can express, in a clear, concise sentence, a significant point concerning "terrorist/freedom fighter" that is currently missing from this guideline that you feel should be added, I'll be happy to work with you toward its inclusion. If you cannot, that is a strong indication that what you want is not appropriate for a viable, comprehensible, focused Wikipedia style guideline page.—DCGeist (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that statements like "no way" helps to build a consensus?

The are several things missing. I suggest that we go through them one at a time and until there is agreement to remove the points that the original text stands unchanged. The original text being the text from the guideline from which this guideline was merged.

  1. which sentence do you think repetitive?
  2. "disproportionate" is no justification for cutting something down so that it does not give guidance, perhaps instead as has been noted by some other editors other sections are too terse.
  3. the word and phrase are not "especially provocative". They are "contentious" and if they are "especially provocative" there is no explanation give as to why the are provocative? What makes them provocative and not "contentious"?

-- PBS (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to build a consensus. There is a consensus. I began my response with "No way" to indicate to you that your slow-motion, but blatant, edit warring over this matter is doomed to failure. If you were willing to work within the parameters of consensus, your input would be welcome; as you have consistently shown that you are not, you can make as much noise as you like, but you will have no effect on the guideline. You keep re-creating the exact problem of Words to avoid that this new guideline was designed to address. Your willful obliviousness to the process that brought us to the style and structure of this new page has grown terminally tiresome.
We are not working from a defunct page, despite your pretenses. We are working from this one. Thus your first two questions are moot. As for the third, it would seem to be clear to everyone but you that in context "especially provocative" is, in practical terms, synonymous with "particularly contentious".
I have offered to work with you on this guideline. You have repeatedly spurned that offer. Very well. I'm done with you, too.—DCGeist (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There clearly is not a consensus for the wording I am attempting to work towards a consensus. If you think it a synonymous -- and I do not -- then presumably you do not object to the use of contentious in place of provocative. Which sentence(s) in my preferred version do you think is repetitive? -- PBS (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Philip, while your dedication to this issue is impressive, I do not like the longer text either. When this topic first came up, I wanted to engage you. But I don't now: I think you are wedded to that particular set of paragraphs, and I don't think you are willing to give on a single letter. You insert the same text, word for word and character for character, over and over. I think you call out, "Process violation!" to protect your preferred text, not to protect Wikipedia. I do not think you want to build consensus. I, too, am done with you. Ozob (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
See this difference I am more than willing to discuss the wording and come to a compromise. But others who are reverting to their preferred versions do not seem willing to do this. Please refresh my memory when did you discuss this issue with me, I would like to reread you comments. -- PBS (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
In all fairness PBS you've been asked several times by several users to engage with them. This has not happened . Gnevin (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe that I am engaging with them. I have replied to all the points made and have been willing to make changes to the text. -- PBS (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If I can offer my opinion, I think the shorter version is better (I don't think we should be laying down special principles for specific words, which the longer version seems to be trying to do), but I would use "contentious" in place of "provocative".--Kotniski (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've made that change.
To see how this process can be productive, PBS, if that's what you're really interested in, simply look below. Blueboar raised a significant point about controversy/controversial that was not covered by our guideline. He added the point in a concise, focused manner. I copyedited for clarity and flow. The result: one additional sentence, one more important point covered, zero conflict or stress.—DCGeist (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Please stop with the personal remarks, and return to the issue at hand. Which sentence(s) in my preferred version do you think is repetitive? You have stated that in general terms several times, but have yet to explain in detail which parts you think are repetitive. -- PBS (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
DCGeist unless you explain in detail which parts you think are repetitive I will reinsert it. -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If you do that, it will be swiftly reverted, as it is clear you have not gathered anything close to a consensus for any additions you have previously proposed. I'm not going to break down for you every single repetition in a months-old proposal that utterly failed, especially when repetitiveness was just one of its problems—verbosity and wildly disproportionate weight were equally serious concerns.
  • If you have a nice, tight, fresh, new proposal you would like to present in this thread for discussion, I'll be happy to offer my evaluation of it on its merits.—DCGeist (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The are not additions they are putting back the text that has been deleted. Your still have not explained which parts you consider to be repetitive. Until you do it is very difficult to know what it is that you object to. Further which bit was verbose. IE says something that is can not be said more precisely? --PBS (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The content and scope of the guideline has been quite stable for three months now. You declare you want to add something to it, concerning "terrorism/terrorist", though I'm sure you are aware that there is no evidence that a substantial number of other people feel the guidance is lacking in this area. I certainly don't believe anything needs to be added on the word, which is already addressed in the Contentious labels section. For unclear reasons, it appears you feel differently. So show us here in Talk exactly what you want to add, so we can evaluate it.—DCGeist (talk) 01:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The are not additions they are putting back the text that has been deleted. There is no evidence that a substantial number of people do not as a substantial number of people were involved in drafting the original wording and less were involved in moving it into this new page. You have still not explained which parts of the wording I wish to reinsert are repetitive. Please do so or we are not going to reach a consensus. -- PBS (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You are beating a long-dead horse. Text on terrorism was not "deleted" from this page. This page was created to replace the poorly written and wildly overgrown Words to avoid page. The substantive points made on that now-deprecated page regarded as significant are echoed on this one, but the poor text of that page was specifically rejected.
It is not clear to me or, I imagine, to any reader of this thread what wording you currently wish to add to Words to watch. Please show us, right here, in your next post.—DCGeist (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
If it is not clear to you what wording I wish to reinsert why did you write above "especially when repetitiveness was just one of its problems—verbosity and wildly disproportionate weight were equally serious concerns"? -- PBS (talk) 06:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
You're going in circles now. Give us something substantive to discuss or move on.—DCGeist (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As you thought we were going around in circles, and as you have not raised any specific objections I have reinstated the text of my preferred version. -- PBS (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism: break

Let's stop talking about each other and more about the text

My idea : Add some where as a generic to the section on Wikipedia:Words_to_watch#Words_that_may_introduce_bias? Also needs a trim

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.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.


The terms "terrorist", and "freedom fighter" are particularly contentious labels because they often carry an implicit viewpoint. Gnevin (talk) 08:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

These rules are overly complicated. One of the reasons why I made the edit [11] was because the right rule to invoke is Wikipedia:Verifiability. WP:V is our full, complete, and total description of when we include citations. The above paragraph introduces a new set of criteria which are not quite the same as WP:V's. I would much rather we point readers to WP:V instead. Ozob (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
That fine , can we add a note saying if a RS uses the term then it's ok to quote it or is this even over kill? Gnevin (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Ozob The problem with the use of the term terrorism (and to a lesser degree freedom fighter) is that it is easy to find multiple sources that accuse someone or some thing of terrorism. The accusation often tells as much about the accusers as it does about the accused. There is a real problem with Wikipedia's systemic bias over this issue because often Wikipeia editors do not even realise that there is a bias in calling someone a terrorist. For example Nelson Mandela had lots of reliable sources calling him a terrorist, but few today would be comfortable in labelling him such. And look at the situation in Northern Ireland, we have in government there people widely vilified as terrorists in lots of reliable sources, yet the Government of the United Kingdom was willing to let a person they had accused of being a terrorist be placed in charge of children's education! (and later to become deputy first minister of the province). It is said that truth is the first victim of war and one of the useful weapons in the arsenal of propaganda is accusations of terrorism. --PBS (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that's an okay rule for quotations. I don't think it's relevant to the other issue you brought up in your paragraph, which is when we can use terrorist ourselves. Using terrorist just because a single reliable source uses it may violate NPOV. The right guide here is, of course, WP:NPOV. While terrorist is a particularly difficult word, I think the same principles apply to it as to any other word. That's why I think we should limit ourselves here to singling out this word (because it is so difficult) and directing editors who have to overcome that difficulty to Wikipedia policy. Ozob (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Guidelines are supposed to give guidance. I don't think that sending someone to read the policy is not helpful if they have come from the policy page seeking guidance on how to interpret policy for specific difficulties. -- PBS (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Longstanding consensus overturned without discussion using a merger as an excuse? I call shenanigans!--Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading the first few paragraphs of these arguments I was no longer capable of understanding clearly, but as far as I know the word "terrorist" and possibly all of its alternative words are either biased in either one direction. It is not too possible for people living in the "antiterror" nations to talk unbiased toward either side, and there really isn't a neutral point of view when it comes to conflicts of the present that involves everyone here talking. There arn't much ways for everyone to agree on what is neutral here, and efforts would be similar to ancient Romans trying to describe barbarians without a bias. I do not really expect this to resolve with everyone satisfied. 66.183.59.211 (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what the problem is here. If a person living in North Korea (a state I don't particularly care for) sets off a bomb that goes off in an area populated by non-combatants, he is a terrorist. His intent is to terrorize the population and thereby destabilize the government. His final intent is irrelevant. His means are terrorism. What is so hard about that? If, however, he manages to attack soldiers (combatants, who are not normally the local police), he then becomes a "guerilla." And not a terrorist, per se.
Having said this, it does become problematical when terrorist deliberately use women and children as shields. Or children use weapons. Both were often done in Iraq. But the forces combating them were targeting the guerrillas, not the women and children who were (sometimes willing) shields. These forces, who were attempting stabilization, not destabilization, were not themselves terrorists, despite sometimes being labeled as suchby people unable to understand the difference. Student7 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"If they are not in wide use by authoritative sources," There are lots of authoritative sources that describe the IRA as terrorists, mainly but not exclusively British ones. The point is just because they are used in authoritative sources it does not make the usage any less biased. -- PBS (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that "authoritative sources" and "bias" are not mutually exclusive, unfortunately for us sometimes. Nor am I capable of labeling the IRA on my own with any degree of confidence. But their intent was to destabilize the democratically elected government. The earlier statement that "Some people have said..." or whatever, seems appropriate. Does that work? Student7 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Without going into details, and without endorsing their POV, the IRA in 1919 and the IRA of 1969 argued that the so called "democratically elected government" was nothing of the sort as it was a "democratically elected government" of an alien occupying state (something many Irish decent in the USA would have agreed with). The wording "Some people have said..." are weasel words. -- PBS (talk) 01:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with parts of the text reinstated by PBS, including specifically: "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." un☯mi 01:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
PBS has rationalized his abrupt and arbitrary decision to include his text on the basis that nobody here raised "specific objections" to it. But I never saw anything to raise objections to, and have been waiting quietly to see what the proposal was. Now that it was rammed into the article without any real discussion, I can see what the problem is: what PBS has in mind is clearly an essay, not a sensible addition to "Words to watch". Where this page treats sprawling categories of problematic words in a terse paragraph or two, laying down clear principles, we have an editor who essentially wants to have an essay about precisely two words: "terrorist" and "freedom fighter", which we already cover in greater detail than most words included here. That's perfectly fine--if it's labeled as an essay. It obviously has no place here. DocKino (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your argument here, the wording that PBS inserted here was lifted verbatim from the previous guideline. I find it quite reasonable that the verbiage could be reduced, but I think that strong guidance on how these words can be used is not inappropriate. un☯mi 02:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
DocKino the text I have reinstated was part of the guideline for a long time what precisely is it that you object to and perhaps we can work towards a compromise. But deleting my edit and criticising it with comments like "rammed into the article" and "clearly an essay" and "not a sensible addition" are not the way to build a consensus. This is a guideline not a policy page as such it is meant to give guidance, in my opinion there is no point making something so terse that it fails to give guidance. Please address the issue that Unomi has raised. --PBS (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
PBS, I'm afraid I don't need to "build a consensus." You do. And instead of attempting to do that, you dumped an outrageously outsized block of text into the page under the flimsy rationale that it had been part of a previous, deprecated page. As you snubbed your nose at any serious consensus-building procedure here, please spare me the lecture. You might consider apologizing, as well.
As for the point Unomi first raised, I see no widely recognized principle embodied in the language Unomi "specifically agrees" with that is not already and more effectively embodied in the section's existing language: "Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Once again, this page was specifically developed to focus more on principles than specific words, as "Words to avoid" did to its detriment and ultimate deprecation. And, once again, we still give "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" more attention than virtually any other words. No more is warranted. Please accept the established consensus on this point. DocKino (talk) 05:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets not kid ourselves here, this page reads like something that was meant for simple.wikipedia.com but didn't make the cut. There seems to be an intentional disconnect between the line that you quote and the line which contains the word terrorist, as I understand that this is in error I will start by correcting that then. un☯mi 05:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

When you say, "Lets [sic] not kid ourselves here, this page reads like something that was meant for simple.wikipedia.com but didn't make the cut", to what exactly are we referring, our highness? Your edit, by the way, managed to be both redundant of the immediately preceding sentence and awkwardly phrased ("in-text attributed"?). That's why I reverted it. DocKino (talk) 06:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Please don't consider being pedantic as a sign of not being simple. The current wording does not explicitly call for the descriptor 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter' to have particular attribution, this needs to be addressed. un☯mi 06:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
User:DocKino you wrote "You might consider apologizing, as well." I was not aware that I had asked anyone to apologising for anyting. But from what you have written does that mean you are apologising or that you are considering apologising? It is never my intention to offend anyone what is it that I have written that you think I need to apologise for?
User:DocKino you wrote "No more [on terrorism] is warranted. Please accept the established consensus on this point." Yet there is no consensus that the wording prior to my insertion has a consensus. For example in this sub-section alone there are three editors who disagree with your assertion. -- PBS (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, enough. The wording prior to your insertion has been stable for almost four months. Your insertion is entirely unnecessary and undermines the whole nature of the page. Shall we have four verbose paragraphs on every single word that vexes a particular editor? I for one think that's a terrible idea. Shall we have special, unjustified dispensation for "terrorist"/"freedom fighter" and throw the whole page out of whack just to satisfy you? That's another terrible idea. Do the words balance and proportion possess any meaning for you? If they do at all, do share your understanding of those words with us, how they apply to this page, and how you can possibly claim that the insertion you so passionately desire doesn't violate them. This should be very educational, for all concerned.—DCGeist (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Back to basics: Words to watch is a top-down, principle-led document. Firstly, it establishes its focus (There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias). Secondly, it devotes a subsection to each of several specific syndromes identified (such as Unsupported attributions, Expressions of doubt), detailing the principles involved in dealing with each. Finally, within each of those subsections it gives examples of words and phrases that need to be watched with regard to the issue addressed by the subsection. In my view this is a highly effective structure, and I would be opposed to content changes that ignore it, such as the addition of an entire Terrorist and freedom fighter subsection, completely alien to this established and desirable structure. I would ask those suggesting its addition to look again at the guideline as a whole, and if they feel any principle lacks coverage that would be brought by that material, to identify that principle here so that we may consider how best to incorporate any change. PL290 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
DCGeist "Oh, enough. The wording prior to your insertion has been stable for almost four months." which insertion? If you mean the most recent one, then are you suggesting that the wording should be changed more often to make it unstable?
PL290, There is no point in highlighting words and not explaining why they are mentioned and how to deal with them.
The problem with the most recent wording is "if they can be shown to be in wide use by authoritative sources". If an in-line attribution to a reliable source is used, then there is no need for the term to be in wide spread use. I think that the wording I put back into the article is a better summary and perhaps a starting point:
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.
How about "Terrorist and freedom fighter can be especially contentious, so they should be used with in-text attribution, otherwise use a more specific term ..." the comma after contentious makes it clear that we are talking about these two phrases specifically, "should" instead of "can" (and "should" is not "must"), and in-text attribution removes the need "multiple sources". -- PBS (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear to me what even the existing "terrorist/freedom fighter" passage adds to the standard guidance:

Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

Are you able to say more precisely how you feel this fails to address the necessary principle? Who says those two terms—of all biased labels—are especially contentious? I think they make good examples for the list, but beyond that, it seems to me the standard guidance suffices. PL290 (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with PL, the standard guidance is clear and effective. And there is certainly no benefit to repeating it in the very same brief paragraph as was recently, bizarrely attempted. DocKino (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The term terrorist has a particular problem because of the Wikipedia:systemic bias in Wikipedia. Many editors do not realise that terrorist is a prerogative word, one only has to look at the very long debates on the talk pages of many articles to do with "terrorists" to see this. This is why the words and phrases need specific handling. The whole reason for having guidelines is so that they sum up the consensus on issues so that we do not have to endlessly debate the same points. I put it to you PL290 that if you have to ask "who says those two terms—of all biased labels—are especially contentious?" you have not been involved in debates about the presentation of information about "terrorists" very often or you would know that it is especially contentious. Basically all this is saying is that calling someone a terrorist or a freedom fighter is expressing an opinion, and as such one should follow the policy in WP:ASF "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
"Basically all this is saying is that calling someone a terrorist or a freedom fighter is expressing an opinion, and as such one should follow the policy". Good. We have reduced the requirement to a clear statement: all that is required is to identify that those terms are opinions. The rest is taken care of by the standard guidance. So there is indeed scope for trimming the current content. I see my previous trimming was reverted: armed as I now am with the necessary requirement, I will trim again, hopefully this time to your satisfaction. PL290 (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Guidance is not just pointing out what is said in policy it is also explaining to those not familiar problems how best to rephrase the words so that can still convey the information without breaching policy. I think you have now removed some useful guidance on how editors can still convey the same information using more neutral wording. -- PBS (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel the point is made adequately. In cases where "terrorist" is not an appropriate label, editors should not make up their own label or choose one from a list, but should follow the sources. PL290 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
words such as hijacker and bomber is a descriptive terms. If one is summarising sources those are quite suitable and for summaries of of reliable sources one does not have to use any specific term used in the sources. Indeed one of the problems with the sources is that the newspapers of the nation under attack may well use the term terrorist when a more neutral term would be used by foreign papers, but the greater detail is in the local newspapers so often they are a good source for the details about the attack even if they are, not unnaturally, biased.
As I asked before but you did not answer, PL290 have you ever been involved in one of the debates on the talk pages of an articles about the use of the term terrorist? -- PBS (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


It is not just individuals to whom the term terrorist is applied for example the RAF has been described as a terrorist organisation. -- PBS (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
They are only examples. I think we can safely assume our editors are capable of making that leap. PL290 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW "Biased labels, particularly when the label is negative" why particularly when the label is negative? A positive label can be just a biased for example calling a traitor a "Patriot". -- PBS (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a point. I propose to boldly remove that clause pending further comment from others. PL290 (talk) 13:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I assume that everyone agrees in principle about the use of terrorist/freedom fighter, some just don't want to include it specifically. Could we vote on inclusion? That might put an end to it.
Also, I would rather see the level of contention toned down a little. I think some of you should review what is written and scratch out a few words and maybe even apolgize. It doesn't have to be here "publically." Just MO.
In lieu of that, maybe you could just argue with each other on each other's discussion pages and the survivor brings back "the answer" here.  :) Student7 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Female circumcision: "euphemism"? "Word to avoid?"

I oppose this edit. Sources that state the phrase "female circumcision" is a euphemism are numerous, but have a common goal: the dissociation of male and female circumcision[12] as concepts that can ever be compared or related in any way. They are not linguistic sources; they are sources discussing strategies to diminish the practice. In any case, if this is made a "word to avoid" across Wikipedia, we are essentially banning about (and at least) 7000 reliable sources.[13] Blackworm (talk) 05:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that this page is called "Words to watch", not "Words to avoid"? Do you understand that the guidance here is not designed to and cannot "ban" a single thing, let alone a "source"?!
As for the term itself, I can certainly see how it might be used properly in certain contexts, such as a direct analysis of surgical procedures. On the other hand, it is very clear that "female circumcision" is widely used as a euphemism, substituting for "female genital cutting"/"female genital mutilation". That is precisely the sort of euphemistic usage we guide against, and the term very much qualifies as a "word to watch". DocKino (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I did notice, but only after I had commented; and this is a recent change -- indeed WP:AVOID still redirects here. This guidance is indeed used as justification to remove uses of certain terminology. The list of "euphemisms" is not a place for editors wishing to ban terminology used in reliable sources to add their disliked phrases, or phrases disliked by those on one side of an issue.
Re: your "euphemism" claim, it is not "very clear" at all, especially since the concept of the circumcision of females pre-dates the other phrases you claim it replaced (see below), and also in some contexts is not synonymous with the other phrases you mention (see sense 1 of this simple definition). There are at least 7000 reliable scholarly sources using this terminology; and you haven't shown why must we adopt different usage than these sources, even when citing those very sources. One source states that it is used as a euphemism, but still chooses to use it because of stronger objections to other terms -- and they also state that there exist forms of female circumcision that are analogous to male circumcision.[14]
Sources for use of "female circumcision" long ago, and I claim "female genital mutilation" and "female genital cutting" to be the relative neologisms:
  • "Circumcision is also practis'd on Women, by cutting off the Fore-skin of the Clitoris; which bears a near resemblance, and analogy to the Praeputium of the Male Penis." Cyclopeaedia, 1728. Circumcision[15]
  • "Most probably, however, circumcision (which in many tribes is performed on both sexes) was connected with marriage, and was a preparation for connubium." Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 1911. Circumcision[16]
  • A 1910 Journal of the American Medical Association article: "Rapid bloodless circumcision of male and female and its technic."[17] Clearly, very clearly, not used euphemistically to substitute something "that may offend or suggest something unpleasant."[18]
And then, leading up to 2010, there are the thousands of modern sources still using the term with no apparent euphemistic intent. I claim that the inclusion of "female circumcision" in this list fails WP:NPOV as a result of it implying that the usage of the word "circumcision" as referenced in many reliable sources including tertiary sources is somehow incorrect, improper, to be "watched," or avoided, when that point of view is but one view. Blackworm (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Clearly the word can be used both euphemistically and otherwise; there appears to be no disagreement over that. Equally clearly, therefore, we should watch our use of the word and avoid using it euphemistically, since to do so would not be encyclopedic. Unlike the other examples in the list, though, this one admits of both euphemistic and literal usage, and for this reason, although I think it's okay as an example, I would stop short of "excellent" myself and could go either way about its retention. The IP edit that attempted to remove it gave the reason as "not really euphemistic", which missed the point.PL290 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The naming of female circumcision isn't an example of euphemism for anything. As has been pointed out on the article's discussion page, the term predates "genital cutting" which didn't exist before the mid 1980s and "genital mutilation", which was rare and might have all sorts of more general meanings[19], apart from this small range of surgical procedures. If a very broad term is to be preferred because one side believes it's the only non-euphemistic one, there are all sorts of other examples that some people might want to add: (don't say waterboarding, say torture; don't say counterterrorism, say warfare; don't say "those opposed to abortion", say pro-life). I really don't think this page should be taking a view on such things. Can't we just leave the unequivocal euphemism and avoid the anthropological controversy? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The fact that one term predates another has no relevance if it subsequently becomes adopted as a euphemism for the latter. As pointed out by others above, googling such things as "female circumcision euphemism" produces results supporting the fact that the term is indeed widely regarded as having a euphemistic usage. This page should not, as you say, take a view on such things—or on anything—and nor is anyone suggesting it should, as far as I am aware. PL290 (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Trawling Google will tend to bring up results for all sorts of opinion. However there is a lack of examples that are clearly euphemistic because there's no such thing as a separate non-euphemistic use of "female circumcision". There's no distinction between euphemistic and literal usage, unless people writing before the 1980s and people writing in medical text books aren't being euphemistic and everyone else is. I don't really see how people can "take care" when using this term and I don't think it's as helpful here as the other examples. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
(1) The term is presently regarded as euphemistic to describe the removal of the clitoris, the effects of which go far beyond the removal of the foreskin. The term is arguably simply incorrect, per some dictionaries, and similarly euphemistic when it is used to describe the removal of both the clitoris and labia. If such procedures were normative, we wouldn't be referring to female circumcision at all, would we? It would just be circumcision.
(2) The term is used blatantly incorrectly and often for euphemistic reasons for acts of female genital cutting, such as infibulation, that go beyond even those described above.
(3) The World Health Organization refers to female genital mutilation for all of the above.
This is a word to watch. As with many such words, you are always on safest ground when you simply describe precisely what occurred in a given case.—DCGeist (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Female circumcision is only considered a "euphemism" by some, and not by others, e.g. see this. The WTW examples must be non-controversial, since by calling a specific example "euphemism", we are taking a stand on that issue. Crum375 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) You have linked us to one 11-year-old book. There are dozens of books published in the last few years that identify "female circumcision" as a euphemism. International health organizations presently concur.
(2) Euphemisms by definition treat of controversial matters. It seems clear that a preponderance of high-quality sources presently regard female circumcision as a euphemism. At Wikipedia, we avoid euphemisms. Once again, simply describe as precisely as you can what occurred in a given case. The term female circumcision, as detailed above, is very imprecise and widely regarded as euphemistic.—DCGeist (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Do not edit war over this, as you appear on the edge of doing, Crum375. The term has been there for over a month without controversy on this heavily watched page. In the past 10 hours, there has been a push to remove it, which is disputed. It stays unless and until there is a consensus to remove it. Clear?—DCGeist (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is you who seems to be edit warring over this, as the history clearly shows. As I noted above, we may not use as example for euphemism something which is controversial, since it would mean we as Wikipedia are taking a stand, and telling editors Wikipedia has an opinion about a controversial matter. Examples should consist of items which are non controversial. Crum375 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(to DCGeist) (1) You're talking about medical sources. This is really a matter of semantics; a medical qualification does not necessarilly qualify someone to say whether something is a euphemism or not.
(2) All forms of female genital cutting are described as female circumcision. The attempt to classify the various procedures into euphemistic and non-euphemistic categories is original research.
(3)The term is an extremely poor choice for the "Expressions that lack precision" section, given that the common alternative "genital mutilation" is even less precise, potentially applying to all sorts of criminal actions and medical procedures like hysterectomies. The other listed examples like "pass away" are phrases that should nearly always be avoided. This is a phrase that is ubiquitous on Wikipedia.
(4) The other listed examples are all either true euphemisms, i.e. gratuitous understatement ("make love"), or else circumlocution. "Female circumcision" is neither of these things; it is one of several terms used in many contexts without any attempt at framing. The sources that object to the phrase mean something rather different when they define something as "euphemism"; they are generally unhappy that the phrase is not sufficiently emotive ("this phrase trivialises the severe and often irreparable physical and psychological damage"). That's not really an important consideration for an editor and risks introducing all sorts of POVs and it's not what this section is about. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. since you've accused someone else of edit warring, can I refer you to Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" and also point out that you are already in breach of the three revert rule. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Section Break

I have reverted the persistent edit again. As DCGeist is in clear violation of the three-revert rule, I am asking for admin. intervention here. If the attempt is made yet again, I would be an advocate for a temporary block. CycloneGU (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Looks like the user was blocked. CycloneGU (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I had disagreed with the inclusion of the word originally, but now see the point. It is a euphemism because it isn't rally akin to circumcision for males which leaves all function intact. Someone used the word clitoridectomy which is the correct word to use instead of the euphemism. And the name of the article, too BTW. Student7 (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Clitoridectomy, like genital mutilation, has a much broader meaning and is usually applied to medical procedures. There are separate articles: Female genital cutting and Clitoridectomy. Also female circumcision refers to a variety of procedures that do not always involve removal of the clitoris. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Your last observation simply adds to the considerable evidence already provided that the term is too imprecise for many Wikipedia contexts. And none of your arguments refute the simple fact that the term is widely regarded as euphemistic by the sort of sources we rely on as a matter of policy. The fact that it may be used in a non-euphemistic fashion is instructive but immaterial. This is not a list of banned words, but a list of words to watch. It clearly falls into that category. DocKino (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it's called a euphemism by non-neutral sources that wish to discourage the practice. By the way, you've just restored the term while the discussion is ongoing. There's no formal definition of consensus but I count six opposed and two in favour. Also, even if you believe it's a good example, you surely can't claim that the quality of the article would be harmed by its omission? I suspect the six people who are opposed do believe that. Can't we find an example that has consensus to replace it? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been reverted again by DCGeist. I oppose that change. Blackworm (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "change", understand? It is the established status quo. The proposed "change" is to remove it--the attempt first happened here, just two-and-a-half days ago. That change is well disputed. There is certainly no consensus for removal. Status quo is maintained unless and until consensus changes. According to our policy and custom, it's really quite simple, you know.—DCGeist (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I think official policies and guidelines need a bit more time than a month for subtle WP:NPOV issues to be addressed. There's clearly enough concern expressed here to merit a closer look, and perhaps wider involvement. "Thus, 'according to consensus' and 'violates consensus' are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions."WP:CCC But you do have a point that the edit has been challenged late, assuming many editors noticed the change and consented with their silence. I don't think that necessarily the case, but then now that it's being discussed here, that seems moot, as these same editors presumably would have commented in your support. At least one editor has, and that's to be noted.
Re: your arguments opposing the change to remove it: in your post of 12:56, 21 August 2010, re: (1) It is regarded by some as euphemistic, but that doesn't mean anyone using it anywhere is using it euphemistically, or that the sources using it should have the language they chose to use obscured due to some activists (not linguists) who believe it is a euphemism. Re: (2) "blatantly incorrectly" please cite examples along with supporting sources asserting its incorrect use. (3) Almost correct. The WHO refers to it as "female genital mutilation" when speaking to a Western audience as part of its anti-FGM campaign. It openly acknowledges that it chooses different terminology ("female genital cutting") when referring to it to the cultures who practice it. That supports my point about this issue being one of advocacy, and not a dispute where the linguistic (and relevant) sources are being followed. I agree that we should best describe precisely what occured in a given case.
Re: your post of 14:29, 21 August 2010, Re: (1), please cite 24+ books and 2+ international health organizations that identify "female circumcision" is a euphemism or redact your statement. Even if true, all that would show is that 24+ books and 2+ organizations advocate against female circumcision, which is beside the point. (2) I agree, this is a controversial matter, not one where Wikipedia should have a "consensus" that the terminology is somehow flawed and to be avoided in most cases (which is that "words to watch" amounts to no matter how you wish to portray it). No, it is far from clear that "a preponderance of high-quality sources presently regard female circumcision as a euphemism," as evidenced from the thousands of academic sources (who do not typically relate their subjects of expertise in euphemism) using the terminology, as well as the tertiary sources that have entries using the exact language of the terminology.
Your comment about "female circumcision" being "imprecise" is utterly amazing considering the term apparently favoured and used here as a replacement includes a wider set of procedures! If you don't believe me, please see female genital mutilation. This topic is awash with imprecision, and we should attempt to be as precise as possible. The dispute here is also part of a wider dispute involving the organization of circumcision-related articles in Wikipedia, as one can go view currently in Talk:Circumcision, and I view this month-old edit as spreading the dispute beyond its current bounds, inappropriately considering no consensus exists on the issue anywhere. Blackworm (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot to grapple with there, and I'm not sure how relevant or productive much of it is. For instance, Would you change your position and agree with mine if I actually "cite 24+ books and 2+ international health organizations that identify 'female circumcision' is [sic] a euphemism"? If you would do a Google Book Search, you would know not only that I could easily do it—though it would be most laborious—but that I could do it two or three times over. If you sincerely would change your position, then I most certainly will deliver the specific cites. But if it's "beside the point", then why raise it at all? Seriously.
All that aside, I completely agree with a point you make near the end: "This topic is awash with imprecision, and we should attempt to be as precise as possible." Yes. Exactly. I don't particularly favor the use of female genital mutilation—which is inarguably imprecise surgically, though it is much more connotatively accurate than female circumcision in most cases. I brought it up as one among several pieces of evidence that the term female circumcision is now generally regarded as euphemistic by authoritative sources. (The comparison to suicide bombing vs. the silly, swiftly deprecated homicide bombing made by our anon is tendentious in the extreme. Bomb that strawman. For shame.) Per our encyclopedic ethic in general and the spirit of Words to watch specifically, I advocate no more or less than being as precise as possible.—DCGeist (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you expand on the phrase "connotatively accurate?" Is it connoting the wrong thing? If it connotes something other than what is said, why is it used in so many sources, including very recent sources? How, exactly, and based on what policy do you justify replacing the terminology used in reliable sources by terminology used by advocates on one side of a controversial issue? Blackworm (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question, no, I wouldn't, although I would still be surprised. Google searches often don't show what people using them want to show. But even dozens of books asserting an opinion along with favoured terminology doesn't create a template for Wikipedia, especially when plenty of other sources seem to continue to use the phrase opposed by these male circumcision advocates and female circumcision opponents. Blackworm (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing"

Another phrase that perhaps seems out of place in that list is ethnic cleansing. It is a euphemism for us to avoid, or a phrase used in reliable sources[20], sometimes euphemistically, and sometimes as a means to identify activities that encompass things beyond genocide? Compare the two meanings given; they don't seem quite the same thing, and I can reasonably imagine a source not wanting to make a disputed claim of "genocide" saying "ethnic cleansing" with more validity, or reporting on others' similar claims. I feel less strongly about this one, but it seems part of the same slippery slope toward avoiding language used in sources based on a POV. Blackworm (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The female circumcision example was bad. It was an attempt to transform the politicised vocabulary of a well-intentioned political lobby into Wikipedia house style. Like the brief period in the early 2000s when parts of the media started to replace suicide bombing with homicide bombing. I suppose "ethnic cleansing, unlike "female circumcision", really does have euphemistic and non-euphemistic meanings and could be a word to watch. I once believed that "ethnic cleansing" was simply a euphemism for genocide or holocaust. Now it seems to be as common when there's no genocide but there are enforced migrations, property seizures etc. I've no strong preference but my instinct would be to remove it because others like "passed away" are clearly incongruous and inappropriate and this one rather weakens the point. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Calling it well-intentioned hinges on whether you believe that group, which asserts that bodily integrity rights for girls exist such that any non-medically necessary pain inflicted on female genitals (including that which does no cutting) should be viewed as a violation of a fundamental human right, but then turning around and arguing that males simply do not have that right or any similar right, and further that efforts should be made to change the language so no one can even think of comparing them? That's a strange definition of "well-intentioned" to me but I'll admit I may be in the minority in supporting equal rights between the genders at Wikipedia. Blackworm (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of going of topic, I just mean that those who support such politically motivated changes in vocabulary believe they are doing them for good reasons. As you say, it is debatable whether they're right or not. Personally, I don't like it when organisations, whether human rights groups or Starbucks, try to change my vocabulary and make me use their preferred words. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In more general terms, this is a style guideline, not a place to advance points of view, politically correct or otherwise. As noted above, just because a "Word to Watch" is listed here does not mean that it can never be used. Similarly "Words to Watch" (this page) is not a comprehensive list of all words to watch: instead it supplies indicative examples. These examples should be chosen carefully. Geometry guy 00:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just clarifying my previous comments in two sentences. I appreciate it's not what these pages are for and I'm sorry if it's caused irritation. I think I've explained my views on these choices clearly: "female circumcision" is a poor example because it is not an "expression that lacks precision", nor is it a euphemism; "ethnic cleansing" may be a word to watch but I'm not sure it's a euphemism, at least in it's common modern use. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems a bit Animal Farm-ish. "Four legs good." Male circumcision is a rite of one religion and/or a medical procedure at worst. Female circumcision was intended call the world's attention to a bad situation with a euphemistic label that could imply "goodness." While the euphemism can be employed, like "ethnic cleansing," it might not be used that way in all situations. I think that was the original idea of including it in a list of words to be careful of. But if we must use the pc word, I guess we must and there is no help for it. Wikipedia tolerates articles on Venezuela which are re-written to say what a wonderful place it is and how happy the people are there, and how great its leader is. I can put up with that, why not one tiny euphemism? Student7 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree that inaccurate PC language that appears to sympathise with an ideaology is unavoidable. However it's one thing to have a few biased articles (and I agree there are several that might have been written by the Venezuelan Information Ministry) and quite another to encourage bias a matter of policy. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
One very disturbing term I just changed at Robert Ritter was "practical measures" to refer to genocide. There are people who want to mask genocide with wordplay. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 05:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that it would take an essay to explain when and how "female circumcision" is a euphemism, so it is not a good exemplar for a style guideline. In this respect "ethnic cleansing" is better as it has a clear euphemistic usage to mean "genocide", as well as less euphemistic usages (which amount to extreme racism). "Collateral damage" is similar, in that it can refer to infrastructure destruction or civilian casualties. We probably need a sentence to explain that some usages are more euphemistic than others. Geometry guy 10:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree on your first point. What is a euphemism, after all? A euphemism is "an agreeable or inoffensive expression substituted for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant." It is more than clear that in almost any conceivable context on Wikipedia, "female circumcision" would be used a substitute for a more precise term or description that would convey something far more unpleasant (and might as well offend those readily offended by unexpurgated description of certain body parts and what is done to them). DocKino (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that that is clear. What is the more precise term that it is substituted for? Surely "genital mutilation" and "genital cutting" are far less precise and cliterodectomy is even inaccurate? --188.221.105.68 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Parsing one phrase: "ethnic" is "good; "cleansing" is "good." Therefore "ethnic cleansing" is....? I suspect that is what makes it a euphemism. It sounds on its face to be harmless unless you already know the underlying meaning. The same with "female" = "good"; "circumcision" = "good or at least non-threatening", therefore "female circumcision" is...? A naive person would tend to draw the wrong conclusion. "They" had to invent these euphemisms originally to talk about the situation at all. Before that, the topic could not be raised by anyone as a problem. Student7 (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really follow the reasoning. Female is a neutral word without a positive or a negative meaning, unlike like "cleansing", which has clear ameliorative connotations. You might as well say "shop" = "good"; "lifting" = "good or at least non-threatening" therefore... "shoplifting" is? I don't really mind "ethnic cleansing" being on the list; just don't think it's very good. When there are so many better candidates, why do we need poor or controversial examples? Why isn't issue on the list, for example. That's a terribly overused euphemism (1 2). --188.221.105.68 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the approach Geometry Guy took in his recent edit: [21]. I've edited to differentiate collateral damage, whose primary, predominant, and almost certainly original meaning is euphemistic.—DCGeist (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Collateral damage, in war, is civilian casualties plus damage to property and infrastructure of value to the attacker. More generally, it is negative consequences for actions that are accepted as the cost of the positive consequences of the actions. It's not a euphemism for civilian casualities. Please take a look at the first page of of the 150,000+ results looking for "collateral damage"[22] among scholarly sources. Are any of them even talking about civilian casualties? Just because a term is sometimes used euphemistically does not make that term one to be avoided. With a bit of sensitivity to the context any issues with using these terms seem easily resolved. We don't need a list of terms that are used euphemistically in limited or disputed contexts. Blackworm (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

What is "ethnic cleansing" an euphemism for? If it is an euphemism then how do you explain its use in the ICJ judgement in the Bosnian Genocide Case. See the ECHR selective quotation from the ICJ ruling in Analysis of that article. More accurate would be to say "nor ethnic cleansing for genocide or genocide for ethnic cleansing" -- PBS (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Using "ethnic cleansing" to mean "genocide" is euphemistic; using "genocide" to mean "ethnic cleansing" is not, although it could be contentious for other reasons. Euphemisms generally operate in one direction. Geometry guy 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive_2&oldid=1140183728"