Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Watergate changed to Contragate

I assume this is clearly the correct thing to do, but in case someone doesn't get it. "Watergate" is not an example of the "-gate" suffix being used to label a scandal. It's the original name of the scandal itself, and its notoriety led to "-gate" becoming the suffix it is today.

As such, it is impossible for "Watergate" to be used as an example of a case where widespread usage has eliminated the contentiousness of referring to what happened as a "scandal". "Contragate" seems to be the best known scandal with a genuine "-gate" suffix. Choor monster (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's both the name of a building and the name of a scandal that occurred in that building. It's the only appropriate example here, because it's the only X-gate that's undeniably the name of a scandal and in wide use. You seem to be bothered that "-gate" isn't a suffix in "Watergate" because it's not a lexical unit as it is in e.g. "Contragate." That's not a problem for a number of reasons. One, it can be seen as a back-formation so that it is actually a suffix in Watergate. Two, it's irrelevant whether "-gate" is a suffix in "Watergate." The example gets the point across so people won't do the bad thing. "Contragate" is arguably but not definitively a good example here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Watergate is definitively not an example. Granted your linguistic reinterpretation, perhaps one that younger readers might take for granted, it is still a historical falsity, and as such, "Watergate" would at best be a very poor example. The history is quite relevant, because the point supposed to be made by the example is lost simply because "Watergate" was born as the neutral name for the scandal. No one in his right mind could ever think there's something perhaps loaded about using "Watergate" that NPOV demands we avoid.

In other words, I'm not really bothered by the technicality that this "-gate" is not a suffix—I'm quite open to professional linguists making the call either way. I am bothered by the fact that it can never really be interpreted as cryptic POV-pushing, rendering the admonition moot. In contrast, we want readers to know that "Contragate" can be permitted because the fact that it's a scandal is quite neutral. "Watergate" does not need MOS permission, so to speak.

The relevant article is titled Iran–Contra affair, and while I'm here I'm wondering, why the n-dash instead of a hyphen, and isn't "affair" a weasel word here? It's possible the title is some kind of RS consensus, but as the article makes clear, it most definitely was a scandal. So far as this discussion goes, the point we would be making (if the name "Contragate" is our example) is that it is not excluded as POV-pushing, and it can certainly be used in passing in other articles (as it is), but the choice is made on other criteria. Choor monster (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The history of the word is irrelevant to its meaning as history has no place in semantics. As of now in reality, "Watergate" is the only uncontroversial example of a scandal ending in "-gate." Maybe we would be better off more strongly discouraging the unattributed use of the construction entirely except for the case of Watergate? E.g. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt. --> Use these in articles only with in-text attribution except in reference to Watergate. That might solve all our problems at once?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The history is extremely relevant to those of us who remember the relevant history. My understanding of "Watergate", both the word and the event, is strongly based on my memory of the scandal as it unfolded, and probably has a lot of non-overlap to those whom it is simply some oddball minor section in their high school history book, or to non-Americans who think of it as the answer to a trivia question about the etymology of the "-gate" suffix.

Where the word will end up a fifty to a hundred years from now, I have no idea. Your vision that its history will be erased from its meaning is probably correct. But we're not talking about the future. We're talking about today.

Moreover, we don't rely on zero-controversy, but on reliably-sourced-lack-of-controversy. The editors of Iran–Contra affair have apparently not had a controversy about whether it was a scandal or not, so by WP standards, it was a scandal. Besides, Watergate itself is not so 100% free of controversy as you imply. For what it's worth, I'm a fan of Silent Coup.

Your suggestion that perhaps we can agree to ban "-gate" on Wikipedia except for "Watergate" is ridiculous. The point here is to warn editors that certain words, phrases, and the like could involve cryptic POV-pushing, and we don't do that.

The only acceptable examples are events that clearly concern something that does look like POV-pushing—perhaps indeed something that was such when first used—but which widespread usage have normalized as a standard name. "Watergate" fails this, "Contragate" does not. Moreover, it should be as famous as possible. Debategate fails this. Choor monster (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I remember the history perfectly well, having been glued to the TV pretty much 24/7 for much of 1974 watching it unfold. The word has already ended up where I claim it has. I didn't just make that up, I looked it up in the dictionary, which (OED) says: Used attrib. and absol. with reference to the burglary of the Watergate building in 1972 and the circumstances leading to the resignation of President R. M. Nixon in 1974. Also transf., denoting a political or commercial scandal on a large scale. We're talking about the "Also transf." part of the definition. The "-gate" combined form means A terminal element denoting an actual or alleged scandal (and usually an attempted cover-up), in some way comparable with the Watergate scandal of 1972. Obviously the Watergate scandal of 1972 is in some way comparable with the Watergate scandal of 1972, is it not? Anyway, according to the dictionary, Watergate is an example "which widespread usage [has] normalized as a standard name." So why not use it? It's the most clear example, and the only one which doesn't require sourcing to show that it's in widespread use. Perhaps our situation here is analogous to that in WP:FLAT, where, rather than changing a super-clear metaphor all around in order to conform to historical accuracy, editors added a note explaining that even though some of the claims in the essay were historically inaccurate the essay makes its point more clearly by ignoring this fact: Wikipedia:FLAT#Historical_note.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You say Anyway, according to the dictionary, Watergate is an example "which widespread usage [has] normalized as a standard name." Huh??? The dictionary does not say this whatsoever. "Watergate" was the standard name from the beginning, and the dictionary has no choice but to list this exact word, and anyone writing about the topic on Wikipedia has no choice but to use this exact word. POV-pushing would be something like "Son of Checkers", which they allow on the Triki Diki Wiki, but not here. The dictionary does not say or imply that there was some other "neutral" name that got edged out by the loaded term "Watergate" which today nobody thinks of as POV-pushing. It wasn't "normalized" because it was never "abnormal" usage in the first place.

Really, I have absolutely no idea of what argument you are trying to make anymore. For someone who begins the argument with a rude "Polysemy, how does that work?" to end up with Ayn Rand style "A is A" babbling, well, you've lost me. As it is, your initial claim of polysemy regarding "Watergate" was frankly a confession that it's a bad example: we don't want ambiguity in our advice.

You then ask: So why not use it? Because it is not an example of what the MOS point is here: a term that looks like POV-pushing but isn't. "Watergate" doesn't look like POV-pushing. You go on: It's the most clear example, and the only one which doesn't require sourcing to show that it's in widespread use. Except it doesn't illustrate the point here whatsoever. I looked at it earlier today, and did a double-take, a great big "huh???"

We can get away with WP:FLAT's simplifications because the false claim and the corrected claim are both very very well-known. That is, the false history is its own well-established meme and stands on its own. If there was a WP essay based on George Washington chopping down that cherry tree, or le mot de Cambronne, sure! But it is not "well-known" that Watergate is a possibly biased choice of a name for the scandal that forced Nixon to resign, so the comparison is pointless. Choor monster (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the argument I'm trying to make: the MOS currently says "The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt." I think "Watergate" is an example of this. You don't. The only possible objection I can see is that "-gate" is not a suffix in "Watergate" but you say that's not your problem with it. According to the dictionary, "-gate" means A terminal element denoting an actual or alleged scandal (and usually an attempted cover-up), in some way comparable with the Watergate scandal of 1972. How in the world is Watergate not an example of this? As a side note, maybe we should change the word "suffix" on the page, because "-gate" isn't exactly a suffix in all uses of the term, e.g. "Watergate."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

My objection is primarily nobody would ever think of "asking permission" to call the scandal "Watergate" on WP, because "Watergate" is the holotype "-gate". And not just the holotype, but more importantly, everyone knows this fact (or at least, is supposed to know this). This MOS section is about when to allow "-gate". Using words/phrases constructed from the suffix could be contentious, and the permit comes about if usage has decided the issue. In contrast, using words/phrases born with the suffix cannot be contentious, and don't need permission. Using the second kind of word is not sending the intended first-kind-of-word message. (Genuine suffix or doppelgänger: interesting, maybe, but a distraction.)

For example, would there be a question about a contemporary politician named "Woodgate" getting into hot water, and the resulting issue, not clearly a scandal, gets named "Woodgate"? Of course not! Calling it "Woodgategate" would be contentious. I'm saying the same applies to "Watergate".

Referring to current issues, the point of this MOS is to pre-emptively ban "Benghazigate", a term that pre-judges the 2012 tragedy as a scandal regarding Obama and Clinton, something that reliable sources haven't agreed to. It allows "Bridgegate", because sources have agreed that that cockup was a scandal. It disallows "Christiegate"—a word out there—since the scandal is, according to reliable sources, only near Christie. Even though language doesn't have to respect those distances, and everybody knows such use today means "scandal mumblemumble Christie", we notice that it is pre-loaded with contentious prejudice (that it's also BLP issue is a side matter, it's contentious regarding something) and ban it. Notice that both "Bridgegate" and "Christiegate" are neologisms. Over time, "Christiegate" could become a standard term, even if no new heads go rolling, and we would no longer ban it. (For example, if Christie runs for president, the most offensive term will automatically get a lot of play.)

Despite appearances, Christie was not involved with Lasagna-gate.

As another prominent example, Climategate was a non-scandal contentiously portrayed by the fringe as a scandal. So far as I can tell, that name has passed into common usage, and the consensus refusal to use that name for the page is technically incorrect.

As an example, "Watergate" doesn't come with any inherent contention that needs to be addressed. Choor monster (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

That's quite cogent, except for the fact that "Watergate" in the sense of a scandal is a neologism as well, as is "-gate" itself. All examples of this construction will therefore be neologisms as well, so neologismicity is irrelevant. The trouble is that you're looking for an example that used to be contentious but somehow no longer is too contentious, but is just contentious enough to get the point across? The problem I see is that "Watergate" is in the dictionary with its post-1972 meaning, but none of the others, including "contragate," seem to be. So what are we using to judge the degree to which an X-gate has been accepted into the language if not its appearance in a dictionary? As far as both the OED and MW are concerned, both "contragate" and "Benghazigate" are on a par; neither is listed. They're both supposed to be decipherable from the definition of "-gate." Why is it you don't think it's a good idea to ban all unattributed use of this construction except for "Watergate"? Are there non-redirects which use it? Obviously the standard for redirects is far, far lower than the standard for use in Wikipedia's voice in actual articles.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

One busy day and a half of grading later ...

Neither "Watergate" nor "-gate" are neologisms, so your remarks make little sense. They are established parts of the English language, and pretty much universally understood. Worse, you have been obsessing with dictionaries in a completely irrelevant manner. Dictionaries have their own agendas, and you are letting those agendas direct your arguments. For example, dictionaries—even the OED—hold back terms that are floating around. See "argle-bargle morble whoosh" for my favorite example.

This MOS entry is about the use of certain potentially contentious words in WP. The words are chosen by WP editors, with the presumed goal of communicating to WP readers. Among the expectations is fluency in the writing so that the reading goes down clearly and unambiguously. We do not have to wait for dictionaries to catch up. Mutual understanding is the requirement. There is probably not one U.S. reader who does not instantly understand "Benghazigate", and I'm pretty sure most non-Americans get it too. Nowhere is there a WP requirement that language be restricted to words that have made it into at least one major dictionary. In this case, "-gate" is in every dictionary, and the idea that WP is limited to the dozen or so X-gates that are listed in at least one major dictionary is nonsense.

The OED lists "Irangate", for example, and it cites a British newspaper. I suspect the Iran aspect was recognizable to the British but not anything regarding the Contras, but I do not know. I don't think the term ever caught on here in the US. (And if Contragate never caught on overseas, I'll certainly agree it's a poor exemplar for WP on those grounds.)

Moreover, dictionaries for the most part keep their distance from proper nouns. "Watergate" has become not just the name for a certain scandal, but a term for any career-ending political scandal, so on those grounds it makes it into the dictionary. The only other X-gates I see in dictionaries are examples illustrating "-gate" itself, since no other scandal has entered the language that completely. "Waterloo" has similarly entered the language beyond the name of a town and battle and song. (Too bad "-loo" didn't catch on.) Few battles enter the dictionary, but we don't need an MOS permit to use them. Meanwhile, the MOS isn't requiring a "-gate" word to have achieved this level of language penetration. It is simply requiring that it reach a level where its use isn't contentious, as verified by widespread usage.

Actually, the description as written needs to be changed. "Benghazi-gate" is widely used, as a quick Google search reveals (you already know who uses it, of course, pre-emptive proof that the term is contentious). Yet the 2012 Benghazi attack article does not mention the word, even as an alternative name, and there is an extraordinarily stupidly pleonastic Benghazigate scandal redirect, from something that began as a short-lived obviously POV-pushing article. (Nothing links to it; I think it should just be deleted, or at least moved to Benghazigate.) The term pretty much does not belong on WP, because it is inherently contentious and POV-pushing. That's the message of this MOS. Dictionaries listing it or not listing it are completely irrelevant: its meaning is completely clear, so while at the level of its literal meaning, "Benghazigate" is acceptable, at the higher level of what the real meaning of the word is, the word is unacceptable.

And this is another part of the message that I believe is not illustrated by "Watergate". Because Watergate is in the language for uses having nothing to with the actual scandal, so many uses, in fact, that it had to be contracted into a suffix, it fails to illustrate our concerns with X-gate in general.

Let me introduce an example, never before seen in the English language, yet I think every reader will know exactly what I mean: Sologate. I believe it's perfectly clear I'm referring to Han shot first, if not, it would be clear in any relevant context. We might oppose this usage as a ridiculous neologism, but that's not the point of this section of the MOS. No, our concern is that such a term prejudges Lucas and his artistic taste and his attitude to his fans and so on, and we don't do that on WP. Of course, "Han shot first" also makes potentially contentious judgments (not as strongly, and not actually saying "scandal"), but it has become the phrase—I'm assuming the relevant editors have reached a consensus from reliable sources (not dictionaries!) on this—and so in this case the MOS says we give in and allow the contentious phrase. (Note too the article uses "controversial" right away, despite our MOS warnings. It seems acceptable: the article spells out the controversy.)

I'm sorry this has run on so long, but you have been focusing on dictionaries and neologisms, which are mostly irrelevant to the issues here. Choor monster (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Reform"

Is it pov to refer to a political movement as "reform." For example, I may wish to change a number of basic Wikipedia policies. So I call them "Wikipedia reform" because it suits my agenda (but maybe not yours  :)! Somehow, this (theoretical movement along with other editors with their own agendas) makes it into the encyclopedia. Is it proper to term it "Wikipedia reform?" Student7 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsupported attributions - again

The section on unsupported attributions leaps straight into, and is pretty much confined to, a discussion on 'weasel words'. Weasel words are not a necessary ingredient of unsupported attributions, nor is the use of weasel words confined to unsupported attributions. Perhaps a longer explanation, with a paragrapgh on weasel words as a type or example?

There is also a need to clarify the definition of weasel words. In particular, the stipulation: "when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated" needs to be clear that the claim referred to is the claim of authority, otherwise it leads to the possibility that: "Some observers state that 14.265% of cats (Felis Catus) are entirely black" is OK, because the (second) claim in the sentence is neither vague nor ambiguous.

Finally, all of the other sections in the article use examples of weasel words/wording.

Wayne 05:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Lazy enhancement words

(To be placed under the Expressions that lack precision section)

Lazy enhancement words

very —, really —, quite —, somewhat —, ....

Additional thoughts on the word "very"

• "So avoid using the word very because it’s lazy. A man is not very tired, he is exhausted. Don’t use very sad, use morose. Language was invented for one reason, boys – to woo women – and, in that endeavor, laziness will not do. It also won’t do in your essays." ~John Keating, Dead Poet's Society
• "Substitute ‘damn’ every time you’re inclined to write very; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be." ~Mark Twain
• "Very is the most useless word in the English language and can always come out. More than useless, it is treacherous because it invariably weakens what it is intended to strengthen." ~Florence King

Intensifiers like very (or not very, etc.) used to "magnify" the following word should together be replaced with an appropriate single-word verb, adjective, or adverb.

some ---, several ---, a number of ---, numerous ---, many ---, few ---, ....

Quantifiers like several, some, many, few can be imprecisely interpreted, both in value and in POV. It's preferable when possible to give a precise numerical value ("99 bottles of beer"), a range ("5-6 days"), or an upper/lower limit ("over 15 members", "nearly 50 speeches"), or just leave off the quantifier completely ("has written several articles about" -> "has authored articles about").

Discussion

I boldly added this. Someone reverted it within seconds screaming "WP:CONSENSUS! WP:CONSENSUS!". I think it reflects straightforward, good practices that are taught commonly in writing classes. Now I leave it here until someone cares to add a version back. -- Netoholic @ 10:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I reverted Netoholic, as seen here and here, and as further addressed on my talk page. And like I told him: His addition used authoritative language for what is a guideline, and he even suggested that editors should avoid use of the word several, despite it often being quite appropriate to use the word several, such as when avoiding a WP:Linkfarm of names. The "several, some, many, few" topic he added is very much already covered by the WP:Weasel words portion of the guideline. So if his elaboration on that aspect belongs anywhere on that page, it's in that section. And like Template:Who states: "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." Flyer22 (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"topic he added is very much already covered" > "topic he added is already extensively|adequately|substantially covered". -- Netoholic @ 11:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Several" can always be replaced with either a more precise numerical value or eliminated by creative rephrasing (as in the examples). The big problem with "several" is it tends to be borderline original research (because it is supplied by the estimations of the editor), can be interpreted by the reader in a subjective way, and is useless as to the serious researcher referring to Wikipedia who needs more precision. You can avoid a WP:Linkfarm by either find a source that gives a numerical value or estimate, or by rephrasing to avoid any "guess" word like several. There is some overlap with WP:Weasel words, but that is about how phrases can infer a bias... WP:LAZY is meant to be about precision. Lastly, I don't understand the relevance of Template:Who. If that sentiment is a Style guideline that you think WP should follow, then why is it on an obscure template documentation page? -- Netoholic @ 11:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I just told you here, keep the grammar lessons to yourself. Almost every "grammar expert" I encounter on Wikipedia needs quite a few grammar lessons before attempting to teach anyone on the topic. Nice of you to point out the "extensively covered" option, though, given how much I've used that wording in Wikipedia debates.

As for the rest: Nope, I don't see a big problem with "several"...if people use it correctly. WP:Linkfarm is often best avoided by using words such as several or many. Template:Who is relevant because it specifically addresses the type of words you are looking to discourage; it states why those words may be appropriate and why matters cannot always be worded as precisely as you would like. The WP:Weasel words section, for example, points to Template:By whom. Flyer22 (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Almost every "grammar expert" I encounter on Wikipedia needs copious|more|further|extensive grammar lessons before attempting" -- Netoholic @ 12:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I mean no insult in replying with alternative grammar, I just want to illustrate to readers of this proposal how engaging the language can be. Here's another example from a recent cleanup. The guideline I propose is just that, a guideline. People can ignore it if it makes sense in context, but maybe it'll inspire them to use the vast treasures of the language and replace editor guess-timations with precision. The intent is to make the language used in articles better. "Several" is one of the most common lazy words out there and used as a "filler". If you observe where its used, you can deeply feel the laziness and emptiness from it. Its a difficult habit to break, but worthwhile. -- Netoholic @ 12:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean "no insult in replying with alternative grammar." Sure, you don't. You simply mean to condescend and to assert the superiority you clearly think you have. You know very well that you are patronizing and that it doesn't help a thing, other than your ego, to nitpick at others' grammar during a discussion about improving a guideline, even if a guideline about grammar. I don't tolerate passive-aggressive WP:Dick behavior. So go ahead and save it for others at this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"You're knowledgeable|conscious|cognizant that you are patronizing" --Netoholic @ 13:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you've crossed the line from discussion into personal attacks. Good day. --Netoholic @ 13:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: More reverts on this matter are here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion might benefit from an outside opinion.

I don't understand where the proposal relating to intensifiers is coming from. They're used all the time and they make perfectly good sentences (sorry, I couldn't think of a single adjective that would properly capture the sense of "perfectly good"). The source given in support of this idea actually only covers the word "very", and it is from a creative writing blog, so not necessarily a very reliable guide to what we should do on WP (sorry, again, I don't know what "very reliable" would be as a single word - it's harder than you might think, isn't it?).

The second proposal is easier to understand, but I'm not very sure ("Certain"! This one's "certain", isn't it? Did I get it right?) about it all the same. If a precise (or approximate) number is known, then it would be better give that. But, then again, I'm not sure most editors need telling this. We tend to use vague quantifiers when they are all we have, and you can often (sorry, I mean "between 25 and 35 percent of the time") make a phrase less precise, or even inaccurate, by removing one. For example, "Many people eat in restaurants" may be preferable to "People eat in restaurants", because the latter might be taken to mean that all people eat in restaurants, or that people in general do so, neither of which is what is intended. Unless you can get your hands on a survey, I don't think there's an easy way around this. Formerip (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, most (but not all) intensifiers can be safely omitted for cleaner language and stronger style. The usual best advice is to simply remove them when not needed, rather than hunt around for a more complicated replacement synonym. She was very committed becomes She was committed without problem. That doesn't mean we should advise an explicit ban on their use and we don't need to add these proposals. I find singling out the simplest and most basic of words as "words to watch" an unhelpful addition to the guideline. Telling people not to use many seems like a complete non-starter to me. (Today's featured article uses many without controversy or jarring stylistic effect.) I think cases of vague language like somewhat are already covered under WP:ALLEGED and instances of undue emphatic words are already covered under the principle of MOS:OPED which is about giving undue emphasis not found in sources. I'm not convinced these proposals would end more talk page debates than cause more trivial ones (Of the painful type The MOS says we can't use the word "few").__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The fewer Strunk and White style recommendations, the better. Choor monster (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Formerip - "perfectly good" is fine in your usage, as "perfect" and "good" are differently defined. "Many people eat in restaurants" could perhaps be "People generally eat at restaurants" or flip the order "Restaurants are regularly patronized" (making "people" implied with the use of patronized). Also, this guideline could inspire editors to leave out obvious or redundant filler statements entirely. Aspects of this guideline do overlap with the areas you mentioned, but those are policy-related and regard bias, this guideline is focused on precision of speech. A little overlap isn't bad. Also, this isn't the final version, suggestions for improvement are welcome and we can add in cross-references to and from the bias policies. ADDED: took a stab at removing quantifiers from the FA you mentioned. I was impressed that there was only one use of "very" already... seems that people follow that style point commonly. I didn't do a run-through for all the quantifiers (like "some"). -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with what you are saying here. Firstly, your proposed solutions to the problem of "Many people eat in restaurants" do not follow the advice you set out above, which is simply to leave off the quantifier. So, at the very least, your proposal needs amending to something like: "...avoid the quantifier by whatever means you can think of".

Second problem is that neither of your proposed solutions has the same meaning as "Many people eat in restaurants". I would say that it is true that many people eat in restaurants. But to say they generally do so is a different proposition and it is false, in my experience, because in reality most of them do so only occasionally. To say that restaurants are regularly patronised by people (not, BTW how awkward the phrasing is) is also a different proposition. They might easily be regularly patronised by only a tiny minority of the general population. This problem is not necessarily fatal because, if we try a bit harder, maybe we can think of a way of doing it without changing the meaning. But it highlights the problem that bad style advice can have the effect that people end up writing less precisely.

The real problem is that the alternative versions, even ignoring the fact that they don't mean the same thing, are in no way an improvement. They are no less vague, no more grammatical and certainly not any stylistically better. So what was the point of the advice? I actually can't think of any way in which "Most people eat in restaurants" can be improved.

The same thing goes for the "use a single adjective rule". Apart from the fact that it is only sometimes possible, it's not an appropriate guide to writing an encylopaedia. It's great for a high school writing class, because it will encouraged varied, vivid and emotive language. But that's not what we want from editors. It is perfectly fine for us to say that the Empire State Building is "very tall" (can you explain to me why it might not be). We have absolutely no need to be digging out our thesauruses and coming up with words like "gargantuan" or "colossal". Formerip (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, the best solution to "Many people eat in restaurants" would be something like "A 2009 survey conducted by the Restaurant Owners Association found that 84% of people visit restaurants yearly". This guideline would encourage people to go out and find reliable sources rather than settle for ambiguous quantifiers. Something being called "very tall" demands the response compared to what and especially demands an objective measurement. If those things can't be identified, then at least we can strive to use more variety in our language than "very". --Netoholic @ 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, being specific or making comparisons is a good think to do if there is sourcing available that allows us to do that. But, often, there won't be. If the source says "Many accountants still use calculators" or "Rooftop swimming pools are unsuitable for very tall buildings", there's no stylistic need to modify the language in the source, and every reason to think it would be poor advice. Formerip (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Does "many accountants" mean 5 or 5% or 90%? Does "very tall building" mean a skyscraper or a 10 story apartment building? In those cases, then, the article should quote the source exactly as written. To do otherwise is to plagiarize their wording, or worse, use alternate words which change the meaning in a misleading way. This guideline would be called in to prevent that, and to encourage the discovery of objective sources which give concrete information. Thats the intent behind "words to avoid". -- Netoholic @ 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing against your own proposal. If we should quote the source exactly as written and avoid changing the meaning, and the source says "many" or "very", then surely that means we should say "many" or "very" (i.e. they are not words to avoid at all)? Formerip (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Subtle difference. See #Very has no place in WP unless quoted. -- Netoholic @ 09:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you made me regret using a specific example. Those changes you made are not all examples of improved style. You changed There are several guard stations and work camps throughout the forest. to Guard stations and work camps dot the forest. Dot the forest? You changed "too many restrictions" to "undue restrictions" which is a change of sense; "too many" means "more than needed in quantity" not that all restrictions are not due. A headscratcher that directly undermines your advice is where you replaced There are many trails throughout the forest with There are abundant trails throughout the forest. I don't think we should have MOS guidelines asking people to specifically avoid "many" just because some people prefer the word "abundant". Some of your deletions were improvements, but we shouldn't ask people to wrestle sentences away from common words to match the example of other changes there.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, looking at it again, I see you've changed "several" to "repeated". That kinds of sums up why this isn't a "words to watch" scenario. There's no functional difference in implication, style, or ease of understanding between "several" and "repeated". They both represent an unknown quantity more than one, they're equally precise, equally understandable. MOS shouldn't discourage words that aren't being used incorrectly in the first place. There's also such a thing as the danger of asking for false precision not found in the sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The changes I made were in fitting with the sources I found, perhaps "an undue amount of restrictions" might also work. "Several" is a vague number, repeated indicates that they've tried the same thing over and over (which they have). The words I chose seem appropriately precise and result in a more varied and interesting voice to the article. There is also a more common danger of editors using quantifiers to give false estimations (a kind of misleading precision) that aren't found in sources. For example, someone editing an article about a public speaker might citations of events spanning many years. The editor might be tempted to say "Speaker has made several speeches" - that editor is assigning a quantifier that isn't found in any one source, but rather using a word that is the result of his own research based on his knowledge after gathering a list of instances. The word "several" in that context also is imprecise (he could say "Speaker has spoken over 20 times..." or he could/should just leave out the quantifier completely. -- Netoholic @ 00:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a point you're missing here. "Repeated" is just as vague about quantity as "several". "Many" is just as vague about quantity as "abundant". You're not changing the level of precision. Not that you even should in those cases. It's okay to not give a precise number if the source doesn't. If a source says that a subject has been on many radio programs, there is nothing sinister about using the word "many" in paraphrase. There's no reason to encourage people to shun a particular word in favor of an identically synonymous word to fill the same function in the sentence.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No I absolutely get your point but you don't get mine. It would be best if we had a source that said how many re-population attempts their were, instead of "several/repeated". It would be best if we had a specific number to replace "many/abundant" with. This is why we should have a guideline that says "avoid these words"... to push people into finding sources and away from the default laziness of "very" and "many"... but if they are in a corner and must use a word, they should use one that evokes the sources they do have, quoting them if necessary. There's definitely no proper use of the word "very" at all. --Netoholic @ 02:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe okay as a general aspiration, but it sounds like you're trying to advise "avoid not knowing things" or "avoid all words that aren't numbers" rather than "avoid these words". Wikipedia covers too many things to demand that people avoid the simple word "many". In fact, we often summarize things, per WP:INFO. This is a Manual of Style set of guidelines about words that could cause significant problems when used incorrectly. "Very" while often needless, is "very" unlikely to cause an "actual" problem beyond momentary style irritation. It's one of the least provocative ways of over-emphasizing (which is already covered by WP:EDIT) If more people followed your proposals wholesale, we'd have more problems with false precision (including stale/outdated trivial numbers in article text, there only to look like we're not being "vague"). There are too many situations where those words are encouraged to blanket advise against them.
On a side note, you have that quote misattributed to Mark Twain. It was most probably from William Allen White, the Sage of Emporia.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why "Words to avoid" has to be only limited to "words that could cause significant problems". A manual of style is more than just "avoiding problems", it there to promote consistency and accuracy by using best practices. --Netoholic @ 04:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Very has no place in WP unless quoted

Rooftop swimming pools are unsuitable for very tall buildings.

If the source we're using for the above phrase says "very tall" in it, we want to avoid direct plagiarism (since we're otherwise using the exact words from the article without proper indication), so then we should be saying:

Rooftop swimming pools are "unsuitable for very tall buildings" according to ''Rooftop Pools Magazine''.

But what if the source does not use "very tall" but gives a height measurement or comparison or doesn't give a clear indication? We need our editors to avoid putting arbitrarily lazy intensifiers like "very" into the articles, since the resulting statement can never be objective, and so cannot be verifiable. "Very" has no place in our encyclopedia unless we're doing a direct quote. All other uses are editor interpretation of sources (OR or SYNTH) by applying an imprecise and lazy intensifier. If anyone can think of a legitimate use of the intensifier "very" when the sources do not also use that word, let's discuss. -- Netoholic @ 09:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm very much on board with this!  :) "Very" seems like a information cop-out. The editor has no idea about what is tall and what isn't, nor has figures supporting same. I don't really care for quotes unless mandatory. Again, it seems like the supposedly WP:RS is copping out with lack of data. And all WP:RS are eventually unusable in various places. It's a human failing and (therefore) very common! Student7 (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Battle with"/"suffering from"

Usually these two words/phrases or some variation thereof are used to describe a person's death from a disease such as cancer or something of the sort. Would these words be considered neutral? Connormah (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Some of this is covered briefly at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language. Try simple language: Alice retired due to complications of congestive heart failure. Bill has bursitis. Chris was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2013. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"Battle with" pretty much always sounds tabloidy, IMO, and should be avoided. "Suffer from" may be acceptable depending on context. We should normally avoid using it with reference to disabilities and we should consider whether it might be misleading (not everyone who gets cancer physically suffers to a great degree because of it, although they might suffer a bit due to the treatment). I don't see anything wrong with saying, for example, "Dick Cheney suffered a heart attack in 2000", because it's not really debatable whether this is an accurate or fair characterisation. On the other hand, I can't think of a case where using a suitable alternative to "suffered" would make the content poorer, so avoid in case of doubt. Formerip (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with both responders. The "suffering from" is an Appeal to pity. Officially we are not (in the example) trying to get our audience to "pity" Cheney. (I use both phrases in everyday language of course! But I'm not a walking encyclopedia! And I AM trying to get my audience to sympathize with the subject of my conversation! :) Student7 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep. "Suffering" is pitiful, and "battling" is noble. "Having" is unassumptive. Dick Cheney had a heart attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Official", "Officially"

I've come across either of these words a few times, particularly in reference to the release of a song or music video. For example, take a look at this excerpt from the article about a song called "In Your Words" by Rebecca Black:

Filming for the video was finished in October 2012, and behind-the-scenes photos for the video were released less than a week after the video was done shooting. A teaser of the video was uploaded on November 9, 2012, and the video was officially released the same day as the single.

In that context at least, I'd consider the word official (or officially) as an adjective (or adverb) a peacock term, though I don't see the word explicitly listed there. The word does have other meanings different from this context (e.g., government official, in which case it's a noun). Official supposedly denotes "authenticity", but from the over-use I've seen, the meaning has become obscured. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've also often found "official" as an adjective to be very unclear. In the sentence above, it agree that it adds nothing in meaning. Sometimes, it's a weasel word used to convey the approval of an authority without stating who that authority is. For example, we have articles referring to a subject's "official website" where it isn't always clear what authority is actually responsible for it. It's a bit similar to another stamp-of-approval-from-who-knows-whom, canon.--Trystan (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"Characterize", "describe"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Stated" is a universally-agreed-upon neutral verb, but we use it so much that prose can suffer, so neutral synonyms are desirable. When somebody states that "X is like Y", I assume it's also neutral to say they're "describing" X as Y, or "characerizing" X as Y. Does either of these seem problematic? (Context: this was reverted, which surprised me. But the topic area is highly fraught.) Thanks. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 10:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Characterize" is not strictly a synonym for "describe". To characterize means to "define the character or identity of, to mark, distinguish; to be typical or characteristic" (OED). Thus it's a bit less direct than describe/call. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

A good synonym for "characterize" would be "demarcate", which is exactly what people do when they call something pseudoscience, which is why I thought it was a decent choice. Oxforddictionaries.com (OED's cousin) defines "describe" as "Give an account in words of (someone or something), including all the relevant characteristics, qualities, or events", and defines "characterize" as "Describe the distinctive nature or features of", so they're pretty close. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 11:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Demarcation is a different thing again: setting the dividing line between things. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't be saying "synonym" when I mean "cousin". "Characterize" isn't the same thing as "describe", but a "word to avoid" in this context? There's a sense of "less direct", but it's also more specific. It seems like a good choice, because it's got some.... characteristics in common with "demarcation". But I guess it seems too close to hedging and therefore not neutral. "Described" is probably better, and I think it's better than "stated".--Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 23:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should invite Roxy the dog to this discussion via WP:Echo so that Roxy the dog can elaborate on the reasons for reverting? Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This showed up on my watchlist: "re two edits down -- "described" may be best fit, cf. MOS discussion Special:Diff/615612765/615634335"

Where is the agreement in this thread for the change? I prefer "found" but can live with "stated". QuackGuru (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

On inspection, this isn't primarily a dispute over word choice, but about neutrality: to what extent does Wikipedia assert that acupuncture is pseudoscience (flavouring it so with words such as "found" or "noted") or suggest more that this is an opinion ("characterized", "described", etc.). I suggest that this perma-discussion is better continued on the Acupuncture article's Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My reasons for reverting were clear in the edit summary. The difference between "stated" and "characterised" is not insignificant, the source did not characterise, it stated. The result, before my revert, allowed a little more wiggle room in the meaning of the sentence. Apart from improving the article, I just made a small repair to the dam, like putting a hand over a hole, just to help stem the tide of fringe pushing. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

For me, the distinction is a reflection of WP:ASF: assert simple facts. When an authoritative source (in this case an editorial in Nature) makes a statement that is not contradicted by another equally good source, we should be treating it as fact and reporting it in Wikipedia's voice, like this: "X is true". When there is significant disagreement between sources, then we neutrally report the opinions of the sources by attributing those opinions, like this: "A states X is true; but B states X is false". Sometimes we end up with "A states that X is true", which informs the reader within the prose of the source of that conclusion (even though the citation is easy enough to click on), but starts to mimic the construction we use for disputed conclusions. When the dispute is only among the editors, not among the reliable sources, I'd prefer to stick with ASF. A further change of "A stated X is Y", ("found" or "concluded" are useful alternatives for stylistic variation) to "A described X as Y" (or "characterised") emphasises the author rather than the conclusion and casts the statement even more as an opinion. --RexxS (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree this would have been better at Talk:acupuncture (with perhaps a concurrent fork here), and with minor refactoring, have moved it there [1] -- see Talk:Acupuncture#.22Stated_it_is_X.22.2C_.22described_it_as_X.22 --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 12:59, 5 July 2014 (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.

Human rights abuses

Are being added as a "contentious" label, which is obviously rubbish. If sources call something a human rights abuse then so would an article, there are nothing contentious about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to WP:LABEL section

The WP:LABEL section currently includes reference to the use of "pseudo-". We need to make a clarification regarding the term, "pseudoscience." The reason for this, is that the content guideline, WP:FRINGE (which has equal authority with this guideline) specifically discusses pseudoscience (in this section) and in general, obligates editors to "call a spade a spade", supported of course by reliable sources. Additionally, there is an Arbcom ruling on pseudoscience topics that explicitly authorizes use of the term "pseudoscience" in specified contexts. Therefore, I suggest that we add the following to this section:

"As per Per With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy, Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such." Per the content guideline, Fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources. In addition, there is an Arbcom ruling on pseudoscience topics that explicitly authorizes use of the term "pseudoscience" in specified contexts."

Is this OK with everyone? Very open to suggestions for improvement. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (amended, per below Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)) (added reference to NPOV policy which also authorizes use of the term. Missed that Facepalm Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC))

I'm fine with your suggestion. Flyer22 (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I also want to note that "pseudoscience" was discussed on this Talk page before, here, among a limited number of participants. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Per" to "As per", but whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

done, thanks! Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Consider me fine with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

A bit late to the party here. But I agree. A spade should be called a spade and pseudoscience should be called pseudoscience. NathanWubs (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Not late at all, I'm giving this a day to give folks a chance to weigh in, and will add it tonight if things continue this way. Jytdog (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I am also late but agree. Go for it. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I'm super late, but also in agreement with proposal. Yobol (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

moving this into the guideline now. thanks again all. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Note, in my ignorance, I included reference to Arbcom "authorizing" any sort of content. Struck that. Arbcom deals with behavior, not content. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you've solved that!

My question most often comes up in a personal context: "pseudoscientist. Material in article, cites, categories (!), etc. Let's assume that WP:BLP as been solved. Yes, astrology has been derided since the 19th century and before. Does that make, for example, Nancy Reagan, a "pseudoscientist"? I am annoyed by personal labels more than "objective" ones. Let us assume, for the moment, that the person did not spend but a fraction of their time on the pseudoscience; one-time, or peripheral occupation. I can even tolerate "Category: People who practice astrology". My annoyance is with "astrologist" for someone for whom that wasn't a fulltime occupation. Student7 (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy or guideline on the term "pseudoscientist" and agree that appears to be problematic. It is not something I would use. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"claim"

The guide uses the word "claim" in "Claims about what people say..." but then later says that "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." Why isn't the guide following its own prescription and using "Statements" instead of "Claims"? I think we should resolve this contradiction by dialling back the assertion that "said" etc is "almost always neutral and accurate". if the claim is outrageous/contradicted etc in my books using the word "claim" would be more "neutral and accurate" than use of a word that would imply a false parity with better evidenced statements. In my experience WP:CLAIM is used to argue that "claim" may never be used. This should be left to case-be-case considerations.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The words to watch section is not a list of words that are banned, only ones that require care and thought. If you encounter people who are applying the advice rigidly, maybe send them to the lead of this guideline? A search for the use of "...claimed that...", for instance, shows that it's still used tens of thousands of times on Wikipedia so it doesn't seem to be in danger of extinction.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well then either there needs to be a purge of most of those instances or "almost always neutral and accurate" to use different language is an overstatement, no? "Almost always" is a high hurdle that invites a dispute every time one deviates from that and it pretty hard to argue with "almost always", never mind that it is actually quite frequent that someone is making a dubious, unverified "claim" as opposed to an uncontroversial "statement." In my view, this section should focus on being descriptive, making sure that readers understand what claimed means, as opposed to being as prescriptive as it is. The language used should simply be appropriate to the nature of the remark.--Brian Dell (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Most uses of "claimed" still have an attribution of opinion problem. Your rationale for using the verb "claim" seems to be to impart a sense of "dubious, unverified" in Wikipedia's voice. While that characterization may be arguably "true", it is usually better to have that attributed somehow than as an unattributed reflection of editor opinion. "Claimed", in the sense you want to use it, is a bit of editorializing (whether justified by the situation or not) and if someone is saying that a statement is dubious, the readers should have a chance to see who it is that believes it is dubious. It's usually better to have X said 'Y'. This other reliable source doubts 'Y'. than it is to have the fuzzier X claims 'Y'.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

And as far as "almost always" goes: Saying a particular option is generally good, is not the same as saying all other options are bad. Using "said" does happen to be almost always good. If "claimed" has an editorial component, it probably should require a bit more work to convince people to use. Otherwise we have a lot more "The subject claims to have been born in Kansas." which does nothing but confuse a general reader and cast the subject as a suspected liar. If there's reason to suspect a fib, that doubt should usually be elaborated on from attributed sources, not fuzzily implied with Wikipedia's voice.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Replacing "almost always" with "generally" sounds good to me. Editors are taking the current reading to mean other options are bad. It's like primary sources in that many editors don't bother getting to Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD, they find a rule of thumb and run with it. In my experience, I haven't encountered a lot of "The subject claims to have been born in Kansas." What I have encountered is POV pushers who demand that dubous propaganda be treated the same as solidly sourced material. It creates a false parity, in my view. The doubt usually is elaborated on in my experience in that it's evident to the reader why the claim is doubtful. In any case, the AP and NYT style books etc don't seem to be nearly as afraid of "claimed" as Wikipedia's. Simply following RS will mean a lot of "claims" flow through into Wikipedia. Using editorial judgment to spin that to "statements" is arguably inserting ourselves between the sources and the reader.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If an editor thinks something's "dubious propaganda" that's fine, but "claim" doesn't usually indicate who made that judgement. You identify that using certain words could frame a statement as not being as dubious as an editor may find it, but I think that's vastly superior to the dangers of framing people as very probably dishonest without attribution. You can argue that both "said" and "claimed" have editorial connotations, but one is pretty flat and the other usually indicates that people have had serious doubts about the statement. "Claimed" means more OR and unattributed editorial on the part of editors, whether or not editors believe it's justified outside of sourcing. Anything to do with Wikipedia:PRIMARYNOTBAD just indicates that people sometimes don't follow guidance. That's fine, and won't change if the guidance changes; the guidance should indicate best practice whether individual editors follow it too rigidly (or not rigidly enough) on occasion. I think your proposed change makes it slightly easier for the same people to make negative editorial points without attribution, which is arguably less helpful for the project as a whole than encouraging more unattributed doubt-casting.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that passing judgement on a source's reliability is OR. If we do anything on Wikipedia besides just copy and paste, it's make decisions about what's RS and what is not. We should be self-conscious about that gatekeeping we do. I think it's often better to include a marginal RS and transparently flag it to the reader as marginal than not include that contention at all because it doesn't make our cut. I think this is constraining our flexibility to present material, essentially demanding a black/white cutoff between what's RS (and therefore should be presented with language that doesn't suggest any doubts about how R it is) and what's not RS. What's R is on a continuum and in my view it should accordingly be left to local consensus whether "claim" is an accurate reflection of the source's place on the continuum. If "claimed" is "almost always" out, then "reportedly" ought to be binned as well, no? What's the point of adding "reportedly" if not to imply a lack of verification? A tool shouldn't be thrown out just because it's occasionally misused. I also think "very probably dishonest" is an overstatement. Webster's definition of "claim" is " to say that (something) is true when some people may say it is not true". Nothing about the speaker being "dishonest" there, could be as benign as a Blind men and an elephant difference of perspective.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Using "said" or "claimed" has nothing to do with whether a source is considered reliable, or whether a source can be used. The idea that "claimed" is a way to mark something as "dubious" was not my idea originally, but I agree that many people take it that way. If people didn't have that connotation with the word, even in benign uses, then it probably would have never been added to the guideline as a word we recommend only using with special care and thoughtful intention. But it does, so we do.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So we don't follow the dictionary definition because readers don't follow the dictionary definition? That'a a large statement, not least because it's far from clear that readers don't follow the dictionary definition. If "Using "said" or "claimed" has nothing to do with whether a source is considered reliable" then I fail to see how using "claimed" unfairly suggests unreliability. If "claimed" DOES have something to do with reliability, then it's not unfair to use "claimed" when the source is of dubious reliability. We make decisions all the time about whether we think a particular source should be trusted. Instead of just doing that behind the curtain, put stuff out there with our verdicts still attached so our decisions are transparent. I'll add that in my books acting with "special care and thoughtful intention" means assessing on a case-by-case basis instead of of applying some broad rule. Having said all that I appreciate you having explored this issue with me.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the word "claim" pops up when one editor has been forced to back away from a WP:FRINGE argument, in other words, the editor has failed to make a case against total deletion of a statement. Not "Horses can fly(cite)" but "Ancients claimed that horses could fly(cite)". Perhaps better construed as "Heptarcus reported that horses once flew.(cite) This perhaps came from the ancients discovering large fossils with obvious wings which....(cite)" In other words, there is really two sides to the story. Horses still don't fly, but Wikipedia can report the facts without violating WP:FRINGE (for example).

Except there may really be two close-to-identical counter arguments which deserve equal treatment. But one editor is holding out for "Smith claimed that horses can't fly(cite Smith) but the ancients knew they could(cite)." Student7 (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Euphemism: "romantically involved"

I'm not sure whether I mean to fault American public prudishness or WP editors' strong aversion to euphemisms, but it occurs to me that "became romantically involved" is one of several euphemisms for "had sex with." Madonna (entertainer) gives this example: "... Madonna became romantically involved with musician Dan Gilroy." a search reveals another two thousand usages, only a few of them not euphemistic. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with "became romantically involved" if it is not used as a euphemism for "had sex with." In other words, "romantically involved" does not automatically mean "had sex with." Romance involves more than sexual activity, and might not involve sexual activity at all. Flyer22 (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I was romantically involved with The Raccoons, a long time ago. Wasn't the steamiest stuff, with me a kid and her looking like her husband. But that music was all about the moonlight.

Pretty safe to assume Madonna had sex with Gilroy, but they also hung out together afterwards. I'd go with "dated", mainly for the conciseness. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Hulk. Not up to an encyclopedia to subtlety nuance a relationship. Leave that to talk show, blogs, tabloids, and telephone hackers. I have seen "had an affair with" used in literary bios for 19th century authors. Needs a very WP:RS though if WP:BLP. But then so do the other words! Furnish the reader with the minimum facts, succinctly stated, and let them decide! Student7 (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Dated" seems just as much a euphemism to me. Outside the context of this discussion I couldn't give you a precise definition. Could anyone? HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Having sex and hanging out afterwards in public, on consecutive occasions. It's like "going on a date" or "being on a date", but plural. One date isn't dating, even if the sex is so good you mark the date on your calendar and celebrate it every year. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer. As a euphemism for "had sex", "became romantically involved" would be inappropriate. But that's really not how it is used. Stating that two people were romantically involved would be appropriate when, as is often the case, more specific information about the relationship is not available or relevant. "Dating" to me suggests a much more specific phase of romantic involvement.--Trystan (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Further, and I thought about mentioning this first point before, but felt that it was unneeded: We should not state "had sex" in the case of a WP:BLP unless we know "had sex" to be the case. And even then, reducing the WP:BLP relationship to just "had sex" can be inappropriate if the relationship was more than that (but the same can be said of non-WP:BLP matters). Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I second InedibleHulk that "romantically involved" is more appropriate to a talk show or tabloid than to an encyclopedia, but also HiLo48 that "dated" is a euphemism -- and an increasingly passé one, at that. A broader issue is the one from Student7: That it's not up to an encyclopedia to characterize the subtleties of relationships. If I have a crush on someone for an evening until I find they are married does that constitute romantic involvement? Who is to say? Me? Them? Both of us? Their spouse?

For the sake of an encyclopedia, a romantic involvement has repercussions for the lives of the article subjects. Alice B. Toklas and Gertrude Stein? That's a critically important romantic involvement. Ditto Chopin and George Sand. Perhaps even JFK and Marilyn Monroe's fling. In each case, huge consequences, or very possible consequences. But "romantically involved" should not be a bullet point on some starlet's scorecard. That kind of prurient love interest belongs ... well, nowhere ... but decidedly not in an encyclopedia. Leptus Froggi (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Leptus Froggi, not in an encyclopedia? The wording "romantically involved" is used in contexts involving fiction as well, and is quite suitable in the vast majority of those cases. And whether it's used for fiction or for real life, if it's more accurate than "had sex with" or "dated," my opinion is that we should use it, unless some other wording is more appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm only human, and I'd like to hear exactly how George Sand did Chopin while he was playing piano, but that would hardly raise Wikipedia's intellectual tenor(!) Or should we just gloss romantic events with a haphazard selection from a field of euphemisms? Last I remember, reading Maladicta (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maledicta), there are countless words and phrases loosely alluding to activities that are usually left undescribed in the bedchamber. Leptus Froggi (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of the negative with "claim" may be considered harmless

I just noticed in Theocracy, that the use of the negative with "claim" seemed useful, even effective! I don't want to mess with the wording in the MOS policy, but did want to point that out. e.g. The pope/Caliphs did not claim that everything they did was directed by God. That sort of thing. Student7 (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You are correct; there are many cases where it's perfectly neutral to say someone "did not claim" something. I think the present wording in the guideline is only referring to where editors are ascribing claims to people, which is the positive case. (Saying a person "did not claim" something, is not ascribing a claim to them.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In some of the other examples in that section, editors might still need to be thoughtful and careful (which is all the guideline really says about usage of potentially loaded language). Depending on the article context, an editor might still be better off choosing to avoid "Mr. X did not confess to being a bloodthirsty murderer.", for instance, in favor of something less weighted and more unambiguously neutral.

Collateral damage and ethnic cleansing

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 3#Ethnic cleansing and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 3#collateral damage and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 3#RfC on collateral damage and ethnic cleansing Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 4#Collateral damage and ethnic cleansing

I propose to remove "ethnic cleansing" and "collateral damage" from the section "Euphemisms" as neither term "lacks precision" (see the previous sections listed above in the talk page archives for more details on this. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I object. We should never use mealy-mouthed euphemisms to disguise or legitimise mass murder. --John (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A fair bit of "collateral damage" killings could more reasonably be prosecuted as manslaughter, deadly negligence or recklessness (assuming these things went to court). Especially when the main target is a bridge, generator or other structure. If we don't even know what crimes are under the disguise, it clearly lacks precision.

Ethnic cleansing is every bit as rhetorically backwards as cleaning somebody's clock, wiping a village off the map, mopping up stragglers or taking "the bath". In case I'm not clear, that's a bigger bit than a "fair bit". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Clear the field", "polish him off", "wipe the floor with her". InedibleHulk (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

---

See Ethnic Cleansing#Definitions

In reviewing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Bosnian Genocide Case in the judgement of Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights quoted from the ICJ ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case to draw a distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide.

It [i.e. ethnic cleansing] can only be a form of genocide within the meaning of the [Genocide] Convention, if it corresponds to or falls within one of the categories of acts prohibited by Article II of the Convention. Neither the intent, as a matter of policy, to render an area “ethnically homogeneous”, nor the operations that may be carried out to implement such policy, can as such be designated as genocide: the intent that characterizes genocide is “to destroy, in whole or in part” a particular group, and deportation or displacement of the members of a group, even if effected by force, is not necessarily equivalent to destruction of that group, nor is such destruction an automatic consequence of the displacement. This is not to say that acts described as 'ethnic cleansing' may never constitute genocide, if they are such as to be characterized as, for example, 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part', contrary to Article II, paragraph (c), of the Convention, provided such action is carried out with the necessary specific intent (dolus specialis), that is to say with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region. As the ICTY has observed, while 'there are obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as 'ethnic cleansing' ' (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 562), yet '[a] clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide. |ECHR quoting the ICJ.

Notes

The Final Report of the Commission of Experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 defined ethnic cleansing as "a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas."

---

Ethnic cleansing is not an euphemism for genocide or mass murder it is one group removing "by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas". The violence may lead to crimes against humanity and genocide but ethic cleansing is not an euphemism for either term any more than "war" is a euphemism for mas murder or genocide. -- PBS (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: see the article military necessity, along with distinction and proportionality and the comments made by Luis Moreno-Ocampo 2006 that starts "Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime." I do not see how your comments have anything to do with the use of collateral damage in an article. Collateral damage is a dictionary phrase it does not mask civilian casualties as the phrase covers the incidental destruction of property and the killing and maiming of non-combatants. Whether the destruction of property and the harming of non-combatants is a war crime depends on military necessity and proportionality. So in what way does the use of collateral damage in an article mask civilian deaths? -- PBS (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not exactly a mask, just a softener. "Damage" implies they weren't human (like how "target" works for the people they wanted to kill), and "collateral" implies they're beside the point. Easier to ennumerate using plain English, too. "The operation involved significant collateral damage" is one thing, but if we know the toll, far easier to say "The operation inadvertently killed six people, injured ten and destroyed two buildings." Does it work as a verb, "collaterally damaged"? Not sure if your first quote is because you think I think killing civilians is always a war crime, but no, I don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't Timothy McVeigh a great fan of the phrase? I am not. I understand your arguments but I do not agree with them. --John (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I fail to understand the significance of anything that Timothy McVeigh may or may not have said. Do you consider "mass forcible transfers" to be an euphemism for genocide? If not, why do you consider ethnic cleansing to be an euphemism for genocide? -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is useful to have both "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" from what I read above. The former is a determined effort to kill people. The latter (as I understand it), is to remove people from an area. The Russians, for example, moved many Poles from Eastern Poland after their occupation in 1939. They did not deliberately try to kill them, but used them for forced labor, I think.

"Collateral damage" is inadvertent IMO. More than that needs to be determined by some court. What can I call civilian deaths where terrorists have hidden themselves and arms among otherwise innocent people (who may be harboring them willingly BTW)? The military tries to make the distinction but they are not police and predictably fail at times. This is the nature of war IMO. I want my side alive. I don't want my side to hide among unarmed civilians. I do want them to take their time, if possible, when identifying threats. But sometimes, in the heat of battle, they will make mistakes. I would question "mistakes" made on a large scale and ask for an accounting. Student7 (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) explanation of the distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide as quoted above has anyone any objections to removing that pair? -- PBS (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I still object. --John (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You wrote above "We should never use mealy-mouthed euphemisms to disguise or legitimise mass murder." I have shown that ethic cleansing is not an euphemism for genocide, and that ethnic cleansing can easily include mass murder as one of many techniques to force the mass movement of populations. So do you have any evidence that since the ECHR explanation of the difference of reliable sources claiming that ethnic cleansing is used as an euphemism for genocide? -- PBS (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think my view is in alignment with that of User:InedibleHulk above, and it is unchanged by your quote, interesting though that was. Incidentally, why do you say "an euphemism" rather than "a euphemism"? I think the latter is correct. --John (talk) 18:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasons

The comment on seasons was recently deleted and then restored. With the delete Rjensen commented "Relative time references: seasons are fixed for the place the event happened--where the reader lives is irrelevant".

The reason why it was introduced was because people who live in different hemispheres often do not know what the seasons are in the other hemisphere. This came very clear during edits to the Falklands war. The Argentinians invade in autumn 1982 the British task force set sail in spring 1982 was it a pre-emptive strike? If it was then they were very slow getting there because the British did not arrive until late autumn early winter.

It also has affects in other places for an Indian reader reading about the Burma Campaign they know when the Monsoon season starts and ends, but does that help a Scot to understand when "the British advance in 1943 was halted by the start of the Monsoon season"?

-- PBS (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Winter is always the coldest season, summer is the hottest season, and spring is The season between winter and summer. The monsoon season/ hurricane season/ dry season / football season etc depends on the country. Rjensen (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, which is precisely why the wording was there in the fist place. It is particularly noicable when the location is unclear, but should be applied consistently throughout "Spring 2000" means different things to different people: "early 2000" means just that. - SchroCat (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Accident

The word "accidental" means, according to one definition, "arising from extrinsic causes." This is the definition used in the following quote:

"There’s no criminality," an NYPD spokesman told Metro. "That’s why they call it an accident."[2]

If we are to believe law enforcement and the dictionary definition above, accidents don't arise from negligence. But we know some car crashes do. That makes the word "accident" as used in the colloquial sense for any car crash, a euphemism that exonerates the driver from blame. So I suggest adding this to the list of euphemisms to avoid. --Traal (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to exclude a word based on the fact that "some car crashes do"? (my emphasis). Seems a little odd, considering some car crashes are not caused by negligence and are, by definition, accidents. Yes, we should be precise in our language, but this isn't always used as a euphemism. - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

True, not all car crashes are caused by negligence, but negligence is the #1 cause: something like 90% of all collisions are caused by bad behaviors: speeding, intoxication, driving too fast for conditions, etc.[3][4][5] Does it need to be 100% to qualify as a euphemism, or is 90% good enough? --Traal (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

But you're focussing on cars too - not other accidents. Adding the word "Accident" into the bare list of words is unhelpful: an "accident", in and of itself, is not a ‎euphemism. - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "accident" is proper in many contexts, but it also has a euphemistic sense that should be avoided, just like using issue for problem as described in the article. --Traal (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The Recent Deaths page has long practiced this. Everything involving a vehicle and a fatality is simply "traffic collision". I've argued that we should at least name the type of vehicle, but that's apparently down to "truck" meaning different things to different people. I completely agree that there are extremely few true accidents. Even those who were in the "wrong place at the wrong time" put themselves there. Not sure it should be a formal rule, but where anyone sees a place for any better word, they should use it, just for betterment's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

When talking generally (not people or religions), it is probably okay to be specific (clear) in terminology. It can be debated without engendering hostility with other editors. But when discussing specifics about people or religion or political beliefs, it's more helpful to be generic. Rather than stretching for the specific word that is the most hurtful, we can supply facts that allow the reader to arrive at the same opinion that the editor did. I don't have to say, "Ted Kennedy got drunk and killed a girl..." (which is certain to lead to an editorial dispute!) I can say that "Ted Kennedy was involved in an accident in which a woman was drowned." I can then go on to supply cited material that led investigators to believe that he might have been drinking at the time, and possibly even driving at the time. But being too specific is "leading the reader" which is not really encyclopedic. Something needs to be left to the reader to do. Student7 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The word "accident," being a subset of "crash," is often overly specific and therefore leading the reader. --Traal (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I just, several minutes ago, noticed this discussion, even though this page is on my WP:Watchlist and I'm the one who reverted Traal's edit to the guideline. Like I stated to Traal in that edit summary, "'Car accident' and 'car crash' are used interchangeably even by sources reporting on the crash." In common and usual discourse, the word accident means that the person did not intend for something to happen. For example, this Merriam-Webster source states, "a sudden event (such as a crash) that is not planned or intended and that causes damage or injury... an event that is not planned or intended : an event that occurs by chance. Further down, it states: "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance." And in the vast majority of car crashes, the car crash was not intended; the drivers did not mean to harm or kill one another. The word accident is similar to the word mistake (and is sometimes used interchangeably with it), and I've seen people briefly disagree on what a mistake is (and television shows sometimes have a character clarify what the character believes an actual mistake is). And, like SchroCat pointed out above, the word accident does not only refer to car crashes. Because of all of this, I cannot agree to suggest to readers that they generally should avoid the word accident or the words "car accident." That stated, I am fine with using "car crash" in place of "car accident." Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sophistic nonsense. This place should not attempt to micromanage article language. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word accident when it is used to describe accidents. When it is used to describe other stuff it may be a problem but that is a matter of editorial discretion at a given article in a given context.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

"Pejorative" and "term of art"

I'm not sure if this is the best forum for this discussion, but it's the best one I can think of for now.

What about the potential for the terms "pejorative" and "term of art" to be used as weasel words? Examples:

• Assault weapon article section Political and legislative issues:

Gun-rights and sports shooting groups consider "assault weapon" to be a pejorative when used to describe civilian firearms, considering it a politically driven catchphrase aimed to conflate non-automatic weapons with full-automatic assault rifles which have been strictly regulated since 1934 and cannot be owned by civilians without permits from federal, state, and local authorities.

• Tax break article, to which "tax loophole" redirects, and which until today read:

"Tax break", or "tax loophole", is used pejoratively in the United States to refer to purportedly favorable tax treatment of any class of persons, as in "individuals get a tax break for so and so".

• Gun show loophole, which until recently read:

Gun show loophole is a pejorative term-of-art that refers to private sellers at gun shows not being required to perform a background check on private buyers, in a longstanding practice of private commerce in the United States.

I don't mind so much when they're in article bodies and sourced, but they're frequently pushed into the leads - sometimes the lead sentences - and disputes ensue (most recently at Gun show loophole).

In addition, it now seems these categories may be used to similar ends: Category:American political neologisms and Category:Dysphemisms. I think many words/terms in these categories do not belong there. (There are current discussions related to these[6][7] at the gun show loophole talk page.) --Lightbreather (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As you know, some words, such as nigger and bitch, are pejoratives, and this should be noted in the leads of those Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I agree with that. What I'm talking about here is taking terms like "assault weapon" or "tax loophole" and calling them pejoratives. Or categorizing them as "neologisms" long after they've become commonly used, or "dysphemisms." I can see "feminazi" as a dysphemism, but some of the things in that category don't belong, as do a lot of things categorized as "neologisms" - unless the category is meant to include anything that ever was a neologism. Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST

Some users seem to be circumventing WP:TERRORIST by using the term in category and article names rather than in the bodies of articles, is this allowed? Gob Lofa (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Gob Lofa:, probably not. Examples? Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

First this is a guideline, not a policy, and secondly it refers to people and groups, not events. I saw your comments at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London#Move. You wanted the article moved to "List of incidents in London labelled as terrorism." Even if the guideline applied the effect of your change would be to imply that there were some sources that did not consider the attacks to be terrorism, which violates policy. TFD (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It does heavily imply that the people and groups who we say do the acts we categorize as terrorist acts are terrorists. But yeah, it's not technically against the rules. So it comes down to a question of whether there's encyclopedic value to grouping things labelled as terrorism (which is what the category is, regardless of its title).

As this is merely the Manual of Style, I'll not answer that question here. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My original preference with the London article was to replace the word 'terrorist' with 'VNSA', which is descriptive without being value-laden. Gob Lofa (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it does that. Compare with crime. We could say crimes committed in the U.S. last year included x number of DUIs. It only violates the guideline when we start labelling anyone guilty of DUI a criminal. In "Modeling Violent Non-State Actors", the authors say that "terrorist organizations" are a form of VNSA. It seems like an improvement over current terminology that labels every non-state group the U.S. opposes as terrorists. But it has its problems too, beyond being fairly obscure. Why are insurgents who oppose U.S.-backed governments called VNSAs, while U.S., backed insurgents are not? What about U.S. paid mercenaries? TFD (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

First I've ever heard that term. I guess whether it's value-laden depends on whether you're more afraid of terror or violent acts. But yeah, its American-only context isn't great for something about London. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Gob Lofa, in Faceless Enemy's post of 03:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC) s/he asked, "Examples?" I know that I have developed Category:Organizations designated as terrorist and Category:Designated terrorist organizations associated with Islam although perhaps these should more accurately be moved to Category:Groups governmentally designated as terrorist and Category:Groups associated with Islam governmentally designated as terrorist organizations as per common name and re reference to the nations making the designation. If you have a problem with editor action please cite the cases and perhaps ping the editors involved. Please also specify how you think editors have been circumventing WP:TERRORIST. The title of the page is "words to watch". GregKaye 08:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM in supernatural subjects

How do the principals of avoiding words like claim apply in topics about supernatural events? Do we assume that the credibility of experts of supernatural things is in question due to the nature of the paranormal?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Prisencolinensinainciusol please note that the guideline is called, WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch and that it begins, "There are [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored|no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia]], ..." The first WP:PILLAR is the intent to build an encyclopaedia and the WP:CLAIM issue is presented as a guideline. GregKaye 08:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• The big problem here I guess would most likely relate to miracles broadly construed. So far as I know, there is nothing in any policies or guidelines which prohibits use saying, for example, that a qualified medic has described an apparently miraculous cure as a miracle. However, at the same time, we probably should not include any such statements indicating the belief in something being of supernatural origin in wikipedia's voice, but rather in phrasing like "according to (x), it was a miracle" or supernatural event. There would of course be basis for an exception for broadly religious or supernatural stories in which the events are either explicitly described as supernatural in some way or obviously intended to be seen as being of a supernatural nature. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's PoV-pushing to advance an interpretation that something supernatural was even meant in the first place when someone says "miracle" or "miraculous" outside of a clearly religious context. These words are most often used to simply refer to the improbable. When I say "It was so dark and cloudy, it's a miracle it didn't actually rain today", I certainly don't imply anything spiritual or mystical. It's not WP's job to infer value-laden meaning, or to impute mental processes (e.g. a medic's actual spiritual beliefs, to use the above example), for which we have no reliable-source evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Health warnings"? Political labels

One of the usual disputes regarding political articles often has to do with identifying organizations or persons with political labels. Always when I've seen done as POV-pushing, it has been so that editors with a conservative slant want to mark the opponents as liberals and the editors with the liberal-slant want to mark the opponents as conservatives. A 2013 Daily Telegraph article calls these kind of labels "health warnings" [8]. The purpose is similar as with weasel words: "oh, the critics are just some liberals". It shouldn't be due to refer to a foundation as conservative/liberal on every occasion, but on the other hand sometimes labels are required for presenting a dispute in a thorough way, and the result is fine if the editor is careful. Usually when it's done in a disruptive way, there's a number of unrelated low-quality sources bundled together to make the claim for the label, i.e. "is a conservative author [1][2][3][4]".

Does anyone know has this ever been discussed at MOS, and should something about it be drafted? --Pudeo' 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not a WP:MOS issue at all; it's not a style matter, but a WP:NPOV policy matter. On that, I think this is a case-by-case kind of thing. With many topics, it is important for readers to be able to discern left-wing vs. right-wing bias. The problem comes up either when actual facts are being POV-labeled as just opinions advanced by "the other side" (as often happens in the global warming "debate", which isn't really a debate but science met with denialism), and/or when views are labelled as being exclusively those of "the other side" but we don't have reliable sources that demonstrate this. (For example, some leftists may be tempted to skew an article on US gun control by suggesting that support for the Second Amendment emanates from a conservative agenda; in reality, millions of rural Democrats are also gun owners, even if the Republican party takes a louder political position on the matter, and as a party converges on that support more cohesively.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

RfC added on 16 March

• Regarding the discussion above I suggest that an additional shortcut be added to this section as: WP:W2WTERRORIST which would then change the listing of shortcuts for the section to read: WP:LABEL WP:TERRORIST WP:W2WTERRORIST.
• Changing the text from saying "Value-laden labels ... are best avoided" to saying "Value-laden labels ... may be best avoided"
• Changing the title from "Contentious labels" to "Descriptions that can be used as contentious labels"

My view is that this section (in a content on a page entitled "words to watch" and which begins with the statement "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia") is unnecessarily and unhelpfully proscriptive. It is also contradictory saying that there are no forbidden words and then labelling a certain set of adjectives as "labels" and stating that they are best avoided. For instance I would have no problem in describing, say, Nazi philosophy and motivations as being "racist". In a slightly more contentious topic there is currently a discussion at Talk:ISIL on the use of the use of the widely used description "extremist" in the lead. In other cases I think that various topics might be described as fundamentalist without any form of slur being offered. In fact in some cases, and depending on the nature of the true fundamentals of the topic, this particular wording might well present them in an unrepresentationally favourable light. In the specific title The Beatles (terrorist cell) I think that its least problematic part is the terrorist reference. The four individuals concerned are not The Beatles and there is no evidence that I know of that the four of them act as an individual cell and on this basis I have requested an article move to the title ISIL militants nicknamed the Beatles with discussion here. Otherwise I think that the terrorist description is arguably very apt as, to my interpretation, it has been the videoed killing of captives including aid workers that largely substantiated ISIL's international designations as a terrorist organization.

I think that it is very fair that the words mentioned be categorised as "words to watch" but I think that it would be wrong to be prescriptive in our approach. My worry though is that, in a minority of cases, we may lose our ability to give pithy descriptions of topics. Our main priority is to build an informative encyclopaedia and, IMO, not necessarily to pander to any politically correct agenda. GregKaye 09:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

*Support. Agree. Shortcut does no harm. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC) I change my mind. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Guye I appreciate that below you changed your view on the presentation of mythology in Wikipedia in that the same level of usage might apply to modern and ancient religions. Please can you review the second issue mentioned. My contention is that the text "Value-laden labels ... are best avoided" is unnecessarily prescriptive as well as being contradictory (this is in the context of beginning of page text that states: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia"). My proposal is that the text can better read with the less assertive: "Value-laden labels ... may be best avoided". GregKaye 13:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, I think the reason why those adjudicatives are in WTW is because they carry POV with it, thus (when I look @ WTW most often) if an article is up for GAR, and since NEU is part of a GA review, using POV terms is frowned upon. Or so goes the logic of that section as I understand it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: We don't need to add and advertise a shortcut "WP:W2WTERRORIST" when "WP:TERRORIST" is already there; it would just be redundant. I agree with the wording change to "Value-laden labels ... may be best avoided"; there are times when they are not, namely when the preponderance of reliable sources uses them. Our job is to report what reliable sources are saying, not to second-guess them in the name of political correctness. Finally, while I agree that "Descriptions that can be used as contentious labels" is more accurate, it unnecessarily lengthy as a section title. It would probably make more sense to keep the existing "Contentious labels" title, and begin the section with the longer phrase.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:11, 8 April 2015 (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.

RfC: ancient religions and the myth of NPOV

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Formally closing per request at WP:ANRFC. Consensus is against the proposed change: most participants disagreed that myth or mythology are primarily negative words for ancient religions, and did not feel the need for alternatives. Cthulhu fhtagn. --GRuban (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Propose adding myth and mythology to the content on "words to watch" in WP:LABEL in regard to all uses of the word. I don't intend by this that the words be excluded from use but just, if alternative presentations can be given, then these should be considered. This is in line with the general spirit of the article which begins with the text: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias."

At present the text of WP:LABEL begins, "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

In the thread immediately above I have suggested that this can read, "Value-laden labels ... may express contentious opinion and [may be] best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."

This proposal follows a long discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities in which continued and unanimous opposition was given to the use of the disambiguation "... (mythology)".

The problem here is perceived WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in which present day faiths seem to be automatically classified as "religions", "faiths" etc. while previously practised faiths get regularly classified as "myths" and "mythologies". Words like "folklore" regularly don't even get a look in. My contention is that practitioners of present day religions have established bias by being instrumental in developing the description of prior forms of belief as myth.

According to the online Oxford dictionary definition of: myth, there seems to be no major problem with the first definition.

1. A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events:

If this was viewed in isolation there might be no problem as the word might be considered to neutrally present a narrative on a religious theme. I am not sure when or how the second definition definition was developed/was first used but I consider this to present the problem.

2. A widely held but false belief or idea:

The result, I think, is that present day religions are falsely differentiated from previous faiths.

I think that the problem here goes far beyond a mere #Expression of doubt but that the usage goes as far as to WP:ASSERT falsity when the same stance is not adopted with present day faiths. See the articles Creation myth (which I am not necessarily arguing against) and Genesis creation narrative for examples of this.

A positive way forward I think would be actions such as to favour links such articles as Ancient Greek religion as opposed to Greek mythology. This, I think, would reduce current discrepancy.

I will notify the religion and mythology wikiprojects of this discussion. GregKaye 11:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this imposes a bias where none existed before. The religion wikiproject has basically unilaterally decided that mythology belongs to them, and the only valid point of view from which to study mythology is a religious one. Those of us interested in the historical, anthropological, artistic and literary aspects of traditional storytelling are apparently wrong and can just pack up and go home. You may have unanymity in the religion project, but you have not given other points of view a chance to respond before moving articles.

My own particular interest, Irish myth, shows up the problems with your approach. I note you have moved a handful of Irish mythological characters from "(mythology)" to "(Irish folklore)", but this shows a degree of ignorance of the subject as these are primarily literary, not folkloric, characters. Pre-Christian mythological stories stopped being passed on orally quite early and were preserved by an elite class of antiquarian monks trying to reconstruct what they thought of as a historical narrative that would support their Christian religious foundations and the ruling dynasties they lived under (and were probably mostly part of). These stories have always had secular as well as religious purposes - as do the myths of other cultures. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Nicknack009 you are right in pointing out that I have tackled the topic from a religious angle and, when I initiated the well supported thread: Disambiguations of divinities as an RfC, I only did this with notification to the religion and philosophy board. In hindsight I should have also notified the history and geography board as I have done here.

However, I have also posted on the Mythology wikiproject board to inform of threads/actions in an effort to try to keep things inclusive. All the moves that I made were within categories of gods and godesses and with the three folklore examples that you mention being found within Category:Irish gods. There remains, as I see it, a POV issue with content in a sphere involving religion and belief where words that can be interpreted with negative connotations such as myth and mythology get attached. As far as a "words to watch" approach is concerned then I would hope that nothing would be overly prescriptive but, if a disambiguation such as (Irish literature) would work, this might pose a neutral option. There are plenty of authors that have written about supposed deities along a spectrum from perceived non-fiction to the penning of wilfully fallacious tales and, in this context, words like literature may make no or little judgement. Myth and mythology, however, are not neutral words. They have a shade to suggest fallacy and, within the parameters of dealing with religious topics, I think that they should be words to watch.

GregKaye 20:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Myth" has a technical, non-pejorative meaning that you're ignoring - not to mention that "religion" has negative connotations, to the extent that Christians of my acquaintance insist that Christianity is not a religion. Give me a good myth over a religion any day. But frankly, it's bad enough that we're increasingly told we can't speak frankly about active religious beliefs for fear of giving offence, without extending that oversensitivity to the traditions of people and cultures long dead. Language policing is annoying enough in the social and political spheres without bringing it into scholarship. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nicknack009 and oppose this proposal. This isn't a religious issue. There is no need to make it one. Egsan Bacon (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nicknack009, you have ignored my open presentation of both definitions clearly presented above. Are you saying that people do not associate myth with falsity? My conjecture is that they most certainly do. There is a one sided bias of the terminology of myth is only applied to faiths that, for whatever reason, have fallen out of currency. GregKaye 22:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Egsan Bacon of course it is a religious issue. Modern faiths with, arguably, no greater justification than faiths of the past are treated as religions and this all happens in a context in which faiths of the past are described as myths. There is no balance. GregKaye 21:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I said earlier that "The religion wikiproject has basically unilaterally decided that mythology belongs to them". You're still doing it. While there is some overlap, "mythology" and "religion" are not synonyms, and you need to understand the distinction. Mythology is a body of traditional storytelling, which often has a religious purpose (among other purposes). Religion is a body of ritual practices and beliefs, which often involves myths. As an example, Christianity, a religion that is currently practised, has a body of mythology, including parts of the Bible, which are part of the religion and are read, recited and studied as part of religious practice, as well as stories like the Harrowing of Hell, Paradise Lost and Jesus Christ Superstar, which are not. Likewise, the worship of Dionysus was part of ancient Greek religion, but Euripedes' The Bacchae, a major source for the mythology of Dionysus, is a secular work of art that has been interpreted as a criticism of traditional religious practices, and very likely expressed veiled political concerns. Mythology is not simply dead religion, and invoking religious sensitivity on behalf of mythology in the name of "balance" doesn't make any sense. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say that I agree with Nick here. As the person who created both Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Encyclopedic articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology/Encyclopedic articles, both of which are based on some of the better encyclopedias directly relevant to their topic, I would very very much argue that the one project has attempted to take over the other, just that, for better or worse, most articles fall within the scope of both of them, and the religion project is more active. And also, of course, as Nick says, mythology is about the stories of a religion, not about the religion itself. Particularly in the older religions, where aspects other than the stories themselves aren't given as much attention, like forms of worship, theology, structure of worship, there is a lot of overlap, because the stories of any religion are of significant importance to that religion. And, yes, a lot of articles and topics do appear in both lists, particularly the names of entities who are included in the pantheons or broader belief systems of a religion. Would I mind in any way the WikiProject Mythology becoming more active again? Not in the least. Does its comparative inactivity make it necessary that the more active WikiProject Religion basically be told "hands off"? No, because, from what I remember, most of the editors involved in one project were also active in the other. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's telling the religion project "hands off". It's good and right and necessary that there's input into mythological topics from the religion angle. It's just important to remember that other angles exist and we need their input as well - and we shouldn't go framing language in such a way as to exclude them. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should only use "myth" and "mythology" when necessary and simply be more specific otherwise. Both terms are widely used in an academic, non-pejorative manner but the definition of myth can vary greatly from scholar to scholar, and it does have pejorative semantic element, especially in colloquial English. It's also often reserved for anything that isn't a "living religion". Of course, we're using the term in an academic sense, not a colloquial manner, but I think that the solution to this issue is to simply to be specific wherever possible. I don't think [DEITY NAME (mythology)] is ever an appropriate disambiguation for these reasons. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think Nicknack009 makes some excellent points, and :bloodofox:'s suggestion here is basically sensible. The words "mythology" and "myth" should be used carefully and advisedly. Bad: "The Egyptians thought that Osiris was king of the underworld, but that is only a myth." Good: "In Táin Bó Cúailgne, a key work of Irish mythology, the hero Cú Chulainn has a number of encounters with deities such as the Morrígan." Ancient religions need to be understood on their own terms, not in terms laid down by modern-day religious sentiment, no matter how ecumenical. Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose proposal. Just don't use it in the pejorative layman's sense, but only in the scholarly academic sense. This is too central a concept in the study of religion for it to make sense to consider a problematic word - it would be impossible to write about religion and to follow the usage of the sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: In the current text of WP:LABEL, I already find "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." That sounds appropriate to me. (Has it just been added?) It might be worth adding "mythology" to that sentence; otherwise, I'm not sure what the proposal is meant to do. GregKaye's made clear that counting it as a "word to watch" doesn't mean banning it from our lexicon, just cluing people in that there's a wrong way to use the word. Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The "myth" aspect was already a part of the WP:LABEL guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say we should be careful with the word "myth", as it does have the meaning "something that a lot of people think is true, but isn't". I really don't think there's any need to worry about "mythology", which only has one meaning. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Nicknack009. Paul August ☎ 11:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It seems to me that this is a debate over a word that potentially has consequences for many words. To a large extent it depends on what we assume to be the distinction between English and "Simple English", I for one can distinguished in "legend" between a legend on monument and an urban legend, but ought the editors of Wikipedia expect Wikiepdia readers to know of that distinction? At what age group and educational level is this encyclopaedia aimed? This is covered to a limited extent in MOS:JARGON and the essay Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable (although I think it is hoisted by its own petard "typical level where the topic is studied (for example, high school, college, or graduate school)". What is a high school, college and graduate school? These are dialect expressions and words! If we assume that it is acceptable to use a term such as "high school" then should we assume that Nicknack009's reasonable use of myth is acceptable? -- PBS (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Nicknack009 and everybody else. Introduces a bias that did not exist before. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Related concern This seems part of a larger program the broadly replace the term "mythology" with the term "religion", for example the following edits (inappropriately in my view) replace "Greek mythology" with "ancient Greek religion": [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. These are only a few of what seems to be many many more. I would respectfully ask that these edits be reverted untill we can come to consensus concerning proper usage. Paul August ☎ 15:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be a very odd substitution since mythologies only form part of religion, any religion is much more than its mythologies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus that any religion is much more than its mythologies, and that's precisely why "mythology" should not be used where we mean "religion". The Gaia and Pontus edits for example seem perfectly reasonable, even if these articles do lean heavily on mythology. Q·L·1968 ☿ 16:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of either Gaia or Pontus having any central relation to Greek religion (i.e. cult, rituals) they seem to me to be solely characters within the mythological complex, in the same way that Queen Jezebel and King David are not central figures in Christian religion, but in Christian mythology.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

They don't have to have a central relation. We're talking about a polytheistic religion; it's inherently pluricentric. Pausanias says that the oracle of Delphi belonged to Gaia originally (Description of Greece 10.5.5); the same writer mentions sanctuaries, temples and/or altars of Gaia at Athens (1.18.7), Phila (1.31.4), Sparta (3.11.9), Olympia (5.14.10), Ægæ (7.25.13), and Tegea (8.48.8). Gaia is offered prayers and libations by several characters in Æschylus' Libation Bearers, generally on behalf of the dead. Aristophanes gives an invocation of Gaia, among other deities, in Thesmophoriazusæ. (This and further information available at theoi.com.) On the same website's page on Pontus, you can see two depictions of Pontus on mosaics. Mythology is one aspect of religion; iconography, cult practice, and divination are others. Neither Gaia nor Pontus is restricted to mythology, but are part of a wider milieu. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a reasonable argument that I would be happy to concede, blanket changes of mythology to religion I would not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There I completely agree. Such changes should be thoughtfully considered, not made willy-nilly. Q·L·1968 ☿ 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment in the first discussion started as related to this topic, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Disambiguations of divinities, I have now presented large contents of references from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in comparison to which, parallel Wikipedia content inconsistently and yet predominantly presents a far greater emphasis on mythology. One of earliest points that I raised in my original post was the gender discrepancy in which female divinities were far more likely to be disambiguated ".. (mythology)" than male divinities and this has been born out in later content on that page. A lot of the Britannica and gender research was conducted following my posting of this thread and perhaps issues can be pursued simply by means of quoting such guidelines as WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and WP:NPOV. However, the current emphasis on mythology in Wikipedia, at least in comparison to sources like Britannica, I think, needs to be addressed. I do not think that the word mythology is being used with fair representation and that, to guard against further abuses, a reference in W2W would help. I think that, given the above, "mythology" can certainly be considered (to some extent) a word to watch and, in various cases, words pertaining to "history", "culture" and "religion" may often be more relevantly applied. GregKaye 12:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

GregKaye, your proposal confuses me. Like QuartierLatin1968 (Q·L·) noted above (the "23:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)" post), the "myth" aspect was already a part of the WP:LABEL guideline. So why did you propose that "myth" be added to it? Was your proposal more about adding "mythology" to the guideline? Since "myth" is already there, it's like the oppose votes above are forming WP:Consensus to remove "myth" from the guideline. I did tweak one aspect regarding the guideline, as noted lower. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone wants to remove "myth" from the guideline. What people oppose is a blanket change of mythology to religion because (of course) not all myths are or were religious in nature. It might be worth making it clear that myth and mythology are words to watch in the context of things that are or were once genuine beliefs. If significant numbers of people once believed in something, or currently believe in something, then it might be a mistake to call it a myth. (This goes beyond religion, of course; you wouldn't want to call a political concept a 'myth' either, not unless it's universally described as such in the lines of the Stab-in-the-back myth.) The current wording is "Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term", which I think is about right; the issue is that the OP here misjudged how often there is an established scholarly context for it. --Aquillion (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, Aquillion In a Religion Wikiproject thread I have provided extensive references first from Britannica to show the way that various divinities across a full range of major pantheons were presented as gods, goddesses and deities. When a book written from the perspective of mythology was cited I then presented a raft of references within the book within which various divinities were described in similar ways. In comparison to Britannica I think that Wikipedia is unnecessarily and unevenly assertive in regard to its presentation of and labelling of topics as mythology.

Certainly religion and myth, amongst other issues, are intertwined ... but how is it possible to say that one has precedence? In another thread I noted that Wikipedia has two articles on chicken and egg.

Whether by intention or not I think that there has been a POV pushing in Wikipedia in its presentation of mythology and this may be partly due to the prominent display of "Mercury (mythology)" in project pages such as WP:DISAMB. In all fields of study (inclusive of archeology, cultural studies, mythology and religious studies) a character such as Mercury will be referred to as a god. This is common to all fields. Within Wikipedia content various of the gods in question are presented with sole reference as being in X mythology. In the context of guidelines, and especially in the specific context of the connotations of myth as being associated with fallacy, I think that a biased view is presented. There is certainly an unfair bias in comparison to our presentations of modern religions. There is no article that presents opening texts as "In Judeo-Christian mythology Jehovah ..." or as "In Islamic mythology, Allah ..." In cases where a figure was venerated, worshipped and/or believed in then I think that religion at least deserves a mention. GregKaye 15:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Egsan Bacon, Maunus, Paul August, Mr. Guye, for an illustration of the extent that the interpretation as mythology is being pushed please look at the following;

• List of death deities
• List of fertility deities
• List of health deities
• List of love and lust deities
• List of nature deities
• List of sky deities
• List of war deities
• List of water deities
• List of wind deities

Word such as religion and pantheon are in existance and yet every sphere of practice in all these cases is defined as "mythology". In each case there were associated religious practices with such aspects as priests, temples and sacrifice. It is a vast POV push to define all of this as solely as mythology and the only way that I see it is that people here have serious issues with WP:OWN. I want to ask what you think can be done to balance things out. As far as I can see, even from the earliest of Earth mother type practice, religion comes first.

GregKaye 23:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per GregKaye's counterarguments immediately above. I have changed my mind. Defining certain stuff as "religion" and others as "mythology" without significant scholarly consensus or without significant Wikipedian consensus pushes a POV that does not benefit anyone's personal religious beliefs. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed on "myth" but not "mythology". The first word does have a frequent negative connotation (though we can use it properly in context without giving that connotation, simply by writing well). "Mythology" has no such connotation. [CORRECTION: No such connotation in the religious context, only when used metaphorically; see below.] This goes multiple ways, though. We need to be careful not to label all mythological figures "gods" or "deities", label all legendary figures "mythological", or label all mythological stories and their details "religious". All that said, yes, we do need to avoid labeling at least living religions, en toto, as "mythologies" or "mythological", since it can be taken in a pejorative way, and it's a misuse of the terms. Only parts of religions involve mythology, but it occurs even in major ones based on written scriptures. Christian mythology is a real thing, and well-educated Christians know this. Oone example among many: the story of the flowering of Joseph's staff upon meeting Mary is mythological, and not a part of biblical doctrine; it's also obviously metaphoric of something anyone over the age of puberty understands, and there is no serious debate about that point. Were we to have an article about this, it would be acceptable to refer to this story as part of Christian mythology.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Updated 17:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish This entry on mythology in the online Oxford dictionary includes the definition:

• 1.1 A set of stories or beliefs about a particular person, institution, or situation, especially when exaggerated or fictitious:

we look for change in our thirties, not in our forties, as popular mythology has it

It was, popular mythology tells us, one of the contributing factors to the American Revolution, and it might just lead to a revolution here.

Contrary to today's popular mythology about our past, slavery and exploitation were not taboo subjects then.

Thanks, Betty, for your stunning and original contribution to American popular mythology.

The word "mythology" is equally associated with exaggeration and fallacy. In this I am not saying religious stories in any religion may not have arrived to us packed with exaggeration and fallacy. The only troubles are that the word mythology is very clearly associated with this definition and that, as this word is resisted in its use in relation to present day religions, this creates WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Something has to give. In regard to ancient deities everything gets WP:LABELed as "mythology" and it seems to me that non-neutral editors are, intentionally or not, actively pushing this POV. In relation to "deities" the label "religion" is not, for instance that I have seen, been given use in headings. "Mythology" is used exclusively in this context with this, I think, prejudging label being plastered everywhere.

I am not saying that the words "myth" and "mythology" should be banned from content but that they should be "words to watch". They should only be used in application to ancient religions to the same extent that they are used in connection to modern religions. GregKaye 07:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a metaphoric usage clear in context; another is when we speak of a fictional "mythology", e.g. "Star Trek mythology". Neither of those cases affect interpretation of the use of the word "mythology" in the sort of context we're contemplating here. "Myth" is a very different case; it is quite often used specifically to denigrate religious beliefs as false.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose For a variety of reasons, but TLDR if I wrote them up. One important reason is that I can't see it solving the problems the proposal aims to solve, the same arguments will take place. I will point out that many theologians (who are believers in their religions) discuss the mythological aspects of their religions. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Cf. my comments earlier along related lines; "mythology" and "mythological" in the context of religion refers to a religion's traditional narrative cycle. But "myth" in that context can refer to the same thing, or it can be a pejorative used by adherents of one "true" religion to cast doubt "false" ones. This is why I supported adding "myth" (in the religious context) to this guideline, but distinguishing it from "mytholog[y|ical]". While, as GregKaye documents, there's a metaphorical pejorative sense of "mythological" and "mythology", there's often nothing metaphoric about the pejorative use of "myth".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish we have a situation presented in the lists of deities shown above where presentations of mythology covers the various subjects with comparatively slight reference being made to religion. The topic here is gods and yet there is little comparison between the treatment of modern and past religions. There is gross bias in play. Certainly the within Wikipedia wrongs mentioned can be tackled through the application of other guidelines but some baseline comment here would really help. Added to this is the problem that mythology is a tainted word. Various faiths, present and past, are presented in Wikipedia and yet the term mythology, tainted as it is with the concept of fallacy, is predominantly plastered across the latter. GregKaye 20:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your argument, but disagree with it. I concur that "myth" is too frequently used as a pejorative, within the context of religion, but "mythology" and "mythological" are not; their pejorative use is metaphoric, in other contexts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish take List of death deities for example. Take a look. It is presented as a list of deities which pertains to religion. However mythology is, as far as I can tell, plastered all over this article while articles related to the Abrahamic religions keep myth related terminologies at a comparative distance. There is clear systemic bias here. GregKaye 17:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: Or there's the simple fact that there is no "death deity" in any of the [extant] Abrahamic religions. It seems to me that you are looking hard for reasons to be offended, or going out of your way to suggest ways in which others can take offense, rather than addressing any actual outcry. Even if that article's topic did encompass Abrahamic religions, it would be a matter of fixing that article, and wouldn't prove a systemic problem. (FWIW, I would be in favor of changing "mythology" to "religion" in most of that article's subheadings, though I'm skeptical about doing it to all of them, for reasons that I elucidate below). See, by way of counter-example, Triple deity, which does include Abrahamic religion. I see no such bias there today, nor did it when I started that article as one of my first serious WP endeavors. If it were a systemic bias, we'd see it at this article, too, and other similar comparative religion articles; that's in the nature of what "systemic" means. The words myth[ology|ological] are used sparingly at that article, and in accordance with the articles to which it links when doing so, e.g. Sami mythology. (Disclaimer: I say this based on a cursory re-skimming; I concede that there may be a couple of questionable uses of such terms somewhere in the article, but again, that's a matter for correction at that article, not proof of huge WP-wide problem.)

It's not that "articles related to the Abrahamic religions keep myth[-]related terminologies at a comparative distance"; rather, some editors who really don't like those words go to extra effort to keep them from ever being applied in those articles, even when it's actually appropriate to do so. This is a WP:NPOV problem, but it's one of elevating Abrahamic religions as somehow "beyond" the concept of mythology. The last thing we need to do is escalate and spread this special-exceptionalism by effectively declaring all religions and purported religions magically immune to this terminology, rather than instead doing the right thing, which is insisting that it be used consistently. I've already referred above to the Christian myth of Joseph's flowering staff; if we have an article on this, it should refer to it as mythological. It's not even, technically speaking, apocryphal.

An additional consideration is that for many ancient religions, or purported religions, we have nothing at all but mythology. We have no other vestiges, except perhaps a few ritual objects from alleged sacred sites (see postprocessual archaeology and its detractors for why such interpretations can be controversial, or see the book Motel of the Mysteries for a humorous take on it), or perhaps a third-party description by an enemy's scribe, like Tacitus writing about the Gauls and Germani. Exactly what constitutes "religion" per se from other forms of spirituality, and non-devotional cultural beliefs, is a difficult question, and it's not our job to force the label "religion" or "religious" on mythological material that may not actually qualify.

Much of what survives of both Irish and Welsh mythology (in both cases filtered through later Christian scribes who bowdlerized to an unknowable extent) does not appear to be religious at all, but, like much of the Norse sagas, a grandiose and euhemerizing take on what a pre-literate culture can remember of its own actual history. While some of O'Rahilly's historical model of ancient Irish history, based on these mythological cycles, has been shown by more recent research to have numerous flaws, a substantial portion of it has not, and is almost certainly correct in general outline. Parts of it have been bolstered by genetic and other evidence. We have a similar problem with the Arthurian cycle and the Matter of Britain more broadly, as it wildly mixes history, legend/myth, more prosaic folklore, and vestiges of ancient Celtic religion. It's absolutely wrong in most context to refer to Arthur, Merlin, etc. as "deities" or as part of a "religion", but they are absolutely mythological at their core, commingled with poorly recorded actual history, and then layered upon by legend and outright fiction over the intervening centuries. (I don't mean to belabor northwestern European mythology, I can just speak about it with more certainty).

Yet another factor to consider is that the modern, Western concept of religion is not shared across all cultures, nor even within modern Western culture (millions of Westerns identify as having strong spiritual beliefs but not religion, or even an staunch opposition to religion). In many mytho-spiritual systems, the figures we too-conveniently label "gods" in English are nothing at all like the God/Allah of Abrahamic religion, nor even the distant, and otherworldly gods of the Greek and Roman pantheons. They may simply be one's own venerated ancestors, or heroic immortals believed to walk among us at will, or something ineffable that infuses all living thing, or all things, and so on. "Religion" is often actually a very poor label, and we systemically use it overbroadly and vaguely. "Mythology", on the other hand, has a more distinct meaning: A recorded narrative cycle of stories involving the supernatural and how it is thought by a culture to relate to its origins and place in the natural world (usually including death and an expected afterlife). The key part is "a recorded narrative cycle"; i.e., a mythology is essentially a primary source that we can consult, while a religion has no such concrete definition.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: At Triple deity I did, on closer inspection, find "Hindu mythology", without the context making clear that it referred to a mythological cycle, rather than the religion more generally. Rather that start a debate about that, it seemed more sensible to change all the table headings from labels like "Hindu mythology" and "Greek mythology" to simply "Hindu" and "Greek". This also fixed the problem that the Arthurian cycle was being referred to as "mythology" when it's actually legend. (The distinction is important, but need not be dwelt on here.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:30, 24 April 2015 (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.

Quote box in WP:LABEL

The quote box being used without context in WP:LABEL was grossly misleading and unnecessary. We have excellent text that describes the problems with contentious labels. The quote (of no one in particular, mind you) is simply not needed and should be removed. If you want to explain a particular word in the text, feel free to offer some text for a possible explanation here.

jps (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not misleading; those are contentious labels in many situations, even though some may also have non-judgmental uses. It's presented, just as in the sections above and below, as a series of examples and doesn't claim to be a quotation. NebY (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The examples aren't very good. There isn't a justification for including those particular words and some of them are included without any comment. The text is much better. As it is presented right now, users might think that it's okay to simply remove all those words wherever they see them which is highly problematic. jps (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked one part regarding that section, in case editors think that they automatically have to use WP:Intext-attribution; they do not. WP:Intext-attribution is clear that it can mislead. I have certainly seen it applied wrongly. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The examples that you most recently removed are all appropriate. Most of Sect, fundamentalist, heretic, extremist, denialist, myth, -gate, pseudo- and controversial are used without any derogatory intent in particular contexts, but in general use all are frequently intended as or read as inherently critical, derogatory or condemnatory. Four of them are discussed at length in the text below the box. It is possible that some are "not universally accepted" (as you put it in an edit summary); that rather suggests that they are indeed contentious. If editors "simply remove all those words wherever they see them" then the problem is surely one of competence - they have disregarded or simply not read the text that the box introduces. Have you encountered a recent instance of this, perhaps actually citing the MOS, that you have sought to correct by amending the MOS? NebY (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, people cited WP:LABEL as a reason to remove the description of a webpage that engages in climate change denial. To claim that this is a pejorative description of the blog is certainly the POV of those who believe in climate change denial, but when reliable sources identify the webpage as such, it seems that many users (who may have ulterior agendas) are quick to appeal to this MOS as a trump card. jps (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Come on now, assume a little good faith. This false dichotomy that unless you accept completely the IPCC with regard to climate change you are a denialist is not scientific in the least. And in order to back up your use of a contentious label you decide to just change the MOS to fit your needs. History will not be kind to this continued misuse of science. Arzel (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the dispute you're engaged in over Anthony Watts (blogger). So far as I can tell, WP:LABEL has been mentioned once, at WP:BLPN#Anthony Watts (blogger), when Arzel wrote "wp:label applies. Defining a living person in negative terms by those openly hostile to them is both a violation of npov and blp."[16] That's not a case of, in your words above, "users might think that it's okay to simply remove all those words wherever they see them which is highly problematic" and Arzel didn't refer to the list of examples. Nevertheless, within an hour you'd deleted the entire series from WP:LABEL[17] and you went on to try deleting a group of nine words. You'll understand that it looks as if you really just wanted to delete "denialist" and the rest were collateral damage. NebY (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were some text about why "denialist" is a label. Would you care to write some for inclusion? I deleted others because there was no explanation of how they were labels properly. I don't understand why we have words listed which are not mentioned in the text. jps (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

jps The text at WP:LABEL is very far from excellent and presents direct contradiction the opening text of WP:W2W. This begins with the statement "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia". Regardless of this the text of WP:LABEL WP:ASSERTs: "Value-laden labels ... are best avoided". I have suggested that this should say "Value-laden labels ... may be best avoided". Editors raise issue with article titles such as List of terrorist incidents in London in lengthy waste of time discussions like this. Please can a change to a less assertive and prescriptive text for WP:LABEL.

• I also provisionally agree with you about denialism and doubt that we can assert the "denialist" will certainly act as an unwarranted label in all circumstances. I personally agree with usage in relation to the mentioned issues Climate change denial, HIV/AIDS denialism and Holocaust denial, GregKaye 14:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, claiming a value-judgment where none has happened is a problem. The word myth has caused similar problems in relation to, for example, flood myths. We really just need to revamp this. The point is that if reliable sources use the "label" it is not Wikipedia's place to remove it. jps (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily have a problem with the titles "flood myths" and "creation myths" as these are used equally in reference to the wide range of "religions" that contain these narratives. However, it may be notable that:

• "flood story" gets "About 23,300 results" in books

"flood story" gets "About 3,580 results" in scholar

• "flood myth" gets "About 7,900 results" in books

"flood myth" gets "About 1,270 results" in scholar

I would personally interpret "flood legend" as per WP:PRECISE but this is less supported.

• "flood legend" gets "About 5,690 results" in books

"flood legend" gets "About 324 results" in scholar

There is no denying though that "flood myth" is widely used. The main issue for me is the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in "myth" related terminology favour of modern religions over ancient faiths. Wording is not evenly used. Howver mine is a different issue to yours. GregKaye 09:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The "bias" is certainly there, but it is there in a way that is slightly problematic in that extant believers object to their religious stories being identified properly as myths in spite of the academic literature's preference for such "LABELS" while the academic literature's preference is preserved on the pages which write about religious stories that are not believed by currently living adherents.

In any case, do we have consensus to reword at least?

jps (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What rewording are you proposing? Does it concern GregKaye's perception of a contradiction between "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia" and "Value-laden labels ... are best avoided"? I hope not; it's not contradictory to say no words are forbidden but some are best avoided. Is it about Greg's concerns around "myth", which have been raised in so many places but not achieved consensus? Is it about "denialist"? We can hardly say Greg's "provisionally agree" concerning denial can be added to your more sweeping deletions to establish consensus, even if you hadn't faced opposition to those removals from myself and Arzel. But do propose a rewording and see if you can gain consensus. NebY (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

NebY My "are best avoided" views were firstly in relation to the issue of terrorism above and were in regard to comments of "violation" of wp:label in a long running discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London. Many editors considered this to ba a fair use of article title. My argument is that, if an editor edits with a word that labelled as a label, then that editor can be logically labelled as not editing to best standard. There is a world of difference between dogmatically asserting "are best avoided" and giving fair indication "may be best avoided". GregKaye 12:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and indeed, I see your suggestion of including "may be" was part of your RFC Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Proposed changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels. As that has no support as yet, I don't suppose that can be what jps is referring to. NebY (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying that words that fall in the quotebox should at least be explained in the text. jps (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not a principle that's been applied to any of the sections in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and there's no obvious reason why the WP:QUOTE section should deviate from the rest in that, so you'll need a wider discussion than this one to establish consensus on the principle. NebY (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to the discussion where the words in the quote box were decided upon? I can't find it. jps (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

After waiting a week, I've come to realize that there has never been a discussion on what words to include. I'll start one below.

GregKaye, regarding this and this, I reverted because I see no WP:Consensus for changing "are" to "may be." And seeing as this is a WP:Guideline, you should have WP:Consensus for it. Like NebY told you above in this section, "that has no support as yet." I disagree with changing "are" to "may be" because those are words that should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles, unless widely supported by WP:Reliable sources and used in a way that adheres to WP:Due weight. We need no softening of language in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

PBS, given what I stated above about WP:In-text attribution, how is your edit, which reverted mine, an improvement? I fail to see how my wording "gutted whole point of the paragraph." The whole point of the paragraph is a mess, and should be fixed. Like I stated above, that wording makes it seem like editors "automatically have to use WP:Intext-attribution; they do not. WP:Intext-attribution is clear that it can mislead. I have certainly seen it applied wrongly." Flyer22 (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Lets continue this at the bottom of the page. -- PBS (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Iconic"

I have added "iconic" to the list of peacock/puffery terms. It's still used quite often in senses where it should be avoided and where it contributes nothing to a sentence. Things that are truly iconic can always be described in terms that clearly state what the iconic thing "stands for" and why. Perhaps it's been considered before, as it's a very prevalent word, but it hasn't been mentioned recently on this talk page. Roches (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This was undone, and I undid the revert. Many of the words on the list are often used correctly ("landmark", "hit"), and the fact that "iconic" does have legitimate uses does not mean that it shouldn't be on the list. If there are "enough examples", do consider removing another word instead. At this point in time, "iconic" is being overused. It will go out of vogue eventually, and then it won't need to be on the list anymore. Roches (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted you here and here. There are indeed enough examples in that box, and I am tired of seeing editors coming along and adding words that they dislike (a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis) to it without any discussion. This is a WP:Guideline, and changes to it that affect how Wikipedia is edited should have WP:Consensus. The word iconic is commonly a valid and acceptable word on Wikipedia, especially when supported by WP:Reliable sources. If it's used in a non-WP:Neutral way, we have means to fix that. We should not be giving editors the impression that the word should generally be avoided. In other words, pointing them to this guideline and telling them "generally avoid that word" likely will not be what is best. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The section title, words that may introduce bias, implies that the words should only be avoided if they do introduce bias. The guideline itself is clearly a caution against using words when they promote a subject without imparting verifiable information, rather than a ban on the use of those words.

You raise a valid concern about the possibility of someone using the guideline to justify removing a proper use of "iconic," although the presence of any word on that list creates that same possibility. I added the word to the list without prior consensus because I did not think anyone would object to its presence. I certainly wouldn't have altered the text of the guideline without consensus. I also wouldn't have changed the contents of one of the lists of words that are generally to be avoided, such as the next list, which contains words like "cult" and "racist." I won't change anything in the future without prior consensus, however. Roches (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is policy, and many regular editors make tweaks to guidelines and even policies without a big discussion first. More than nine times out of ten this leads to a WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, but that's fine. Editors should not be berated for making bold, good-faith changes. "You didn't discuss this first" is actually not a revert rationale by itself, or Wikipedia would still have only one article. Given the increasingly disputed nature of this erstwhile guideline, we need some bold editing here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not berating the editor. And as for "You didn't discuss this first," that is often a valid rationale, especially as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines go; these policies and guidelines are clear, in their Wikipedia:Nutshell tags, that changes to them should reflect WP:Consensus. Particular care should be taken with policies and guidelines to avoid the very thing you complained about in the #Are we a go? section above -- WP:Instruction creep. Not to mention people using these policies and guidelines to shape their personal views, as is the case with this recent WP:Neutral dispute (see the edit I reverted and the previous discussion on that). You often state how certain things are just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter. Well, WP:Policies and guidelines usually expand beyond WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Roches clearly feels berated and then some, and is now afraid to directly edit here ever again. That's a terrible outcome. This is the sort of unwelcoming reception that drives so many incoming editors right back out again. But I think we're talking past each other a little here. My point is that many bold edits do in fact reflect consensus. Many sensible changes to these pages, made boldly, reflect direct observations of the "ground truth" of what our editorial best practices are. (While probably most bold changes do not, enough of them do that WP:BOLD remains a policy that applies to all pages here, not just article content, and this is very important). Consensus is not always about debating on a talk page. Most consensus isn't actually, or this project would have failed almost immediately. I've made an enormous number of direct edits to policy and guideline pages without getting "permission" first, and the number of them that stick might surprise you. I think very carefully about them, and about what is best for the encyclopedia, whether it's my own ideal preference or not. (You'd likely also be surprised at how much of MOS I disagree with, but abide by and ask that others abide by because it is our MOS, and style matters are mostly pretty arbitrary when you get down to it.) "You didn't discuss this first" is not a valid reversion rationale by itself (highlighting a key clause in what I actually said), even if some people think it is and try to misuse it that way. A valid rationale is something like, "I don't agree with this change because X; please discuss". The need to discuss is entirely because there is some X to hash out. That X is the valid revert rationale, and the need for discussion is the cart that follows behind the rationale horse; it is the ship that carries the cargo, not the cargo itself. As I've said before many times here, the menu is not the meal, the map is not the territory. We need to avoid confusing a methodology for resolving a dispute, with the underlying dispute itself. I think what you think I'm saying is something like "you can't insist that people discuss things", but I've not said anything like that at all. PS: I made no such argument about the "localness" of anything under discussion here. I've also never said that "certain things are just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter"; that phrase doesn't even make sense to me. I do frequently point out that wikiprojects and other little editing cliques cannot, per LOCALCONSENSUS policy, make up their own wannbe-rules that defy site-wide policies, guidelines, or procedures; but that has nothing to do with any of this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you should put words into Roches's mouth...or hands. In fact, I'll WP:Ping Roches now so that Roches can comment further. That is, if Roches is not watching the page/talk page. If I made you feel berated, Roches, then I apologize. As for how much of the WP:Manual of Style you disagree with, SMcCandlish, I already know; I see you often at the WP:Manual of Style talk page, and we've disagreed on enough things, including your WP:LOCALCONSENSUS feelings and how you feel about WP:Med (which is exactly what I mean about you stating that certain things are just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter). Needless to state, this "iconic" discussion is another matter we disagree on. Somewhat disagree on. I agree with you about being WP:Bold. But like I stated above, "Particular care should be taken with policies and guidelines." WP:CONLIMITED is clear about that. I don't believe in WP:Silent consensus as much as some editors around here do. I've seen WP:Silent consensus assumed in cases where WP:Consensus was not there at all, and then the case is revisited after the damage has been done, including with regard to some Wikipedia policies or guidelines, whether it's the WP:Burden policy or some other Wikipedia policy or guideline. I take changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines seriously because I see how such changes affect the Wikipedia community on a large scale, sometimes negatively. There was also a big debate at the WP:Consensus talk page about having "silent consensus" material on that policy page; see Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 18#Assuming consensus. What I was trying to get across to Roches is that I've seen the WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch guideline used as a page where people just dump things on because they dislike certain words and/or how those words are applied and want to enforce that view across Wikipedia, and I'm tired of seeing that. Too many editors use WP:Manual of Style/Words inappropriately, and as though it's the gospel. I'd rather see that there is a decrease in such behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't feel like a world-class virtuoso editor, but "berated" is too strong. Roches (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I don't particularly disagree with any of that, Flyer22, including concerns about misuse of this guideline, and various PoV-pushing edits to it that don't reflect consensus but just don't get reverted promptly. This is actually a major aspect of the very WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem that I touch on frequently. But characterizing my views on that topic as "stating that certain things are just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter" is mischaracterizing them. There's no such thing as something that's just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter. It's the very act of trying to take a WP editing matter and make it something local to a "special" subset of editors, that is the actual problem. Most such efforts are bound up in the WP:Specialist style fallacy and the broader idea that articles should reflect the values, not just expertise, of specialists in that topic rather than those of the encyclopedia project as a whole and its broad readership. But many LOCALCONSENSUS problems are not tied to the SSF, and are just rooted in highly localized editing politics, often simple matters of pride and control. Humans by nature seek power, even in games, and online forums, and informal parties. It's how we're wired. WP has been explicitly engineered to short-circuit this effect to some extent, but not quite enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Only

There has to be an entire class of words to watch similar to "only," a perfectly good word when used npov. "Nebraska is the only state to have a unicameral legislature." But not, "Texas only emits 3 x 10 to the ninth bushels of carbon monoxide daily." We don't really automatically have an idea whether carbon monoxide expressed in bushels is a small figure or a large when when used in the context of a fairly large, populated state. There should be a separate subsection that warns users from using this class or words in a pov manner. One "class" is words used to qualify data. Data should be "qualified" using other data, not adjectives nor adverbs. And maybe even providing a short list of common words, of which "only" ranks in the first 10 or 20 IMO. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, another example that indicates the entire raison d'etre of this page is questionable. There was a "let's redo this from scratch" proposal a few months ago, not sure what happened to that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Are adjectives the enemy?

Is this to Emmy Noether a good edit?

It's undiscussed. Perhaps 109.158.49.196 would care to comment here? I assume it was done on the basis of WP:PEACOCK, specifically as interpreting this to mean "no adjectives of comparison whatsoever". Yet we cover the major and notable topics here, so sometimes a topic subject is the major work on a subject or a "leading mathematician" of their time writing "seminal papers" with "elegant" arguments and "profound" influences on others.

This was not a trivial article, it was already a FA and had been widely reviewed by others. These adjectives were justified in their use. Exceptional yes, but sometimes we're describing an exceptional subject and we need glowing praise with which to do it. That's appropriate accuracy in a narrow context, not hyperbole.

Or are all adjectives inherently subjective, unencyclopedic and to be removed on sight? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Somewhere between 'Live Free or Die' and 'Famous Potatoes', the truth really lies." – George Carlin. Proper encyclopedic writing lies between the two extremes outlined here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar fix

 Fixed

The second sentence uses nonparallel construction in "expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view." An "or" should be added before "clichéd", or (preferably, IMHO) the "that" before "endorse" should be removed. Simple fix, but I can't edit this page 2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, ignore the "preferable" fix above as it doesn't actually fix the problem. The phrase needs either the additional "or" or a rewrite.2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

despite

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt

I think despite should be added to this section, please comment Govindaharihari - WP:EDITORIAL - (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, despite is usually a perfectly fine word, almost in the same vein as although. I stated "almost" because it can be used in POV ways. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

What words are "contentious"

I propose that the following words are unambiguously contentious and would need reliable sources before being used in Wikipedia's voice:

• racist
• perverted
• heretic
• extremist
• terrorist
• bigot
• -gate
• pseudo-

The other words I find are not so unambiguously contentious and our text either doesn't discuss them or is ambiguous about them (c.f. myth).

Comments?

jps (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree about all the terms in the list, but would add "cult" and "sect" and maybe a few related words. Calling someone a "criminal" might be problematic, for instance. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This attempt to remove the word "Denialist" should be rejected at hand. Furthermore, this is the wrong way to go about such a change. Arzel (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This looks like exactly the right way to discuss a revision of the list of examples. For the sake of clarity, I'll note that jps's proposal would remove "cult", "sect", "fundamentalist", "denialist", "freedom fighter", "myth" and "controversial". You're free to argue that any of those should still be included. NebY (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

One way of proposing change that I have often seen and practised is first present the existing situation, then to present a proposed situation (or issue, set of issues) then perhaps to not any changes and present any related thoughts and arguments. This seems to been a contentious page and, although I will not judge whether an "attempt" was involved, Arzel is right to raise the issue. GregKaye 12:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Heretic[al]"/"heresy" in the context of Roman Catholicism (and its offshoots) isn't contentious, but a matter of factual record; either the church (usually the Pope, or the king in Anglicanism) declared something heresy, or not. Used in other contexts, these words would be a PoV problem, but this doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't see an issue to address here. Those Watergate-derived "-gate" labels are also a matter of fact; something has either been popularly termed that way or it hasn't, and whether we title the article that way is a WP:COMMONNAME issue, and whether we mention the label in the text is a matter for case-by-case discussion at the articles' talk pages about how prevalent it is in the sources, and whether they have an agenda to push. "Pervert[ed]" would be contentious in WP's voice even if sources did use it, since it's a subjective moral judgment. "Pseudo-" is simply Latin for 'false' and is not contentious in any way in many cases; it's a common element in various scientific names for animals, minerals, etc. We don't need to modify the guideline to account for obvious misuse of the prefix to impart value judgments. "Terrorism" is a specific set of tactics, generally mass murder and the destruction of public edifices, or the threat of such actions, to achieve political ends. While the word can be used in a loaded way, so can just about anything, and it isn't inherently judgmental. "Sect" isn't either; it simply means "religious group, especially one with beliefs that differ from those of other groups within the same overall religion". The fact that some people misuse it to mean "a weird cult" doesn't mean we can't use it. "Cult" almost always, in present-day English, conveys a negative connotation. While there is still some surviving use of the term in an anthropological sense (our own article Dionysus uses it in this neutral way in the lead, for example), it's a term of art in such cases and not apt to be understood as neutral by non-specialist readers, so the term is best avoided in such contexts, and replaced with "worship of", "a shrine to", and other more specific phrasing that fits the context in question. In reference to what we usually think of as "cults" (Heaven's Gate, etc.), yes we need sources, but we need sources for everything anyway. I would agree with adding it to this guideline, but there's nothing wrong with following the sources and using "cult" to describe Heaven's Gate or the Jonestown group. We even have reliable sources for working definitions of "cult" in that context and how to distinguish a cult (in that sense) from a religion. It's not WP's job to draw such a distinction ourselves, per WP:NOR, but it is our job to reflect how the sources treat these subjects. There is absolutely no doubt that a majority of reliable sources treat Scientology as a cult, for example, and our article on that topic properly reflects this. The problem is just using WP's voice to try to definitively label something a "cult" rather than report that specific sources have done so. "Denial[ist]" is a matter of fact, not opinion; either someone's published views do or do not deny something that is otherwise generally accepted. Similarly for "revisionist". "Racist" and "bigot[ry]" are obviously going to be problematic, but the former can be used without being an issue when the sources support it. There's no question, for example, that Jim Crow laws were racist, and it's not a PoV problem for WP to say so. "Bigot[ry]" is simply a loaded way of saying "racist"; it's an ad hominem personal label, like "jackass", instead of a description of a belief system or pattern of behavior ("-ism"). I don't see any evidence that it's being used in articles and needs to be addressed by this guideline. We don't need to list every single term in here that someone could conceivable misuse in an article, only those that are perennially problematic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by NAEG There's a whiff of a proposal here, but it seems incomplete to me. Our section now provides an open ended list of examples (notice the ellipsis at the start and end of the list of sample words). Our text does not say that any of these ALWAYS are contentious; it only says they MIGHT be. This puts the onus on editors to use good judgment and cooperative BRD on case-by-case basis. Proposal sounds like a proposal to (A) keep an open-ended list of MAYBE words and our MAYBE text, while (B) adding a new section of ALWAYS-TROUBLE words and text that MANDATES criteria for their usage. This strikes me as very well-intended WP:CREEP. @Peter Gulutzan:, elsewhere you opined that the proposal would remove "denialist" from the list of sample words. I don't read it that way, first because the OP said nothing about purging the MAYBE words/text; secondly because the list of sample words is not exclusive, i.e., it is open-ended. So no worries, mate, you can keep citing this to keep saying we can't say "deny" derivatives at Anthony Watts (blogger) unless we also include sources, like that published report from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences mentioned at the talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What I actually said is here. I don't recall that I cited WP:WTW at some earlier time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement that this proposal might "result in removing 'denialist' from the list of words to watch". I don't think that is what is being proposed for reasons stated above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot depends on context of usage in RS, but generally speaking the list looks about right, with the possible exception of pseudo-, which is commonly used for legitimate descriptive purposes, like quasi-.

I would think that "cult" could probably be added, with caution, because it is often used legitimately in a critical capacity, such as "cult of personality", etc.; but probably not "sect", which is too commonly used for legitimate classification purposes in RS in religious studies. Wikipedia editors should not use these terms editorially to summarize critical RS unless there is a consensus as to the preponderance.

"Denialist" definitely should be removed, as there are extremely limited number of "value-laden" applications of that general term. The "climate change" related application is an example of misapplication of this policy for POV ends; that is to say, as a basis for excluding RS criticism of commentary on climate change denying that it is happening, or the extent, etc., which is the dictionary definition of the term.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that this is simply an exercise to remove the "Denialist" in order to call climate change skeptics "deniers". I am afraid you are wrong about the dictionary definition. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[18] --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to concur with Ubikwit; too many of these words have non-contentious uses, in reliable sources. I also have to agree with NewsAndEventsGuy's analysis: We are mix-and-matching "maybe" and "always" contentious terms, and doing so in an unclear fashion, with the result that we do not have a clear proposal here, only the beginnings of one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the status quo worse, though? It indicates a number of words that are identified as "problematic" without explanation and then offers extended rejoinders for a number of others that it lists which seem to detract from the whole point of the section. jps (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. This entire extended thread seems to me not to be improving the situation (yet?) but adding to the confusion. The proposal still seems to be mix-and-matching terms that refer to RS-verifiable facts (criminal conviction, the existence of real-world controversy, definition as a terrorist) and terms that are nothing but opinional judgments (bigotry and perversion, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Back on track

I think John Carter makes a good case for "criminal" to be included. As for cult and sect, I'm less convinced that they are perennially problematic as SMcCandlish puts it. A "sect" can be a very neutral designation and, until relatively recently, so was the term "cult". On the other hand, I think the current use of "cult" is pretty much always pejorative and it is eschewed in the academic literature, so let's include that one. I aslo think SMcCandlish makes some excellent points about some of other other words currently used. Let's try again. Here is a list of the most problematic terms, as far as I can tell that the consensus states:

• perverted
• cult [under discussion - see below]
• extremist
• terrorist
• bigot
• criminal
• crank

Are there others which are big red flags?

jps (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

_{Apologies for rejoining this late.} While the use of "cult" to describe existing religions and movements may be generally pejorative, "cult" is currently used by historians and others in a non-pejorative sense; current academic literature concerning ancient religions uses it freely. If we do include it, let's make that distinction. NebY (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and in the case of cult of personality it is used pretty widely. jps (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Sect" is pretty much the European variant for the recent American usage of the word "cult." I agree that in both cases the terms can be and reasonably are frequently used in a nonpejorative way. The "cult of saints" for instance is one of the standard ways to describe that form of veneration, and from what I've seen one of the standard names for encyclopedic entries on that form of veneration, and in the US the word "sect" is primarily used in a nonpejorative way to describe groups within a larger faith tradition. In neither case is the use of the word as a part of a broader term, like "Protestant sect" or "cult of saints," necessarily problematic, but if used as stand-alone terms they can be. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed "cult" just because I think that the discussion would be too long. Are there any additional words? jps (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion we've already had may show the way to retaining "cult" with little change to the existing wording e.g. "such as calling an modern organization a cult". NebY (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I added another one. While the word "crank" is often used in passing to describe pseudoscience proponents, it is not a word which should be used in Wikipedia, I'd argue. jps (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is just turning into a PoV-pushing exercise, "these are the words I subjectively don't like". "Criminal", for one thing, is a verifiable factual matter: either convicted or not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the proper term for such "convict"? jps (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I think using the unqualified term "criminal" can be very problematic. "Convicted criminal" is verifiable, but what about people who have their records expunged? What about people who were wrongfully convicted? What about people who are pardoned? Are they all verifiably "criminals"? It's best to avoid the term and describe the legal situation the person finds themselves in. Yes, the word "criminal" might be used, but it can't simply be a label, I think. This is very problematic. jps (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; I made the same recommendation myself, below, to use "convicted criminal", with reliable legal sources. We can also refer to someone's "criminal record", perhaps the most neutral approach (it's literally a reference to legal document sources). When it comes to organized crime, however, we'd still use it unqualified, e.g. "a criminal enterprise". "Convicted criminal" applies largely to specific individuals. PS: "Convict" is most commonly only applied to someone who has served time in prison for a felony, and again, it's a term applied almost exclusively to individuals, which is not true of "criminal" as an adjective.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Are we a go?

I think the list above is far better than the one currently being used in the sense that it includes a higher percentage of simply unambiguous problems. I don't think much (or anything really) would have to change in the text for this replacement. Please let me know your thoughts.

jps (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I dislike ambiguity and there were several comments. Please post a list showing strikeout and underline to indicate changes, and then ask the question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say we are not a go. The thread as a whole indicates a substantial lack of consensus not only with regard to what "the words" are but whether they're "maybe" or "always" not-OK.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm wondering, however, if maybe we could simply use the words above as a starting point for the box. E.g. I think this box is better than the current one:

... perverted, cult, extremist, terrorist, bigot, criminal, crank...

jps (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know to what extent anything might be done on this but I think that labels can work both ways. There are value-laden labels that may be considered to inappropriately discredit a person or group and there are value laden labels that may be considered to inappropriately exonerate a person or group. I do not personally see why a word like "extremist" should be kept on the list when all this long established word implies is taking things to extremes when "jihadist" is not on the list when this neologism has connotations of doctrinal justification for actions. On this it is important to note that there is a fundamental difference between Jihad and Jihadism with Offensive jihad arguably contravening the defensive intentions of the Quran based doctrine. I think that it also exerts POV when many of the groups so described may be most essentially being engaged in conflict with other Sunni, Shia and/or Sufi groups. Many of these groups describe themselves as Mujahideen which, according to article content, relates to the claim of being "engaged in Jihad" but, as mentioned, jihad may often represent something quite different from the expansionist, child abducting, aide worker killing, minority persecuting behaviours involved. GregKaye 13:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that box trimming down the list, with the addition of "controversial".

@Flyer22: You haven't even participated in this discucssion, and the edit summary claim against consensus seems questionable.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And why do I have to participate in this discussion to see that there is no WP:Consensus for this edit I reverted you on? Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg extremist assumes that there is a known extreme potion away from the normal one, of course most people believe that their own particular political positions and cultural norms are not extreme. In this I think that there is a lesson to be learnt from Charles James Napier:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

Who was the extremist? Coming more up to date: is it reasonable to state that the Irish are extremists because they will not allow abortions, Or that the Irish are extremists because they allow same sex marriages? Are those British people who want to remain in the European Union extremists or are those who want to leave the union extremists? Are those who believe in free trade extremists? etc etc. The point is that using the term extremist in the narrative voice of the article, carries moral overtones: they are extreme, not "one of us" (the writer and the reader of an article)). -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

PBS there can be situations in which RS consistently and predominantly describe a group as extremist. Sure there may be other descriptive words that can be used but in this type of situation I think that Wikipedia editors should have the option, if in text attribution has been used elsewhere, to similarly use the description elsewhere in the article without the description having to be tied to attribution. GregKaye 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If it has been used elsewhere why use it again? Let me give you an example with terrorism. One the term has been in-text attributed, there is no need to state it again, that style way leads to really bad articles like 9/11 where there word terrorist or terrorism is used about 40 times (excluding uses in names such as "War on Terror" and "Terrorism Suppression Act 2002". If one wished one could replace all of those not in quotes with "extremist" and "extremism", without changing the meaning of the article one jot. With a little bit of of copy-editing one could eliminate all 40 usages, and turn a biased article into a non biased one -- which would make the article far more powerful in getting the message across about how terrible the attacks were ("let the facts speak for themselves") . -- PBS (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I agree that "criminal doesn't belong on the list either; of course, it shouldn't be used in a pejorative manner, and must be appropriately sourced.

On the other hand, I think a common word like controversial, somewhat counterintuitively, belongs on the list. In this case, a persons statements, etc., may be controversial, but rarely (if ever) would a person themselves be considered inherently controversial. Maybe the entire conceptual framing of this policy statement needs to be revamped. What we have is a list bloated with terms that should probably only be considered to be "value-laden" when used inappropriately by WP editors, as opposed to RS. I think that is the crux of the matter. Instead of words to be avoided, they are words that need to be handled with care, and not used in a summary-style manner by WP editors.

@GregKaye: I agree with your point on "extremist" as well, basically, though probably not about "jihadist", which is a different issue (social convention).

@Flyer22: It is not even clear that you are aware of what is being discussed here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I know what is going on here. And you had no WP:Consensus for your change, as is clear above, and I reverted you. Yes, I object to you removing all of the words you did. Also, do stop WP:Pinging me. This page is clearly on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest this content?:

... pervert, cultist, terrorist, bigot, criminal, crank...

,

... perverted, bigot, terrorist, criminal, crank, cult...

or

... bigot, crank, criminal, cult, perverted, terrorist...

The first suggestion presents content in the form of personal descriptions.

The second suggestion was written just from personal view that "perverted, cult" read oddly and that cult made a pithy ending. Its just subjective opinion.

The last suggestion just puts content in alphabetical order.

GregKaye 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: "Terrorist" and "criminal" are easily sourced terms in common use. The other terms seem reasonable with the need to point out that "cult", though often used in a pejorative manner, has legitimate uses as well, such as "cult of personality". I think that "controversial" should be included, as it is a sometimes randomly applied label. I think that the "value-laden" aspect needs to be focused narrowly in terms of application, not in a manner as to constrain the use of well-sourced instances.

I'd suggest the following list.

... bigot, crank, cultist, pervert, controversial ...

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• We're still wandering right back into the same mire. I'm more and more beginning to question the raison d'etre of this guideline. It's turning more and more into "Words with which some Wikipedians seem to have a subjective, personal issue". If the preponderance of reliable sources say that Heaven's Gate was a cult, in that sense of the word (see above for anthropological sense, etc.), then it's not our job to force some "we just don't like that term" PoV on the issue. "Criminal" is a matter of legal record - either someone has been convicted or they have not. "Terrorist" is also a matter of definition and usage in reliable sources; if someone is a combatant or would-be-combatant using tactics defined as terrorism (i.e. mass murder, large-scale civic destruction, and/or the threat thereof, in furtherance of a socio-political end), then WP isn't in a position to contradict that terminology just because some people somewhere misuse the word. There is no word that some people do not misuse. I have no issue with "bigot[ed]", "crank", "pervert[ed]" being rejected terminology here. But they're not really "words to watch"; they're simply impermissible per WP:NPOV policy, except in a direct, relevant quotation. What's happening here is we're confusing words that have non-value-laden definitions but also some value-laden usage, with terms that always have a subjective, judgmental meaning. It's a huge can of worms. And the list of each kind of word are potentially very, very long.

  I think we need to take a step back, and look at actual cases of dispute. Do not adding anything to this list unless there's a record of a nearly intractable dispute that has arisen about it's use, and remove anthing from it that doesn't meet that qualification. Otherwise we're simply engaging in instruction creep and trying to "fix what ain't broke". This is a form of "terriblizing". Much of what I see above appears to be trying to pre-emptively address everything bad we can imagine; the problem with this, of course, is that there's practically no limit to our imagination of what maybe, possibly, somehow could lead to some sort of dispute some time in the future.

  And even an analysis of past disputes has to examine what the dispute was actually about. Just because there was some kind of dispute doesn't mean we have a "word to watch" on our hands. This is almost certainly the case with both "terrorist" and "criminal". It's not that the words are inherently PoV-laden, like "bigot", "pervert", and "extremist"; it's that who is labeling whom, in the real world, may reflect an external bias. For this reason, such labels should be qualified and attributed: "a convicted criminal", with legal sources; "defined as a terrorist group by" what specific sources. By way of contrast, we would never say "was a pervert according to ...", or "is a bigot organization according to ...". These two categories of terms are quite distinct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  PS: "Controversial" is in the first category; either we have sources that there's a controvery, or we don't. It's a purely factual matter, and we do in fact use the word quite frequently, often with section headings that use the word. Thousands of our article subjects (human and otherwise) are literally notable for nothing but the controversy surrounding them. It's absurd to think we can't refer to them as controversial, when the entire article will be about the controversy, what is controversial, and who's controverting what. "Controversial" isn't, well, controversial, here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Incidentally, here is the example (two threads related to a professor/author) I recalled that led me to discuss "controversial".[19][20]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: I agree that it's "poisoning the well" to label the authors of sources "controversial" like that (may also be WP:BLP violation). We can say a claim (hypothesis, etc.) is controversial, if we have reliable secondary sources that say so. We can kind of indicate, with due weight and if we're careful, that a claim is controversial without saying so outright, if the sources we have don't themselves quite spell that out, but the coverage in reliable secondary sources clearly indicates that a claim is not well accepted. But it's encyclopedically meaningless blather to say that someone is controversial, no matter what sources say it. It's like claiming they're pretty, or bad-ass.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm entirely in agreement with you, SMcCandlish. I think this whole page might be worth throwing away as this is what we might call a "content style-guide" which is a type of writing that Wikipedia has moved away from. Content is supposed to be verifiable to reliable sources. That's what makes it good content. You can't have blanket style rules to make that work. Either the sources say this is that or the sources do not. So what do we do? Should we demote this page? jps (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said in another thread (below, I think), we could probably rewrite this as a guideline on how to identify problematic wording, and give contextual examples that don't amount to a list that people feel a need to add their pet hated words to. If we focus on a methodology for identifying POV and other problems in wording, rather that on words some of us dislike, we'll probably produce much more useful results.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. I 100% agree with this. Should we start a sandbox for it? jps (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If created, it will need WP:Consensus before going live. I'm mostly fine with the guideline as it is. It's the quote (word) boxes that are sometimes a problem; that is, because of how people interpret and strictly apply them. Then again, different interpretations and applications of the rules are a factor for all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well of course. That's the whole point of sandboxing. (re: first sentence)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I too am fine with the guideline as it is. jps wants to label Anthony Watts (blogger) a denier or denialist; three editors (I am not one of them) have objected to the label citing WP:WTW; getting rid of "denialist" -- without of course consulting those editors -- will coincidentally help jps to get around their objection. I am not calling this WP:FORUMSHOP but the effect is arguably similar. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

We understand that, but our reasons for disagreeing with inclusion of denier/denialist have jack to do with jps or that dispute. If jps is wrong or wrong-headed and pushing some demonstrable POV or OR, there are noticeboards for that. IF the only thing you have to rely on to "stop" him doing something "bad" in a [we're-not-really-sure-this-actually-is-a] guideline, I'm skeptical that this isn't a pretty subjective editing dispute.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support rewrite--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• oppose I am also fine with the current formulation. There is more than a whiff about this of gaming the system to win a minor point at another article, in my opinion. I would be against changing the MoS for such transitory or illusory reasons. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Today an edit by jps in effect reverted an edit made by PBS in April 2010. The same subject of the edit -- removing "denialist" -- was discussed on this section of this talk page and there was no consensus, as jps knows. I reverted until jps can demonstrate that there's something new to discuss. Perhaps jps could also state which editors (quoting jps's edit summary) cited this page "as policy inappropriately around Wikipedia". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps) was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Is Martin Mcguinness a terrorist? Was the Warrenpoint ambush a terrorist attack (it was launched against Armed British soldiers)? In all three cases there are literally dozens and dozens of reliable sources that state that they were so should the lead of each article mention in the editorial voice of the article that they were terrorists and the attack was carried out by IRA terrorists rather than IRA volunteers? If so then why did the American press tend to shy away from calling IRA gunmen "terrorists" and why did the British press inevitably do so? Reliable sources are not necessarily unbiased, particularly when national self-interest is involved. Eg the American government and most of the American media used to state that the Israeli use of the tactics the Israelis described as "targeted killing" were illegal assassinations until 9/11. After 9/11 when the US government found it expedient to adopt the same tactics, then the US government came up with lots of justifications both moral and legal for such tactics, with lots of support in the US media for the use of such tactics, (prior to the US use of "targeted killing" those in the US who wrote in favour of the tactic tend to be overt supporters of Israel). -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at here. Do you object to including terrorist as a "label" or not? jps (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the guideline describes how to do it: use in text attribution. Now that I have answered question can you mine? -- PBS (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the precise wording that should be used to describe Nelson Mandela, Martin McGuinness, the Warrenpoint ambush, ot how to characterize the IRA attacks. It seems reasonable to avoid using an inflammatory term such as "terrorist", but I'm still not sure why you are asking me about this. jps (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)