Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Adding a SOME shortcut

QuackGuru added a SOME shortcut, stating that the source must state "some" before we can use it. This is not true. 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."

This is why I reverted. I don't mind the SOME shortcut as long as it's not used to state that "some," "most" and similar can only been used oif the source(s) use the term. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This guideline is continued to be ignored. Editors are adding unsupported weasel words. See Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive_7#Unsupported_weasel_words_is_tantamount_to_original_research for the previous discussion. Wikipedia articles should not use weasel words not supported by the source. Adding a modifier to a sentence not supported by the source alters the original meaning of the source. When a source only indicates a vague or ambiguous claim then the content added to an article should also indicate a vague or ambiguous claim. The text should not change the intended meaning of the source. One of the most widely used weasel words is the word "some". "Some" is original research when a source does not use the word "some". Your edit summary supports "some"[1] even when the source does not use the word. Unsourced content is not verifiable. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your above comment wasn't really a reply to what I stated above. Make a case against what I stated above. Even the section you are referencing is clear about the following: "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." I support "some" even when the source does not use the word for the very reasons that Template:Who makes clear. You even stated, "When a source only indicates a vague or ambiguous claim then the content added to an article should also indicate a vague or ambiguous claim." That's not too different from my view. The difference between your view and mine is that I don't agree with making definitive statements when we shouldn't be making them or implying them. If only several researchers have made a claim; it's not a good thing to make it seem like their research is well-supported. It's better to state "several researchers" or similar. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

We can add "Wikipedia should remain accurate, when the source is being vague. If the source is not specific then the text should remain vague. That's being accurate."

Another example is an editor intentionally changed the meaning of the text. The source said "substantial number". I originally added "large number". But another editor replaced "large number" with "some". Supported weasel words are being replaced with "some". If three reviews say nicotine is highly addictive I disagree with adding the part "Some reviews state...". This guideline is basically useless anyhow. My only proposal was adding the shortcut. You wrote "I don't mind the SOME shortcut as long as it's not used to state that "some," "most" and similar can only been used of the source(s) use the term." So why did you revert when we don't say "some," "most" and similar can only been used of the source(s) use the term? QuackGuru (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Only using "some" and similar words when the source does is not what the guideline states or what Template:Who states. I commonly avoid "some people" and similar, but that's only because so many editors at this site misuse this guideline and Template:Who and Template:Whom, thinking that words like some are automatically bad. I edit a lot of topics where "some" should be used regardless of whether or not the sources use the term. You edit medical articles. I edit medical articles. Well, for many of our medical articles, researchers have a difference of opinion. It is perfectly fine to state, "Some researchers say [so and so], while other researchers say [differently]." Unless, of course, one viewpoint is the majority viewpoint. If that's the case, then we make the majority viewpoint clear. I also edit sexual topics. It is not right to make it seem like a sex act is more accepted than it is; in certain cases, it is fine to state "Some people like [so and so].", regardless of whether or not the source uses the word some. In these cases, "Some people like [so and so]." is more accurate than "People like [so and so]."

I reverted you because of your argument when adding the shortcut. I don't agree with your argument that we can't use these words unless the source does or only when the source is vague. If you want to add the shortcut, fine. If others are okay with it, that is. But don't misuse it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

When the source is vague then the text should be vague. But that is not what I proposed. You are arguing over text that is not part of any proposal. I just added a shortcut. So what is the problem with adding the shortcut? QuackGuru (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

We somewhat disagree on the "some" issue, and I was/am concerned that the shortcut will further encourage you to misuse the guideline. That stated, I already said, "If you want to add the shortcut, fine. If others are okay with it, that is." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

How a single editor uses and misuses a shortcut is not a valid reason to deleting the shortcut. I already added the shortcut but you are still against adding it because you have not self-reverted. So what is the issue with restoring the shortcut? QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I've given my reasons. There's that and the fact that I do not think that the shortcut is needed. All it will do is further encourage editors to think that the word some is automatically bad in cases where it should be used. I'm tired of seeing silly "who?" tags attached to instances where the text is talking about people in general and no one who is notable, or "according to whom?" tags in cases where "the whom" is clearly identified by the source. I'm not going to self-revert because I don't endorse the addition. You are free to re-add it and see if anyone objects to it. If they don't, oh well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion either way on the addition of the shortcut, but I'd like to point out that it matters little what Template:Who states – template pages are not policies or guidelines. In fact, the quoted advice is out of place on any template page – Template documentation exists to explain the purpose of a template and how to use it, not to offer general style advice. If the advice is truly supported by consensus, then why isn't it part of Wikipedia:Manual of style? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Why do you feel that you need to point out that templates are not policies or guidelines? Are you under the assumption that any of us are newbies? Or is that you like to be condescending time and time again after I have asked you not to be? How templates are used matters when it comes to our policies and guidelines if they are based on our policies or guidelines; this is made explicitly clear at Template talk:POV and in other discussions on templates. And you (when going by your previous username) and I, and others, have already discussed why use of Template:Who or Template:Whom matters when it comes to this guideline. I have a different debating style than you, and I sometimes point to these templates when making my case since these templates very clearly express the way that so-called weasel words are supposed to be handled and since they are related to/based on this guideline. The quoted advice is very much in place, given the annoying misuse of these templates. It is telling editors how to use the template. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Pointing to to a template page that happens to express the view that one is advocating seems like a way of dressing up one's argument with a false impression of authority. Maybe the contents of Template:Who are simply expressing a common-sense view, and maybe not; I don't have a strong opinion either way. But once again, if the advice is so useful and is indeed supported by consensus, then why isn't it part of WP:MOS? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your "a false impression of authority" argument is silly, for reasons I've already noted above. And your "why isn't it part of WP:MOS" argument is flawed....for reasons I've noted above .Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The Template:Who and Template:Whom are both not relevant to this discussion. Both templates have nothing to do with adding or removing the word "some". The relevant template is Template:Weasel inline. The fact is editors claim they can use the word "some" when the source does not support the claim. When the source does not support the claim the editor is ignoring WP:V policy. Editors claim even if the source does not support the claim it is okay to ignore policy. "Some" is often fine even when a source does not use the word "some."[2] is tantamount to original research if the source does not use a synonym for the word "some". When a source is vague the text should be vague without adding an unsupported weasel word. But not every editor agrees with Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Editors add their own personal opinion to Wikipedia articles when the source is making a vague claim and also rewrite text to alter the meaning when they do not like what the source says. The word "some" is the most misused weasel word on Wikipedia. Editors who add or support original research should not be editing Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Editors knowingly add the word "some" when they know the source makes no such claim. The source should decide what the reader should read. Editors should not be telling readers what to think by replacing sourced text with original research or adding weasel words not found in the source. There should be no dispute over this. See WP:CIR. QuackGuru (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Both templates have nothing to do with adding or removing the word some? Then why does Template:Who state what it does about use of the word some and weasel words? As for the rest of your argument, I've already argued against it above. I'm not going to repeat myself. I'm fairly certain that most experienced Wikipedian editors would disagree with your strict view of use of the word some, just like this guideline does, and that they would not at all support your view that I should not be editing our policies or guidelines because I do not agree with that strict view. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Then why does Template:Who state what it does about use of the word some and weasel words? Because the template is mistake. Adding the "who" tag to the text is meant to state who said it. It is not about supported or unsupported weasel words. The template should be redone and renamed. The template can be change to "Template:Who said this?" to avoid confusion. The original template tag said "[Please name specific person]"[3] The current template name and instructions is nonsense. It can be fixed in order for editors to stop using a confusing tag.

As for the rest of your argument, I've already argued against it above. It is possible most editors strongly disagree with Wikipedia policy. It is not a strict view of policy. It is following policy. I have no problem following Larry Sanger's rules. Do most people follow policy? Most mainspace pages contain unsourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The template is not a mistake. I've seen enough silly/annoying tagging at this site to know that it's not. As for following policy, many editors know that I am about following policy. In fact, I recently left a message on my talk page about following policy. I simply do not agree with your narrow interpretation. I've seen enough experienced editors disagree with your interpretations of the rules. Trying to convince me of your view on this particular matter is fruitless. I repeat: "I reverted you because of your argument when adding the shortcut. I don't agree with your argument that we can't use these words unless the source does or only when the source is vague. If you want to add the shortcut, fine. If others are okay with it, that is. But don't misuse it." So stop the circular argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

And by "I've seen enough silly/annoying tagging at this site to know that it's not.", this goes back to what I stated above. When an editor sees "Some people," it is common for the editor to add a "who" tag beside the words "some people," even if the source uses the words "some people", and even if the people are not notable enough to note in the text, and even if the source is talking about people in general. That is why the template currently states what it does. If an editor sees an unnecessary laundry list, it can be valid for that editor to add "some" in place of that laundry list...or an otherwise decent qualifier if a qualifier is needed. This is regardless of whether or not the source states "some." And, per what I stated above about researchers disagreeing, a qualifier is sometimes needed. If a qualifier is not needed, then we simply leave it as "People stated [so and so]" instead of "Some people stated [so and so]." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

See "Words to watch: ... some people say," The first word to watch is "some". See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions. Why you disagree with "some" in the guideline? It is a critical part of this guideline. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret my words. I am not continuing this discussion with you. I've explained myself times over in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Some" is often fine even when a source does not use the word "some.". Using "unsupported attributions" is not fine. QuackGuru (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Since you want to repeat, I'll repeat: "I am not continuing this discussion with you. I've explained myself times over in this section." I would suggest you reread my commentary above, but it clearly will not help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

RELTIME and "the late {person}"

Does WP:RELTIME cover use of "the late" in front of a person's name? If not, what does? I have assumed this is not generally accepted, but I don't know the exact guideline that covers it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment: mention protologisms?

The consensus is against mentioning protologisms in the Manual of Style section on Neologisms and new compounds. Editors noted that protologisms are a subset of neologisms and that "protologisms" is not a widely used term. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Would it be useful to mention "so-called 'protologisms'" in the Manual of Style section on Neologisms and new compounds? If so, why, and if not, why not? This was discussed on the Words to Watch talk page with no clear consensus being reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

In the discussion above, much space was given to what published sources say about the meanings of protologism and neologism. However, according to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, it's more important that the style and content of these pages "should emphasize clarity, directness, and usefulness to other editors", since they are not held to the same content standards as the encyclopedia proper. My question is whether (and why or why not) it would serve "clarity, directness, and usefulness" to insert a reference to protologisms into the guideline, such as:

Neologisms (including so-called "protologisms") are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.

Wikipedia's Glossary states that a protologism is:

A word that is created and used in the hope that it will become widely used and an accepted part of the language. A successful protologism becomes a neologism. The term protologism has been adopted as jargon for use within Wiki communities, but is not in common usage outside this context. "Protologism" itself can be considered either a protologism or neologism.

Update One objection that was raised in the earlier discussion above was that the word protologism, as a neologism itself, is inappropriate to use at all given MOS:NEO. However, policy and guideline pages are not held to the same content standards as the encyclopedia proper – see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines § Not part of the encyclopedia. Hence my question's focus on "clarity, directness, and usefulness" rather than adherence to rules (which don't apply in the same way here). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 12:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC))

Indeed. Protologism is a protologism, and ipso facto this proposal has to disappear up its own arse in a flash of blue smoke by its own policy. I'm presuming this whole thing is an elaborate prank or a troll. tl;dr - No. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it adds nothing of value. Paul August ☎ 17:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: Wugapodes redirected the Protologism article to the Neologism article, but the content should be merged there since the protologism sources show that it is somewhat differentiated from a neologism. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: This out-of-process attempt at deletion was reverted, and the article has been taken to AfD again, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protologism (3rd nomination). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Update: The consensus resulting from discussion was to keep the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't mention protologowhatsits, since assuming someone knows what that is, they'll recognize that WP:NEOLOGISM already covers it. E Eng 03:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, at first glance; this seems like a superfluous concept. On second thought, I agree with Flyer22 Reborn above; merge Protologism content to a section of Neologism. Xaxafrad (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
No. Remove "(including so-called "protologisms")" and keep the rest. Protologism as a concept is a subset of neologism, so we need not mention it specifically. Analogy: we don't need to say "cats (including Russian Blues and Siamese)" to indicate that we mean cats generally. The term protologism itself doesn't have enough breadth of currency to use it here; it will be meaningless to most people, and even if they read the explanation of the term, I think most would come to the conclusion that "if neologisms are covered so are protologisms, by definition", making the proposed parenthetical addition redundant and moot. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
No. As per usual, SMcCandlish hits it on the head. For anyone who has ever heard of a protologism and knows what the heck it is, they will rightly recognize MOS guidelines on neologisms to be applicable. Anyone that fails to do so is running afoul of WP:Competence and can be dealt with accordingly. VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- "A spanking! A spanking!" — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Probably not, depending on the specific phrasing. The term neologism is well-established in general. The term protologism is well established only in a specialised field. We can't yet tell what these two terms will mean if and when protologism enters general usage... either may be a subset of the other, or it may not ever happen. Meantime, we should use the term protologism with great caution. And the phrase so-called protologism(s) is completely unacceptable both in article text and in guidelines, for too many reason to list, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
No. If there were a chance someone would wonder whether protologisms are OK even though neologisms are not (like drugs (including alcohol)), I'd say the more clarity the better. But I don't believe that's the case. Mentioning protologisms will actually make the neologism section harder to read because everyone will have to look up protologism before proceeding. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment As to whether protologism has enough breadth of currency to use here and whether the term is meaningful to most editors, I would like to point out that the term is used elsewhere in Wikipedia namespace, for instance at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Neologism and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion § Shorthands. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
No. Per WP:COMMONSENSE and arguments of Tagishsimon and SMcCandlish. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2016 (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.

Wikipuffery

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipuffery § Shortcut WP:PUFFERY about redirecting WP:PUFFERY to this Manual of Style page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Update: the shortcut now redirects here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Aptly

I like the excellent material at Editorializing and wish that reading and understanding it were a precondition for editing here at all! I wonder if the custodians of this page might consider adding "aptly" to the examples of things to avoid, or at least think about carefully. Since I became sensitized to it I've seen so many horrible uses of it. It's Year 9 report-writing style (not in a good way) and rarely has a place here when it is not in a direct quotation. "Aptly enough" is even worse, but, wow, there are plenty of Aptlys that make me want to tear out virtual pages ... Thanks and best wishes 82.34.71.202 (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Definitely an Apley that made me want to tear out pages. E Eng 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha, brilliant!! <g> 82.34.71.202 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Yaris678 (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2017‎ (UTC)

You added more than "aptly" and "aptly" variations, Yaris678, which I don't think was a good idea. You added other terms as well. Your edit was altered here by Sangdeboeuf, and I agree with that edit, except for the addition of the second box. I don't think it's a good idea to highlight "but, despite, however, although" in a box since use of these words is usually fine and people can interpret this guideline strictly. In the section, we already address that use of these terms can be problematic. They, however, are not words we should always avoid. The words in the box at the beginning of the section are words we should always avoid unless they are in a quote. That is why I reverted the box. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Few of the words/phrases on this page should always be avoided. They're words to watch. E Eng 20:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that, as has been discussed on this talk page a number of times, this guideline is commonly interpreted strictly and therefore enforced strictly. Editors commonly point to this guideline and remove a word without any valid reasoning. I've seen editors simply look at the words in whatever box is on this guideline page and insist that the words must be avoided simply because they are listed at this guideline, which, after all, is also called WP:Words to avoid. SMcCandlish was involved in one of the more thorough discussions about this issue on this very talk page. So I don't agree with this revert you made, but I'm not going to argue over it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

And when looking at all the other words in boxes on this page, those should be avoided more often than not. We cannot state the same of "but, despite, however, although." And now, because of your revert, we have two boxes for one section, which is likely to lead to confusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess this edit you made will help a little. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed aptly should be added, but the other additions reverted, pending discussion of each addition. Every single addition to this page has a great deal of potential fallout, most additions are resisted (for good reasons), and few adders of items carefully think through all of the cases they could be affecting, and are often also too steeped only in one kind of writing, and neglect to account for variation that is valid, constructions they would not use themselves but which are common, secondary and tertiary definitions and usages of a word they're only thinking about in one way, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't care much about particular words being in or out, but I assume we can keep this [4]. E Eng 04:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It may help. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the material on "linking words" such as but, despite, however, and although, it's unlikely that users will think these words should be generally avoided. I think we can trust users to understand the meaning of "no forbidden words or expressions" as well as "The advice in this guideline [...] should not be applied rigidly". If people are not understanding this, then we have a bigger problem than whether words like but and although are included or or not. The existence of the redirects WP:AVOID and WP:Words to avoid notwithstanding, the name of the page is "Words to watch", not "Words to avoid", which I assume was a deliberate choice. As with any words, the context matters; in the case of using but, however, although, etc., the text is pretty clear in explaining that the issue is avoiding unsupported conclusions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that you altered your original post to account for my reply, but I still note that SMcCandlish and I are speaking from experience. I don't mind but, despite, however, and although being in the section; they were there before they were added to the box. And I think common sense should tell people that, unlike most of the other words or expressions on the page often are, these particular words usually aren't POV issues. Per what I stated above, I mind that you placed but, despite, however, and although in a box. The words in the boxes on this page constantly trigger a "must avoid" reaction from our editors (meaning newbies and experienced editors alike). WP:Words to avoid redirects to WP:Words to watch and many editors use that redirect. The history behind the title is seen with this edit. Regardless of what the page is titled, the page has repeatedly proven to be a problem when it comes to editors removing words from articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

That's why the introduction currently states, "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." Editors were hoping that the "should not be applied rigidly" note would help. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It generally doesn't. >;-) Anyway, I agree that the "boxing" of those conjunctions is the issue, and that Sangdeboeuf is correct that having them somewhere on the page is not a problem. We can cover why they're to be "watched" rather than "avoided" where they are introduced in the page, but we can't do that if their inset in "holy @#$*! avoid!" box. Heh. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 10:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I moved the linking words into a separate box only because they didn't seem to fit with more overt editorializing words such as notably, fortunately, etc. I think the second box has a legitimate function as a visual marker for the topic of linking words as it appears in the text. I'm not convinced that these words will pose any more of a problem in a highlighted box than in the text. When exactly have these boxes caused a serious conflict between editors, not just a minor annoyance that a simple revert with adequate explanation couldn't fix? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

As to covering why the words are to be 'watched' rather than 'avoided', I think putting Words to watch into each of the boxes does a pretty good job of this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, it seems you meant "is the issue," not "in the issue" above; so I changed your wording, which I assumed was a typo.

Sangdeboeuf, I clearly agreed that but, despite, however, and although should not have been added to the original box. I stated that I don't think that the second box is a good idea, and I've noted why. I don't see why you think it's a good idea to have two boxes for this section. Why must this section have two boxes, especially when this makes it seem as though "but, despite, however, and although" are as much of a concern as the clear-cut POV words? I don't think you've helped by adding that box in the least. I disagree with you seemingly thinking that this guideline is not a problem, or that the "words to avoid" aspect of it is solved. After all, you have interpreted this guideline too strictly too; I've noted this more than once to you before. You know, before you took an interest in editing it. Since it's been created, editors have interpreted this guideline too strictly. Anyone is free to read the history of it as proof (the archives, the rename aspect). And I doubt that this strict interpretation will change. Adding "Words to watch" to the boxes is unlikely to help much; the guideline's title was changed to "Words to watch," and that didn't help much. "Words to watch" is even noted in the WP:Good article criteria, and I've seen reviewers interpret the guideline too strictly.

When it comes to most of the words in the sections, I reiterate that we should generally avoid those words for the contexts mentioned. WP:SAID, for example, is completely right. When it comes to WP:LABEL telling us to "use in-text attribution," however, I disagree with this revert since in-text attribution can be misleading in cases where the term is commonly used to describe the subject. I've been over this before, as seen here, but I haven't yet revisited it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

[Yes, that in → is typo fix was correct. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)]

Agreed that two boxes is overkill and that boxing but, despite, etc. implies they are of the same type and level of concern when they clearly are not. The problem with boxes [and this actually relates strongly to disputes about quotation-boxing templates used in articles] is that they serve as extremely strong emphasis. Not only does it imply that the boxed thing is the absolute most important thing on the page or in the section, multiple uses in series are quickly numbing and ineffective, like Capitalizing Everything In Sight, or using a lot of emphasis inline in a short span. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 04:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Since multiple boxes in series are 'numbing and ineffective', then having two boxes instead of one should obviously reduce the 'extremely strong emphasis' that seems so problematic for some. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Eh? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Survived by

I think the material recently added under "Survivors" could easily be condensed and folded into § Euphemisms. Since Survivor has multiple meanings, it's somewhat ambiguous as a section heading. The phrase "survived by" may not strictly be a euphemism in the same sense as "passed away" for died (it's more a bit of journalistic/legalistic jargon like "deceased") but it seems intended for the same effect; namely, to create a breezy, reassuring sense of efficiency around the issue of death. And the shortcut, intuitively, is WP:SURVIVEDBY. The text should highlight the same wording, in my opinion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think "survived by" is standard English with no euphemistic sense. it is used for living people. Rjensen (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the general feeling in the recent RfC that led to the new guideline seemed to be that the phrase was not "encyclopedic". It seems to be mostly limited to obituaries and sources concerned with inheritance law. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

According to Macmillan Dictionary, the phrase is used mostly in journalism. Obviously, journalistic writing uses many style conventions unsuitable for encyclopedia writing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not a view universally observed: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22He+was+survived+by%22+encyclopedia&tbm=bks -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

a) The term is also used in law: "If the deceased is survived by children from a prior marriage..." [Encyclopedia of Aging and Public Health - Page 791]. b) it's common in bio entries in state & regional encyclopedias: 1) " He was survived by his wife' [Ency Louisiana]; 2) "He was survived by his wife and three children." [ Ency New Hampshire]; 3) "He was survived by his widow and three children." [Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography] 4) "He was survived by his grandson" [Encyclopedia of Massachusetts Indians]; 5) "and is survived by Bonnie Jean Cox, his companion of 40 years." [The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture] etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I mentioned that the term is used in law – that was my whole point. I'm a bit mystified with this discussion – is the suggestion being made that WP:SURVIVEDBY should be removed from this guideline? If not, I just think it would help readability to condense the overly wordy text and place it under some other heading than the ambiguous "Survivors" – and WP:EUPHEMISM simply seems like the best available spot at the moment. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The critics of the term have nor provided a substitute.... How should the living near kin be characterized? Rjensen (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Left behind? E Eng 06:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

What several users have said, both in in the recent RfC and in a discussion from last year on the topic, and which I agree with, is that it's not pertinent to an encyclopedia to characterize living relatives at the time of someone's death at all – that's a concern only for newspapers and other media focusing on immediate events that change daily.

The phrase "is survived by" implies an immediate condition and can quickly become outdated, while "was survived by" is ambiguous for readers of an encyclopedia – it doesn't communicate whether the "survivors" are still alive in the present or how long they lived after the event.

Since an encyclopedia takes a broad view of a subject's life, whom they are survived by at time of death is a minor point that would distract from the overall biography – if a person's relatives are noteworthy enough to appear in the article, then that information should be presented in a different format than a list of survivors, whether called by that or another name. Wikipedia is neither a memorial site ... nor a newspaper. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a major issue if the reader is interested in the family, or in wealth or lands or companies controlled by the family, or disposition of documents and papers. --you have to be alive to inherit and this tells a lot about that. Rjensen (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you name some articles where this is a significant concern? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Litotes

Are litotes against WP:MOS?--Mr. Guye (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Most recent additions reverted

Altercari recently added "generally accepted, until recently, unlike most" to the WP:WEASEL section. I reverted because it's not weasel wording, and sources commonly support such wording, especially "generally accepted." When reporting on whatever literature, for example, it's common to note what the scholarly consensus is. And in these cases, statements like "generally accepted" may be used. As for "until recently," that is a WP:Dated matter that is already covered by this guideline. And "unlike most" can be a simple factual statement; I don't see why it needs to be added at all. Furthermore, as has been noted before on this talk page, the boxes are examples; we do not need to include every example there is; it will keep going on and on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 11:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That should be a word to watch. E Eng 20:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

My reasoning for adding them is that when going through a list of all the articles tagged for weasel words, it makes it easier if all the most common of them are listed in the box so that people can quickly search the page for these words to watch instead of trying to guess what the original tagger was referring to. Esp. pertinent for newish editors (like me!). The point is not that these words should never be used, just that they are frequently used to obscure uncited or uncitable statements. But am I bothered to argue about this? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Btw EEng, your userpage is truly epic. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 22:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Altercari, ~~for most of these words, we're not stating that they should never be used, though. See the #Aptly discussion above.~~ Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

My bad; I misread your reply. You were indeed stating we're not stating that they should never be used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries dude. —A L T E R C A R I ✍ 00:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Vulgarities other than in article space

Resolved

Are there any policies or guidelines regarding vulgarities that are not located within article space? For example, on a user page? A user talk page? Is there a policy about an editor using vulgarities on his/ her own talk page? What about in edit summaries? I understand that we are not censored, but I also know that we have the option to be polite or not to be polite ourselves when it comes to userpages and user talk pages. But maybe there are no guidelines for this, and people should feel welcome to swear up a storm on their publicly viewable userpage (really, though??). Please let me know what the precedents are, if any. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@KDS4444: You're looking for WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:USER. Generally speaking though, as long as the vulgarities are not directed at someone, people are free to include what they like on their user and talk pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Words in the WP:PEACOCK section, and "iconic"

I reverted Seth Whales on adding "iconic" to the WP:PEACOCK section, and pointed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 5#"Iconic" for my previous feelings on this matter.

I still feel the same way. Editors keep adding words to that section. Where is the limit? Why can't we only have a few examples there and be done with it? Why must we keep allowing another supposed peacock word to be added to the section, especially when some editors read the section to mean that the words in question should be automatically removed when they come across them? Given that some of these words are often supported by WP:Reliable sources on the topics they are used for, I'm not strongly opposed to them unless they actually violate the WP:Neutral policy. Sometimes it is simply better to state that "[So and so] is considered iconic.", and then elaborate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The words that I mainly see as an issue are outstanding, extraordinary, brilliant, remarkable, prestigious, awesome and virtuoso. I don't see unique as a big issue at all. "Unique" can be considered vague, but it is a simple descriptor that is often factual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good addition. Iconic is highly overused, and often strikes the wrong tone even when, in some sense, supported by sources. Frankly there are a lot of words that belong, and there's reason not to list them. E Eng 04:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What is your opinion on how the section keeps growing with word additions? Per what I stated above, I'd rather that the examples be downsized. When an editor dislikes a word and considers it a peacock word, even if it is not a WP:Neutral violation because the literature generally supports the matter, there is a solid chance that the editor will add the term to this page. I see WP:PEACOCK misused so often that I've become annoyed by the section, even when I cite it to tweak an article. We can't just keep allowing word additions to the WP:PEACOCK section. Well, we can, but how will that improve the section, especially since there are many so-called peacock terms? Most of the time I see editors using the guideline to remove terms they don't like, usually because they don't agree with the categorization. If you or someone else re-adds "iconic", I won't revert again, but I do think that "icon" and "iconic" are often fine. If a character is iconic, for example, as in the case of Erica Kane with regard to the soap opera medium, I don't see an issue with stating so...as long as it's reliably sourced, preferably to more than one source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Similar goes for any musical legend who has been deemed an icon many times over and/or whose work has been deemed iconic. As long as we explain or rather indicate how "iconic" fits, the text should be fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that iconic has its legitimate uses isn't the question here, because this is "words to watch", not "forbidden words". I'm happy to let the list grow to include any and all words that are often used inappropriately. E Eng 13:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

That is the issue here because, as discussed before, this guideline is not simply used as a "words to watch" list; it's also used as a "forbidden words" list. I'm ready to go along with SMcCandlish's previous proposed changes for the sections. Stating that we should keep adding more and more words is not something I will be agreeing with. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Years ago, with his "22:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)" post, SMcCandlish stated, "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." I was hesitant for a rewrite then, but I wouldn't be against one now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed we do not need to keep expanding this or other word lists here. Just edit the prose to say that these lists are illustrative not exhaustive. Or do as I suggested before, and rewrite this to be nothing like a list, but a PoV detection process. I do agree that "iconic" should not be used in an article where without it being directly attributed to a notable person/publication. If Siskel and Ebert said a film is iconic, that means something; if the movie reviewer from the Clovis News Journal says so, that means nothing to our readers. But this has nothing to do with "iconic" in particular, but an such sentiment, positive or negative. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, do you have an idea what an outline for your rewrite would look like? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I could check the archives and see if you made an outline in 2015. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't remember one, and I don't have a fully formed one in mind. Would need to not be redundant with WP:NPOV, various essays, etc., but focus on how wording choice can affect reader interpretation pro or con. So can other style matters like inappropriate use of emphasis, etc., but that's covered elsewhere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't we still need to include word examples in some cases, though? I'm thinking of sections like WP:LABEL and WP:SAID when it comes to useful examples. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. If it were primarily explicative, with a few examples, that should likely make it clear that it's not a checklist. It would probably also help to bracket examples' code with HTML comments saying we don't need more examples to be added. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, you stated, "Just edit the prose to say that these lists are illustrative not exhaustive." Where do you think this should be added? In the section in question? In every section? I don't think it needs to be in the introduction. The introduction already states, "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." But that's often overlooked because people are usually linking to a section within the guideline, and not the whole guideline. Either way, I would prefer that you are bold on the matter of adding "this list is illustrative, not exhaustive" or something similar. If you'd rather not pursue this matter at this time, I understand. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

To avoid repetitiveness, something like it but not identical could be added to each section, or at least those where people keep trying to add stuff willy-nilly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The term "illegal alien"

I'm sorry if this is the wrong venue, but I'd like to explore the possibility of banning the use of "illegal alien" across Wikipedia unless it's part of quotes. I've noticed that it's a term that editors regularly try to introduce to Wikipedia articles related to immigration (see this[5] today as an example) whereas other editors try to remove it. While lots federal and state agencies do use the term (some have moved away from it in recent years), the term is rarely, if ever, used by reliable news sources:

The Associated Post Style Guide[6] doesn't allow it.
The Washington Post style guide: "The Post does not refer to people as “illegal aliens” or “illegals,” per its guidelines."[7]
The New York Times style guide doesn't allow it, even describing it as "sinister-sounding".[8]

Is is therefore jarring when Wikipedia uses a term that is (i) widely seen as offensive or sinister, (ii) has not been used by any reliable news outlets in decades, and (iii) has far more suitable (common in reliable sources and non-offensive) substitutes, such as "undocumented immigrant" and even the flawed "illegal immigrant". So, it's not only bad style to use it on Wikipedia but the fact that the term is allowed on Wikipedia leads to lots of needless edit-warring as users try to introduce the offensive term to pages and others try to remove it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans has also brought this up on WP:NPOVN. I believe this is the more correct forum. The discussion also appeared on the talk page of the article that Snooganssnoogans has referred to, being discussed by editors Jose2495 and RightCowLeftCoast. Re the AP Style Guide: it also says no to "undocumented" -- which happens to be the word that was being replaced by "illegal alien" in the article that Snooganssnoogans refers to. Re the Washington Post: it only says that the paper itself avoids "illegal aliens" and "illegals", if I'm understanding correctly. Re the New York Times: it also says that "undocumented" seems euphemistic, and it says obscurely that "illegal alien" is "off the table" -- which I doubt is the exact phrasing that their style guide uses. So if this is a suggestion about editing WP:WTW, I guess that both "illegal alien" and "undocumented" would be considered, but the sources don't look very clear to me.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a piece by the Columbia Journalism Review[9] that surveys some additional newspaper style guides. Several newspapers opt for "undocumented immigrant" as their preferred phrase. The CJR piece only mentions "illegal alien" as an example of a phrase that has largely disappeared from the news lexicon. What all these sources have in common is that "illegal alien" is unacceptable. There remains a debate on the uses of "illegal immigrant" versus "undocumented immigrant". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, 5th Edition The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative News Organization" says, in full, "Illegal immigrant is the preferred term, rather than the sinister-sounding illegal alien. Do not use the euphemism undocumented." Update: but another version of the guide says "avoid the sinister-sounding alien".Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel that I should point out that this is also partly a varieties of English issue. "Illegal alien" as a term never really caught on in UK or Canadian English, and only really shows up reliably in those contexts in sources with a far-right POV. Both Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries define the term as "US English". Newimpartial (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I support the use of the term provided the context is appropriate. For example, the term should not be used in an article that has content cited to any entity that does not use the term per their manual(s) of style. However, the term still has legal standing, and remains a definition provided by a number of dictionaries. From a legal standpoint, in the United States a 2015 opinion by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ([10]) confirmed that the term has basis in legal documentation. The parlance of our time is changing, and while the term may well fall out of favor (a counter to my 5th Circuit point would be that the term has not been granted a legal opinion by the US Supreme Court), it remains in use. Without doubt the term is politically charged, but that does not preclude it from being used in a encyclopedic tone if the situation (and more importantly, the source cited in the concerning instance) warrants it. The question should always be if or not it is tactful to use the term, or if a better one can be employed to suit the same need. Per my previous posting, like all terms that could induce offense or be used to defame, "Illegal Alien" should be used in the proper context to better serve the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

When surfing with WP:STiki, I sometimes see "illegal alien" being changed; I don't revert it. If I have reverted it, I don't think it's been often. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see Alien (law)#United States. Illegal Alien is the correct term.

I understand that some may disagree with the term, but that is their POV. Please see WP:NOTADVOCATE & WP:RIGHT WRONGS. "Undocumented immigrant" may be used in some sources, while other sources may use illegal alien, both are valid.

Also please see Criticism of Wikipedia#Excessive rule-making. There is no need to add to this guideline regarding the differences of use of this term.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast, were you responding to me in particular? I take it that you were responding to anyone reading this thread? I'm already aware of the WP:NOTADVOCATE policy and of the WP:RIGHT WRONGS essay (well, it was an essay before the page was recently changed to an explanatory supplement page). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Is "dropped out" a proper synonym for quitting school?

After reading an article which described the subject as having dropped out of school, I wondered if it was a euphemism, perhaps even pejorative, or an appropriate synonym for quitting school? My inclination is that it is not encyclopedic, and so I ask. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It is slang for quitting school, which is not generally encyclopedic. It is not usually meant as a pejorative -- "I dropped out of college" is not unusual. --Izno (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is quite fair to say "not generally encyclopaedic". In articles on Bill Gates, where this is likely to come up, encyclopedia.com and dictionary.com use "dropped out" while Britannica.com uses "left", and those three do not differ markedly in tone. This may not be true in other varieties of English, but for American English I'd say that "dropped out" is not especially pejorative or colloquial. Referring to a subject as a "dropout", however, would be both. Newimpartial (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, "dropout" by itself is usually used in a pejorative sense, as to suggest that the person is less educated or poorly educated (regardless of the fact that the person may be very smart and/or was only a little ways away from graduating). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence of Family Guy

I've made a proposal to have "adult" removed from the opening sentence of Family Guy at Talk:Family Guy#RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Obsolescent words/spellings

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC: Obsolescent spellings – It includes some discussion of whether a list of such words/spellings should be maintained at MOS:WTW, or elsewhere. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

"Iconic" yet again

The latest addition of "iconic" has been added by Magnolia677. The only reason I have not reverted again is because it keeps getting added, and because, in the previous discussion, I stated that I would not revert its inclusion again. But I do want to take the time to point to that previous discussion -- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 8#Words in the WP:PEACOCK section, and "iconic". If I start seeing editors removing legitimate uses of "iconic," I will likely remove the term from the guideline and make my case for the removal here on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I realize messing with the MOS is serious stuff, but "iconic" appears a lot and would serve as a good example. Just today I zapped another one. When I get bored I sometimes go hunting for "iconic" and "opened its doors". "The iconic theater opened its doors in 1922". Makes you want to scream. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia677, yeah, I know it can be misused and that it's misused often. I understand the concern, which is why it's been added to the guideline by more than one editor. But I hope you understand my concern as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Support inclusion of "iconic". Most uses of it here are misuses, except when it's in a direct quotation from an authoritative source. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

"in fact"

Is there a place for "in fact" on this page - perhaps in WP:EDITORIAL along with 'actually'?

I see it a lot, and almost always it is either original research, an NPOV breach, or both.

It probably does have some place, like in discussing works of fiction - "The book is set in Nairobi, South Africa. In fact, Nairobi is in Nigeria." - but then so does "actually" (which is why this page is now Words to Watch not Words to Avoid). It would be useful to have a clear place to point people to which says why it is a bad phrase to use. TSP (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

TSP, I consider "in fact" to be a WP:Editorializing violation, unless it's part of a quote. But I've seen okay uses, such as "[So and so] was, in fact, alive." This latter bit is something one is likely to see in a Plot section of a film or character article. I don't see that we need to include "in fact" in the WP:Editorializing section. The section has enough examples, and the list could go on and on. I think people can easily see that "in fact" is problematic after being pointed to WP:Editorializing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a really good addition for this page, precisely because it's not a "never, ever use it" case, but words to watch: most uses are non-encyclopedic but a handful can be. I don't agree that just a pointer to EDITORIALIZING can generally be expected to work, because it's been my experience that pointers to that section often do not work. If the person doing the editorializing didn't already realize they were doing so, they generally continue to deny that they're doing so when "accused" of it. At any rate, it's not limited to that exact phrase; the problem also extends to "actually", "in reality", and several similar constructions. And we do in fact (LOL) have a lot of articles improperly laden with them. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, see this discussion where I pointed to WP:Editorializing; Human10.0 understood. And I think most editors do...if they take the time to look at the examples and read what the section is stating. As has been noted before, we can't just keep adding example after example to these sections. And if an editor can't understand what is meant when seeing the existing examples and what the section states, I really question the need for the examples at all. It's not an exhaustive list and common sense should tell editors that. Otherwise, we might as well include every example there is for each section. All one needs to do is point to the WP:Editorializing section and explain how the text is editorializing. If the editor still doesn't understand, then we should explain some more. I don't see how the absence of one term is going to hinder their understanding if they can't even understand by seeing the existing examples. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it never, ever works. The key bit is "if they take the time to look at the examples and read what the section is stating"; we know that many will not, and that MOS isn't even intended to be read top-to-bottom before editing. No one is required to read it at all. Its primary use is providing "rules" (albeit not policy-level ones) that settle disputes. I'm also not advocating adding loads and load of examples (I've advocated the opposite strongly), but we need some, namely those that identify particular common types of wording that can be problematic. Implying "of course" or "in reality" is one of those things, and a particularly common one because so many people mistakenly think that pedagogical or monographic tone – sounding professorial – is part of encyclopedic style when it is not. It's also an element of more editorial and investigative journalistic writing, which many editors also try to mistakenly apply here. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I know that you weren't stating that pointing to the guideline never works. And I know that you have strongly advocated against loads of examples, which is one reason why I'm not understanding why you think "in fact" needs to be added. Same goes for "actually" and "in reality." I've stated that examples should be included, as recently as the #Words in the WP:PEACOCK section, and "iconic" discussion we had above. In that discussion, you stated, "Sure. If it were primarily explicative, with a few examples, that should likely make it clear that it's not a checklist." What I see in the WP:Editorializing section are more than enough examples for editors to get the point. I cannot fathom how an editor cannot get the point from those examples, unless there is some learning disability (and I don't mean that in an insensitive way). And if an editor is simply looking at the examples, not reading the small section as well, and thinking that the absence of a term in the section means that they can use the term, that is a WP:Competence issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It needs to be added (as "in fact", or "actually", or some other variant) because misuse of it is very, very common. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 02:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"Deceased", and tense for the dead

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Some stuff often discussed on this talk page is the subject of a thread at the main MoS talk page, here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 19:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Upcoming

Could someone please add upcoming to the list of relative time words to avoid. The list already "in the future" and I think upcoming should be on the list too. That would be a good start but it might be good to write more.

About half the time I see upcoming used it is used incorrectly, if the text isn't already out of date it soon goes out of date and needs to be changed. Many editors do not seem to mind using the word upcoming in the full knowledge that using it inevitably forces other editors to have to rewrite the text. I would like for the guideline to warn editors that even if they really thing the use of word is necessary to avoid using it repeatedly and only using it sparingly. Ideally if there was some kidn of Upcoming template that worked similarly to the Template:As of.

Thanks in advance. -- 109.76.225.230 (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a word to avoid, and needs to be used when it's correct (or use a synonym like forthcoming). It should also be constructed with an {{as of}} template, so we know the date by which we expect to need to remove the word and update the material in other way (or update the release date, if it's been pushed further). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 19:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't considered that the As of template would already work to tag uses of the word "upcoming", that's helpful to know.

In any case neither this list nor the Wikipedia:As_of guidelines mention the word upcoming and I think they really should. -- 109.79.90.248 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Term: Criminal without attribution/context

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposed clarification of BLPCRIME terminology

The above link directs to a talk page proposal for wp:blp, which has gained a small amount of traction. I've encountered two situations recently in which the proposal if amended to the policy, would apply. Details can be found in the rollout section of the talk page linked above. After not hearing much by way of feedback on BLP TALK I was tempted to just BRD there, but after revising my proposal a few times for inclusion on the project page, I came to the conclusion that the proposal would be more suitable for WTW.

The proposal in a nutshell is: There's a difference between calling someone a criminal and calling someone a convicted criminal with accompanying contextualization, citation and attribution. The difference is that with contextualization the judicial nature of the text is made clear. Without this it appears to broadly imply criminal nature and amounts to a non-specific accusation of criminal intent.

Could I get some thoughts here please.

thanks

Edaham (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not appropriate to fork the discussion while the one at WT:BLP is still ongoing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 09:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem then, could I in that case simply have users active on this page take a look at it and treat this post as a WP:APPNOTE to attract uninvolved editors with experience on this page to the related proposal on TALKBLP? Thanks Edaham (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Are -st variants of words archaic?

I occasionally see in Wikipedia articles the presence of words like "amidst", "amongst", "unbeknownst", and "whilst", considered archaic by style guides that mention them. (In US English, such words not only might seem archaic, but also pretentious and quaint.)

Invoking WP:ENGVAR as UK-regional spelling isn't a valid reason to use them, because even UK style guides such as The Times of London, The Guardian, as well as BBC News advise against using these words, as described in our article While#Whilst.

Because the English Wikipedia is read worldwide, would it be appropriate to have a note about avoiding words like these? Exceptions would be quotations and titles of works, of course.

I find that it's possible to reword the sentence to avoid either the archaic or modern forms while improving the sentence at the same time. For example "There is disagreement amongst scientists about...." is more compelling by restating it more concisely as "Scientists disagree about..."

Thoughts? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I sometimes remove the "st" when I see it. I'm not sure that we should add anything to this guideline about avoiding it, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

MOS:COMMONALITY. I was involved in a similar discussion recently which led to the addition of the last bullet point which probably covers the case you're talking about. I haven't researched the particular words you mentioned, but you can refer to that. Scribolt (talk) 05:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I've always strongly agreed with what's said above, and have proposed a change in this regard in the past (at the main MoS talk page, I think). The problem is that we have a number of (presumably older or rural) British editors either entirely convinced that the -st spellings are British and those without are American, despite all evidence of the contrary, or pretending to hold this belief in an effort to make British-English articles seem "extra British"; I'm not really sure what the motivation is. I have yet to find a dictionary that gives the -st spellings are exclusive British and those without as exclusively American, so it appears to be original research/PoV. Even if an isolated dictionary or style guide might make such an assertion, most contradict it. I'm not sure this is a MOS:WTW matter; it's more of a MOS:ENGVAR matter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 10:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with SMcCandlish that it is an ENGVAR issue. The OED (2nd Ed) lists both forms with derivations back to the 14C. Examples are provided from 20C sources so "archaic" is inappropriate.^[1]^[2] "While" can be used as a noun ("substantive" in OED speak); "whilst" is always an adverb or conjunction and so there is a subtle difference in meaning. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

References
References ^ "while". Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. XX (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 1989. p. 232. ^ "whilst". Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. XX (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 1989. p. 234.

In my experience, more urban and young people say 'whilst'. Pretty much everyone says 'amongst', whatever their background. It is perceived as standard English. We would have one hell of a job changing this one on WP—it would take years. People copy what their parents do. As it goes, my mother says 'while' (with the odd 'whilst' thrown in) and father says 'whilst'. This makes me think it is a north v south thing, with northerners more likely to say 'while'. I am from Nottingham, bang in the middle. Here, adding 'st' is certainly the thing to do. What this would do is go against one of the most basic Briticisms we have. The Oxford Dictionary blog has a page on this with some figures. It says that few people say 'whilst', however I am assuming that this is based on published content, as the number seems a little low to me. Generally, I think that 'whilst' is more common amongst people who use only one, whilst 'while' is the favourite of those who alternate. –Sb 2001 11:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above about WP:ENGVAR seems to be more about spoken English, whereas we have multiple examples of UK style guides that advise against using these words in written English, so I disagree that this is a WP:ENGVAR or WP:COMMONALITY issue, regardless of personal preferences of individual editors. All I am wondering is, should Wikipedia follow the lead of other reputable style guides on both sides of the pond? Nobody is advocating banning these words, so the fact that they exist all over Wikipedia is a non-issue, but I think we have ample reason to list them as words to watch in written prose. This guideline, after all, is called "words to watch" and not "words to avoid". In many cases one can rewrite a sentence to be more concise and clear while avoiding either form of these words altogether, as illustrated by the example in my first comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone above is making the case that it's an ENGVAR matter, in the sense that it's British and thus permissible under ENGVAR. What I meant by mentioning ENGVAR is that it's something to cover at WP:ENGVAR, as not something permissible under ENGVAR, because the usage is not consistent in British (or any other) English, and British style guides advise against the -st constructions. I.e., it's a WP:COMMONALITY matter. Hope that clarifies. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 08:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I often despair of Wikipedida and its growing list of does and don'ts. Issues like this are better solved on the talk page of an article rather than have a guideline rule that is then used by someone to run AWB or a bot script over articles that the user of the bot or AWB has never manually touched. Take for example the above statement "MOS:COMMONALITY. I was involved in a similar discussion recently which led to the addition of the last bullet point which probably covers the case you're talking about." which I presume means the the bullet point "When more than one variant spelling for a word exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should be preferred unless there is a consensus at the talk page of the article to use the less common alternative. This would not apply in cases where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialised context e.g. connexion in Methodist connexionalism." So someone can go through any topic with close connection with Britain and "rationalise" [sic.] the spelling of words ending in "ize" to the usual British ending of "ise". How does that improve MOS:COMMONALITY? -- PBS (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This isn't about does and don'ts, its about words to watch. Actually issues like this aren't better solved on talk pages. I recall a similar instance in which the argument for keeping one of these words was "it's regional, and we have no guideline suggesting we shouldn't use it, therefore it's OK." Apparently some editors would appreciate resolution of such disagreements in a Wikipedia guideline. So, following my m:precisionism philosophy, I started this discussion. If this is better addressed in WP:COMMONALITY or mentioned in WP:ENGVAR, that's fine. Is that the consensus I'm seeing here? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

"Actually issues like this aren't better solved on talk pages" Where do you draw that conclusion from? "some editors would appreciate resolution of such disagreements in a Wikipedia guideline" presumably only if the guidance supports their preference (MRDA). In Britain language and its usage is not just a question of region, it is also a question of politics and class. -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I appreciate resolution no matter whether I prefer it or not. For example, I'm American, but I have routinely changed articles to British spelling for consistency with WP:ENGVAR when needed. So I appreciate ENGVAR being there. In absense of a guideline, one cannot make policy-based arguments either way, in a talk page discussion. That's why we need guidelines, to avoid the "I don't like it" arguments.

Based on this discussion, I have created a new section, linked to by MOS:UNIVERSAL, that basically summarizes MOS:COMMONALITY in the context of words to watch. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anachronist I have reverted you edit. I think it is instruction creep, and less than helpful, and potentially harmful. See for example the lead in British English "For example, the adjective wee is almost exclusively used in parts of Scotland and Ireland, and occasionally Yorkshire, whereas little is predominant elsewhere." If someone has written a paragraph that uses the term "wee". I think that guidance that forces the changing wee to little, when wee is perfectly understandable is wrong. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is it not possible to have a system where the first one present is used consistently through the article, ie neither is better than the other? We could even have a {{use while}} or {{use whilst}} tag to help editors. I certainly think there should be a line in the MoS instructing editors not to make changes between them, unless for consistency. BTW, the example of wee v little is not really relevant, as neither are appropriate for an encyclopaedia. –Sb 2001 20:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Using "the first one present" violates MOS:COMMONALITY. This isn't the same as respecting the original variant of English spellings of "color" versus "colour". Using "wee" also violates MOS:COMMONALITY, which is a subsection of MOS:ENGVAR. Note that all the examples in MOS:COMMONALITY are also understandable, so it makes little (wee?) sense to argue that we shouldn't replace "wee" with "little" just because "wee" is understandable. The point is that it isn't universal.

I disagree this is instruction creep, it's simply clarifying and reinforcing an existing guideline, acknowledging a relationship between MOS:ENGVAR and this guideline WP:WTW. I see that clarity as helpful, and I haven't yet seen an argument about why it would be harmful. Clarity is always a good thing because it avoids unnecessary arguments.

I encourage others to have a look at this version that was reverted, and comment. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think MOS:WTW is the place for this. I'd love to see us stop unnecessarily using -st constructions which are clearly optional and increasingly discouraged even in British written English, but it really is a commonality a matter not a "to watch" matter. It is much more similar to "wee" (or to quaint Americanisms like "ornery") than to the PoV problems the present guideline is concerned with. And I also doubt there'll be consensus in favor of dropping -st, anyway. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 23:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Anachronist are you in favour of removing period (as in full stop) from all articles and guidance? "The point is that it isn't universal". -- PBS (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"Period" is actually more universal; it's been used in British English since at least the 19th century (see the Full stop article for details); it's just not presently the most common British usage. Some British are apparently unaware of the term, as some North Americans are of "full point" or "full stop". Good writing here, both in MoS and in articles, makes it clear that these terms all refer to the . character. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 22:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

It's amazing what a bug people can get up their asses over words they have no trouble understanding. For the record, "amongst" is perfectly common spoken and written English in Canada—you'll see it all over the place at the CBC, which is not known for its use of archaicisms. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
1877 occurrences of "amongst" versus more than 34,000 occurrences of "among" ([try the search yourself) doesn't look like it's "perfectly common" or "all over the place" at CBC. And that's rather the point. Even if the CBC isn't consistent in its usage, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia shouldn't be either, especially since notable style guides that bother to mention it advise against using these words. In any case, this discussion has made it clear that the Words To Watch guideline doesn't need an additional note concerning these words, because we already have WP:COMMONALITY, which advises using the more common spelling, if both exist in the same region. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
So you're telling me the English I grew up speaking isn't "perfectly common" where I grew up speaking it. Yeah, I can safely ignore you and your prescriptivist crusade.

"Even if the CBC isn't consistent in its usage"—neither is Wikipedia consistent in its usage of small/little or large/big. Can you save our servers a few bytes by attacking those while you're at it? It would be equally productive. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The more common concern than alleged archaism is simply that they're redundantly non-concise; if "among" and "amongst" are synonymous and understood in all dialects, there is no compelling reason to use the long version, unless it is way more common, which it is not. It's the same argument as that for using "publicly" versus "publically". Neither is wrong, one is just both shorter and more common. That said, a) MOS:WTW isn't the venue for it, and b) I'm highly skeptical we'd get consensus against -st any time in the next 5 years, maybe 10. Depends on how many other British style guides jump ship on the brevity side. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 08:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
"brevity"? That would be an argument for replacing all cases of "little" with "small", and would improve our articles just as much. It's not "archaic" where it's still used daily, so that's not even an argument. Neither is WP:COMMONALITY, as there are no native speakers of the language unfamiliar with the word. People should just leave these things alone and do something productive—fix things that are broken. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Except that "small" and "little" are not perfectly synonymous. (Though many if not most uses of "little" probably should be replaced with "small", given the relative frequencies of this words in formal versus informal writing.) Agree that a campaign against -st versions of words is not productive. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 08:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

If unbeknownst is archaic, then the alternative – unbeknown – just seems bizarre. In fact, unbeknownst seems to have become the more common variant used in books since about 1980 (Google Ngram Viewer). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed on that one (not the rest of the examples though). To the extent the word is used much, the -st version is "common" in the US, too. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 05:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"e.g Watergate"

Watergate is not really an example of use of the suffix "-gate". The suffix derives from the Watergate scandal. Maybe tailgate or Russiagate would be a better example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curfibex (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, other than that "tailgate" doesn't qualify either (that's a compound, and has nothing to do with the -gate suffix). "Russiagate" and "Gamergate" are good examples. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 06:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced Watergate with Gamergate controversy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Hoax"

Not sure about this addition by LaundryPizza03. Some things are hoaxes and we call them that without any worry that doing so is POV. We also have a List of hoaxes and a List of Wikipedia hoaxes. What POV issues are you referring to, LaundryPizza03? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that the addition was reverted by Anachronist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't noticed this talk page section. I reverted it because the addition made no sense to me, for the reason I stated in the edit summary: the term "hoax" is typically used in an ojbective sense, not a subjective sense like the other examples given. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Arab/Arabic/Arabian

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Long-standing MoS material on these terms has been moved to an essay after a short discussion. Further discussion of what to do with this material [11] may be warranted. Please see WT:Manual of Style#Arab and Arabic. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Oldest" given context violates WP:PEACOCK

Quoted Text from Ballinger et al. (1992)--Ephert (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
In an effort to integrate these Asian mtDNA studies into a coherent view of Southern Mongoloid migra- tions, we have conducted a detailed analysis of the mtDNAs from seven East Asian populations. The data provide evidence that: (1) the Vietnamese are the most diverse and, hence, the oldest population; (2) Malay- sians retain remnants of haplotypes found in PNG; (3) coastal Asians have a striking frequency cline for the 9-bp deletion; and (4) both insertion and deletion mutations in the COII/tRNA^LYs intergenic region have occurred more than once.	Similarity of mongoloid types: Analysis of South- east Asian mtDNA variation indicates that all extant populations were derived from a common ancestral population which encompassed most of the variation. The mean of the intrapopulational divergence is 0.182%, while the mean interpopulational divergence corrected for intrapopulational divergence (NEI and TAJIMA 1983) is about one-sixth this value or 0.030%, with a range of 0.019% to 0.053% (Table 3). Thus, it would appear that most of the mtDNA variation is shared between the Southeast Asian populations and predated the present geographic subdivision. Of the current populations, the Vietnamese have the greatest intrapopulational genetic divergence (0.236%) sug- gesting that it is the oldest. Since Vietnam was colo- nized by a southeast China migration, this would imply a southern Chinese origin of Mongoloid people about 59,000 to 118,000 YBP (assuming that mtDNA di- vergence is 2-4% per million years, CANN, BROWN and WILSON 1984; CANN, STONEKING and WILSON 1987; NECKELMANN et al. 1987, 1989; WALLACE et al. 1987).
The quoted text above is in the upper-left of page 140 just before the "Materials and Methods" section which is page 2/14 of the PDF document.	The quoted text above is the first paragraph of the "Discussion" section which is the fourth paragraph of the right column of page 142 which is page 4/14 of the PDF document.
Source: Ballinger, S. W.; Schurr, T. G.; Torroni, A; Gan, Y. Y.; Hodge, J. A.; Hassan, K; Chen, K. H.; Wallace, D. C. (1992). "Southeast Asian Mitochondrial DNA Analysis Reveals Genetic Continuity of Ancient Mongoloid Migrations". Genetics. 130 (1): 139–152. PMC 1204787

I am in a discussion with User:Calthinus on Talk:Vietnamese people. In an edit on September 21, 2017, User:Calthinus wrote, "Okay well it still smacks of WP:PEACOCK. My removal was not based on source manipulation. Claiming to be the "oldest" population when of course what that actually means is poorly understood by most people is typically diagnostic of nationalistic editing practices, although to be fair I don't edit much Southeast Asian pages so I'll assume good faith here. It still looks bad on the page though." I contend that the reliable source describing Vietnamese as the oldest population given a certain context is not in violation of WP:PEACOCK. The description of "oldest" is a description Ballinger et al. (1992) based on genetic data given a certain context, and that certain context appears to be the oldest of the current Southeast Asian populations. For analogy, if this statement violates WP:PEACOCK, then saying that Native Americans are the oldest population in the Americas based on genetic evidence would also violate WP:PEACOCK. Surely, mentioning that Native Americans are the oldest population in the Americas based on genetic evidence should not be a fact that is censored due to someone possibly interpreting that statement as meaning that Native Americans are somehow better than other people. Applying the same sound reasoning, the Ballinger et al. (1992) genetic source should not be censored due to someone possibly interpreting the statement which could be cited to Ballinger et al. (1992) as meaning that Vietnamese are somehow better than other people.--Ephert (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ephert: This page is for discussion about the editorial guideline. You, on the other hand, are discussing a content dispute. Please take it to Wikipedia:Third opinion if your dispute involves only two people. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

And it's not even a style matter; this is a WP:NPOV / WP:NOR issue; if WP:3O doesn't work out, try WP:NPOVN. The problem here is that what Ballinger et al. mean by "the oldest", and what they're implying with the term in that context is not what the average editor will take away from WP flatly parroting the statement without clarification, making it sound like a claim to territorial primacy/supremacy, and implying some kind of "Master Asian Race" nonsense. We just can't do that. Not a matter of "censorship" of but proper encyclopedic writing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Issue" vs. "problem"

Popcornduff, now that you mention it, why are we telling editors to avoid "issue"? I can see avoiding "an issue with" if it's vague, but "a problem with" is also vague. "Issue" is used for "problem" in a lot of places on Wikipedia. Hmm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, "issues" doesn't always mean "problems" to people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Issues contain problems. Government contains politics. All four words work together so closely, it's hard to tell them apart, but they do each have their role in describing a lot of places on Wikipedia. They're words to watch, in the sense that it's good to understand them, but not words to avoid entirely. They look more contentious than they are. In the example above, "problem" is correct. Issues can't be posed, fixed or solved, only raised, addressed and tackled. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

In many cases, "issue" is used as a euphemism for "problem". For example, look at the language often used by customer support: "If you're experiencing issues with our software...", etc. It's vague and soft-edged. Consciously or unconsciously, companies choose "issue" because it ducks the punch. They don't have to say their software has problems.

There are undoubtedly cases where "issue" is the correct word, but when it means "problems", "problems" is clear and direct. I'm always in favour of clear and direct, at least when it comes to writing for Wikipedia. Popcornduff (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, experiencing issues is claptrap. I was thinking more of social issues. "Topics", as they say. Problems for some, news to others.

Hard to write of a marginalized underclass "creating problems" without sounding like the rich white straight man who swears he's "just being honest" about the plight of poor black lesbian children. A little euphemistic polish is a good thing here on Wikipedia, if we hope to introduce those poor children to the world of round-the-clock unpaid menial labour. I mean, uh, fix the bias problem! Give them a...um...sense of purpose and accomplishment! Job creation forever, indentured servitude never!

Anyway, so long as we need huddled masses yearning to breathe around here, we're going to need to not ban synonyms willy-nilly. I am, however, in favour of banning "willy-nilly". If the issue ever comes up. Just being honest. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

You say, "I was thinking more of social issues." Really... when I was in college, there wasn't any sociology course about "social issues" but the university offered a course called "Social Problems". I took that course. It was about social issues. Or problems. Whatever.... ~Anachronist (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Official"

I know this word is not on the list under WP:PEACOCK, but I noted its overuse in some articles, like JoJo (singer). [12] There may be some valid uses, usually where a given authority makes a statement of authenticity on something of theirs, but under what circumstances would this word qualify as a peacock term? I'm thinking my edit that I cited here is one of those times.

I will note I brought this up here before, three and a half years ago, but I'm still curious. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This is also a word I regularly remove, so I'm glad someone else feels the same way. In most cases it simply adds no information - eg "Nintendo officially announced blah blah" vs "Nintendo announced" - no one will assume it was an unofficial leak or something if we don't specify. But people write it because it sounds important or impressive. Popcornduff (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I generalize that rule to most adverbs: officially, substantially, merely, optimally, and so on. Like many adjectives, adverbs aren't neutral, telling the reader what to think instead of just stating facts. Sometimes they work, but often I find that when I remove them, the sentence retains the same meaning and is more concise.

I often see "Official website" in the "external links" section. The word "official" isn't needed here either. "Company website" or "[subject name] website" works just as well. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Because "there may be some valid uses," as noted by the OP, and we have enough example words in the guideline and so many people misuse the guideline because of the discouraged words, I'd rather not add "officially" or "official" to the guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Supported attributions

Unsupported attributions is covered here. Yet there is another problem. Editors are deleting supported attributions. We have "Unsupported attributions" but not "Supported attributions". Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"The guest list included Charles, Prince of Wales – This is usually acceptable, as a confusion with Charles I of England, Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely."

"... is highly unlikely."

According to whom? What research shows this to be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.42.187 (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Without knowing the context of the article that the challenged passage appears in, it's hard to be sure. But in most articles dealing with contemporary events, it should be pretty obvious that "Charles, Prince of Wales" does not refer to the future King Charles I or his son, Charles II, in the first half of the seventeenth century. And while most facts do indeed require a reliable source, it's not necessary to cite facts that are perfectly obvious. See Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue for a discussion of the reasons. Now, if you can't tell what time period is being referred to without stating which Charles it is, then it makes sense to clarify it. But I'm guessing that in the article in question, the time period is already specified, in which case requiring further clarification would be rather pedantic, given that the only other persons ever called "Charles, Prince of Wales" lived more than three hundred years ago. P Aculeius (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. We do not need to brow-beat our readers with the obvious as if they have brain damage. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Clutter

To be bold, i created a new section here, "Clutter". Comments? Feel free to edit it if you see fit. Or is said section appropriate?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Solomonfromfinland: ironically, the part that most clearly belongs here (euphemisms) is clutter because it repeats material from elsewhere on this page. The rest I think is good advice but might be better placed in a different guideline. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. I find the section itself to be clutter (no offense). I don't see how it's very useful or useful at all. For example, it stated that it is "generally better to say 'person' or 'someone', rather than 'man' or 'woman'." Why, though? I understand gender-neutral language (see MOS:GNL), but the section stated nothing about that. Furthermore, there are various cases on Wikipedia where the language should not be gender-neutral. If the sources are specifically talking about women, we should do the same. Occasionally, with anatomy or medical articles, we have editors (usually newbie editors) wanting to push gender-neural language when the sources are, for example, specifically about male anatomy or males/men. One such case was the Human penis article. I understood what the gender-neutral side was stating, though, and suggested alternative wording that could work for both sides. See Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth" for that discussion. Also, as noted by Nikkimaria above, the euphemism material is already covered on the page. And as for the rest, it just sounds like personal opinion with no solid reasons given for the suggestions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Generally agree with the above in that most of this section repeats material elsewhere on the page, without any clear improvement. Good try, though! However, I think Flyer22 Reborn misread the "man or woman" comment to be "generally better to say 'person' or 'someone' rather than 'man' or 'woman'," when it actually says "generally better to say 'person' or 'someone' rather than 'man or woman'." I.e. using "man or woman", "he or she", "him or her", instead of the simpler "person" or "someone" which avoids the awkward construction. That said, this advice is getting a bit nitpicky in an area that by nature is already rather nitpicky. There may be valid reasons for choosing a more verbose way of saying something, but advice on this page, which is really just advice to begin with, tends to be taken as proscriptive, despite the warning at the top that it shouldn't be used that way. This section could really be summed up as "be direct, and use common sense", which is already said more than once on this page. P Aculeius (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to concur with both points (the material is repetitive, and the "man or woman" part was misunderstood). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Solomonfromfinland can clarify what he meant by the "man or woman" aspect, but, yeah, I thought he was aiming for gender-neutral language and it seems I misread that aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

What is a label?

This [[13]] has raised an interesting couple of interesting questions is the "term" "weapon of choice for perpetrators" a label, and how can we use inline attribute a view that can be attributed to so many sources? "according to the NYT, the BG, the Guardian, the BBC...etc".Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for posing the question here. It will be interesting to see the feedback. Please post a notice of this discussion at the article talk page as well. One point, the label in question has been "weapon of choice", not the longer phrase but I suppose that is something that can also be discussed. I believe a number of sources have used "weapon of choice" in quotes but we should verify that. Springee (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Which thread at that page are you trying to link to? There is no #Weapon_of_choice_in_the_media thread (any longer) and the phrase appears all over the talk page, and is the focus of multiple discussions (none of which are closed as of this writing). Where's the MOS:WTW-related discussion you want watchers of this page to look at? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This thread [14], which was active at the time of posting.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A relevant RM, on "regime"

FYI

– Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes#Requested move 21 June 2018.

Under discussion are potential MOS:WTW and WP:NPOV concerns about "regimes". (Other matters include: whether there's a special WP:IAR rationale to capitalize "Communist" in this case, despite MOS:ISMCAPS; whether "killings" is the right word; whether the article needs to be split for WP:NOR reasons; and some other stuff. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Is "fall in battle" a euphemism?

I think so, @P Aculeius: does not. Paradoctor (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

To make the issue clearer, Paradoctor thinks that the phrase "so-and-so fell in battle against such-and-such" is a euphemism in which people are politely avoiding the word "died", and therefore cannot appear in Wikipedia—and therefore must be expunged wherever it appears. Wiktionary's entry contains the contradictory labels "formal" and "euphemistic"; here the label "formal" is relevant, which is glossed: "Describes a context where word choice and syntax are primarily limited to those terms and constructions that are accepted by academia or official institutions as most appropriate and correct" (emphasis supplied). Webster's Third New International Dictionary lists this definition of "fall" [sense 2a(4)] but does not label it a euphemism. It's ironic that someone trying to make Wikipedia more formal would object to long-established formal usage. "He fell in battle against the Turks" and similar constructions are not in the same category as florid obituary writing such as, "she went to a better world" or "he went to sleep in the arms of the Lord". Objecting to wording that in academic contexts has been deemed the "most appropriate and correct" on the grounds that it's somehow unencyclopedic carries the notion of formalism to an absurd length. P Aculeius (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if you don't consider it a euphemism, in any case it's an indirect way of saying "die in battle", and there is no advantage in using it. We're an encylopaedia - let's be clear and direct. I also support Paradoctor's "one such game" wording in that edit. Popcornduff (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't mean "die in battle" so much as "killed in battle", but you're ignoring the point that it's not generally considered a euphemism; it's accepted formal English, and I shouldn't have to prove whether one wording is better than another before I'm allowed to write it, if both are acceptable. It's not an indirect way of saying anything; it's a definition of the word. And nobody refers to "a funeral game" because there's no such thing; they didn't play hopscotch in memory of the deceased. Funeral games are always plural, as far as I know, because the term doesn't refer to "a game" like Monopoly or leap frog. But is this even an issue for the Manual of Style? Nobody brought it here, and it's a clear matter of usage. I don't see why it's suddenly under discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's a euphemism no matter how long and widespread its use. The term "sleep with" for sex is also widely used in formal settings - and is also a euphemism. Meanwhile, if you accept "died" or "killed in battle" as an alternative, why defend "fell"? Popcornduff (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently anything that can be said in multiple ways is a euphemism if you prefer a different way. You don't seem to understand the use of the term "formal" in this context; we're not talking about cocktail parties, we're talking about academic writing of the type that Wikipedia is supposedly expected to represent. I'm defending the use of a perfectly standard and accepted definition of a word in precisely the context in which it's used with that meaning, because someone has decided that it can't be used with that meaning on Wikipedia, and must be removed. Which, I point out, flies in the face of the guideline that's being used to justify doing so, and I quote:

"[t]here are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint. The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. For example, some words have specific technical meanings in some contexts and are acceptable in those contexts (e.g. "claim" in law). What matters is that articles should be well-written and consistent with the core content policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability" (emphasis in original; internal citations omitted).

To say that someone "fell in battle" does not introduce bias, is not flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, and does not endorse a particular viewpoint. The word/phrase has a specific technical meaning in this context and is acceptable in this context throughout academia, and has been for hundreds of years. So it seems to me that the guideline in question is being misused to enforce one particular notion of what words or expressions ought to be forbidden... P Aculeius (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

No explanation for the term's advantage over clear and direct "killed" here. Popcornduff (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"contradictory labels "formal" and "euphemistic"" That's a false alternative. Formal settings can be, and some are, rife with euphemism. But if there are sources for your claim, please do provide them. BTW, Wiktionary is not a reliable source. Not really complaining about its use in this instance, but it's a thought.

"does not label it a euphemism" Neither does my 2000 Unabrigded. But it also doesn't label "give one's life" or "kick the bucket" as euphemism, so this tells us nothing.

What the (M)Webster's does tell us, though, is that "fall in battle" is, at the very least, ambiguous: "to drop down wounded or dead; especially : to die in battle". This alone justifies using "die" instead.

"specific technical meaning in this context" I'd like to see a current textbook on historiography stating this.

"acceptable in this context throughout academia, and has been for hundreds of years" I assume you will provide sources for this claim? Paradoctor (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

As previously stated and ignored, formal usage is not the same as formal occasions. We're not talking about expressions used at banquets or when speaking to one's grandmother, but precise and accepted usage in academic writing and scholarly publications. But I'm not about to start digging up publications to prove that a familiar phrase means what the dictionary says it does, and pretty much everyone understands it to mean, just because you want me to prove the negative: that it's not a euphemism, and that it's completely inappropriate to start excising it wherever it occurs in Wikipedia on the grounds that it is. The burden is on you to prove that it's not acceptable or standard English usage. Your argument that because a word can have more than one related meaning renders it ambiguous is absurd. There's no ambiguity whatsoever about "fallen in battle". It always means that the persons referred to have been killed in action against the enemy. It may be possible to "fall" on the battlefield by tripping or being wounded, but to have "fallen in battle" means to have been killed, not to have slipped on an enemy banana peel. Lastly, read the introduction to the guideline. You're using a guideline that's not meant to be rigidly and arbitrarily applied to impose your style preferences on other editors. P Aculeius (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with P Aculeius, Wikipedia policy does not preclude the use of "fell in battle". It is a perfectly acceptable usage. There is no justification in policy for getting rid of it, just as there is no justification in policy for getting rid of BC (or BCE). Paul August ☎ 15:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

"policy does not preclude" If there are arguments beyond those already given^(edited) that support your position, please state them. We're not WP:VOTING here. Paradoctor (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: I added underlined text marked as "(edited)" after Paul August replied to it, so his answer had not the benefit of the later clarification. Paradoctor (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course there are arguments to support my position, and I believe P Aculeius has already stated them. (@Paradoctor: By the way, I find your tone here to me somewhat offensive, have I said something to offend you?). Paul August ☎ 11:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"I said something to offend you" No.

"your tone" Mind elaborating? I have no idea what this is about. Paradoctor (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"I believe P Aculeius has already stated them" That's what's meant by WP:VOTING. In effect, you only said "I agree with P Aculeius." Maybe WP:CONSENSUS is helpful: "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." Paradoctor (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with me stating my agreement with P Aculeius here. (@Paradoctor: And since you ask, I find your tone patronizing.) Paul August ☎ 13:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"patronizing" Certainly not intentionally, and I don't see how. Would you please explain?

Please don't ping me for this discussion, I'm watching. Paradoctor (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine. Paul August ☎ 13:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Then exactly why did you bring this here and ask other editors to back you up? And why are you asking people to prove that standard English usage is exactly that—to your standard of satisfaction—before you'll allow it? P Aculeius (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"ask other editors to back you up" I did no such thing. I asked a question to get feedback from uninvolved editors, hopefully involving arguments that lead us to WP:CONSENSUS. Basically, WP:3O in a place likely to be watched by editors familiar with the terrain. Paradoctor (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I see it as a euphemism. It also seems to me to carry some connotation of the person involved being someone important, rather than just one of those disposable foot soldiers. In fact, I wonder if its use comes from the idea of falling from one's horse, rather just from one's feet. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"Jones died at Vimy Ridge" - he caught pneumonia. "Jones fell at Vimy Ridge" - the enemy got him. BTW, fallen soldiers are "someone important", look at the honours paid to them when possible. It is notable that at Westminster Abbey the only grave that no-one (not even the Queen) is permitted to walk over is the unknown soldier. Finally, if you regard squaddies as "disposable foot soldiers" then it is just as well you aren't in an army. An officer's first thought must always be for his men. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

You failed to recognise my use of a euphemism. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I struggle to understand most of Martin's comment but I think HiLo's point is that "fall in battle" is an honorific way to say someone was killed in battle. Which is true. (Can we avoid making this an argument about whether any editor deserves to be in the army, please?) Popcornduff (talk)

I thought you were struggling with HiLo48's comment! I was simply pointing out that "died" can cover a multitude of ways to die whereas "fell" usually implies death as the result of enemy action. HiLo48 seemed to think that "ordinary foot soldiers" were some sort of unimportant underlings whereas military tradition is to regard all the fallen as worthy of respect. HTH, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think HiLo was indicating any disrespect; surely we agree that some people are deemed more important than others in all sorts of metrics. I think their point is that "fall in battle" is deferential. I am still waiting to hear why it's superior to the clear, neutral and precise "killed" or "died" (use as appropriate). Popcornduff (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, one last time. In the example I originally gave "Jones died at Vimy Ridge" the only information the reader has is that Jones' life ended for some unstated reason. It could be disease, accident, suicide, medical condition or anything else. The phrase "Jones fell at Vimy Ridge" coveys the additional presumption that the reason for Jones' death was due to the fighting. It is the same as saying that "Smith died in the North Sea". Simple fact: he died, cause unknown whereas "Smith drowned in the North Sea" conveys more information. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

"He was killed at Vimy Ridge" or "killed in battle at Vimy Ridge" or "killed in the battle of Vimy Ridge". Popcornduff (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I do not think "fell in battle" is a euphemism in the sense that we should ban it completely, since its meaning is pretty much evident from the phrasing itself, so that even someone who has never heard the phrase could easily tell what it means. Nonetheless, I think that "died in battle" or "was killed in battle" would be far preferable wording, since these are more specific and remove any possibility of ambiguity, since it is hypothetically possible that someone who has never heard the phrase "fell in battle" could perhaps mistake it to mean the person was merely badly injured. Clarity is probably the most important factor to consider here. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely a euphemism. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it arose as a euphemism, but it seems to have now become a standard term of art, and so is acceptable (perhaps even preferable) usage here. Paul August ☎ 17:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

And that something is a euphemism, for example "bathroom", does not mean it's usage should be banned. Paul August ☎ 17:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"seems to have now become a standard term of art" P Aculeius already made the same claim ("specific technical meaning"), so I'm putting the same question to you: Which (current) textbooks on historiography support this claim? Paradoctor (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

And we have an extensive consensus record against using death-related euphemisms here. You're making a false equivalence argument. There is no corresponding consensus record against terminology like "bathroom", "restroom", "washroom", and "water closet", nor do we have alternative, universally understood wording to fall back on for "place to excrete", but we do in the other case: "died in battle" or "died at the Battle of Foo, as context suggests. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that the two case were equivalent, just that being a euphemism is not sufficient to preclude use. My main point is that this is a term used by reliable sources (just as bathroom is, although one might argue that toilet is somehow better) and so is acceptable here. Paul August ☎ 09:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Very many words started as euphemisms. Your example of a toilet is itself a euphemism; a toilet is a cloth covering clothes, hence a cloth on a table used for grooming, hence the room, hence a euphemism for a WC. But then a closet is a closed room for hanging clothes. A lavatory is of course a wash room. In short I can't think of a single polite word for a place (or object) for defecation which isn't a euphemism! Realistically we need to restrict florid or twee euphemisms and accept that some euphemisms are simply new words. Referring to soldiers "falling" is short, succinct and widely understood. Compare it to "passed over" (what, to where) "went to join the saviour", "fell asleep" etc and I would suggest to you that they are in quite a different class. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I add that the equivalence of "falling" and "being killed" not only dates back centuries in English, but in the classical context (which is where this debate started), it's also how the Romans said it, and the most direct translation of the word the Roman historians used, occido, "I fall", for someone slain in battle. It's not the only way to say this in Latin, and it's not the only meaning of occido either, just as fall can have several meanings in English. But in context, the meaning is perfectly clear, and not the least bit florid or evasive. But then, to use a metaphor that actually would be florid, perhaps it's time for this discussion to go to that great battlefield in the sky... P Aculeius (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

... and still not one argument has been made about why "fell in battle" is better than "killed in battle", which is a term everyone can agree on. Popcornduff (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

One doesn't have to be "better", both are acceptable, and there is no need to change from one to the other. Just as is the case with "BC/AD" "BCE/CE". Paul August ☎ 15:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That's another false equivalence. BC/AD is a standardized date nomenclature system; saying someone "fell in battle" or "fell at the battle of" is not part of a standardized system of anything, it's just a romanticizing euphemism. So, no, it is not "just as is the case". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Will you please stop putting words in my mouth? I never said the two pairs of terms are equivalent, just that they share the same property of both members of each pair being acceptable usage. Paul August ☎ 16:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read false equivalence. For an equivalence to be false it does not require that anyone actually use the word "equivalent" or any of its derivatives. It's sufficient that a comparison or analogy is made which is clearly faulty. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that the anything I've said is "clearly faulty". Paul August ☎ 19:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Except I've clearly demonstrated that it is, and you've not refuted the demonstration. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The cliché is "better" because it invokes the phrase "fallen hero". Also makes the soldier seem taller than he was, standing firm like a tree in a forest or strong like a section of wall. Sort of like a reverse euphemism, hardening the whole army's resolve in a reader's eyes rather than softening the fatal blows against it. I also think most readers enivision the fallen toppling forward, toward the objective, rather than down or out, thanks to Hollywood using this to depict an unwavering sense of duty that not even death can kill. A bit poetic, but not as sappy as "giving one's life" for a mission, so I don't hate it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

All of which, to me, is a great argument for why we shouldn't use the phrase. Wikipedia is not in the business of painting people as heroes. Popcornduff (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes; it's a WP:NPOV problem. Try searching for the phrase and its variants [15][16], and see which side of the conflict it gets used for. There's a clear bias, a trend toward glorification of parties on the victorious side, of those about whom there's a body of romanticization, and of those with deep ties to Western, English, or American history. No one says Islamists like the Houthi "fell in battle" (not on Wikipedia and not in the press [17]). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's nothing of the sort. Just because a particular word is used in formal contexts and ignored in vulgar ones doesn't make it "poetic" or "biased". Part of the reason for discouraging euphemisms is that they're informal ways to avoid saying something directly; "passed away" and "went to sleep in the arms of Jesus" are just that; you won't normally find these used in scholarly literature. You will find "Richard III was the last English king to fall in battle" or similar constructions. It's not a euphemism because it's what the word means, not an indirect way of saying another word, or a polite way of avoiding it. This is a standard definition of fall, and has been for centuries, not just in English but in the languages that helped English develop. You'll find it used this way in countless scholarly sources that wouldn't dream of saying something as ridiculous as "Cardinal Wolsey went to be with the Lord on November 29, 1530". There's a good reason for being direct, but there's a difference between being direct and being artificially bland or stilted, just like there's a difference between asking editors to use common sense, and prescribing a limited selection of English words while prohibiting others, something this guideline specifically denies is required by Wikipedia. P Aculeius (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Mate, there's nothing "artificially bland and stilted" about the phrase "killed in battle". This is not a soup that needs more spice. Popcornduff (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a simple illustration is sufficient: [18]. It's a euphemism. The fact that it's not as tortured a euphemism as "went to heaven" doesn't change that. We have no reason to use it when we have less emotive wording available. And it's generally going to be more accurate, since in most cases we have no idea whether anyone in particular was standing when they died in a war (though this is more likely in the days of swords than rifles). PS: Just because some scholars like to resort to romanticizing euphemisms doesn't mean WP has to. WP has its own style guide. "Follow the sources" does not mean "mimic the quirks of off-site writers". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

It's absolutely a euphemism, a harmful one, and it should be avoided by any sensitive writer. --John (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Victim, sufferer/suffering

Might be worth including victim[s]. This word is appropriate in reference to [statutory] crime victims in most cases (not all, when the crime is one with no actual harm and imposed for subjective reasons like religious doctrine). Also appropriate for and mass victims of state actions defined as international crimes, like genocide. It's not appropriate when the actions are more subjective (e.g. "victims of China's Internet censorship", since authoritarians are generally in support of various forms of censorship – I'm saying this as a civil libertarian; I'm just able to separate my beliefs from objective analysis of belief systems). It's also not appropriate in reference to diseases and disorders, e.g. "victims of congenital blindness". Same goes for suffer[er]/suffering; we should not write "She suffers from oculocutaneous albinism". These aren't idle concerns; I fairly often have to replace exactly these sorts of constructions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm 87% behind you. Wouldn't surely ban it, because I don't mind a bit of it in the context of sport seasons ("the team suffered its first loss"). Pretty hard to argue a loss isn't objectively worse than a win in hockey. But yeah, things like oculocutaneous albinism aren't all bad, and things that are generally considered such shouldn't need that point driven home with a loaded word. When I see it to describe addictions, I feel a sudden compulsion to shake my computer and scream at it, "People enjoy the things they can't stop doing!" They may feel remorse and physical wear afterward, but it's not one-sided enough to say they suffer from or enjoy it. Just say they "are/were/became" addicted; it's truer and shorter. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Some might say "I have a problem" with this word, so maybe take my two cents as coming more from the lunatic fringe than the general attitude. I've never been great at speaking for everyone when I say anything, but I'll add that schizophrenia can also be fun, sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. A side, semantic point (and I don't mean this to sound too testy). I wish people would stop making "we shouldn't ban it" comments here. That's not what this page is about (even aside from the fact that a guideline can't ban anything). It's about providing contextual, and classified, examples of why certain types of word/construction uses should be avoided (and differentiating when they needn't be). I think I've done that (in long, proposal wording). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, I said I wouldn't, not we shouldn't. But I can see how you took it like you did, and agree with the rest of your response. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language advises to avoid "suffer" and "victim." But I have found "victims" to be appropriate in some cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Alright, well, that means we already have an extant consensus about misuse of these terms, so WTW should address them for completeness, since this is the main page on such matters, and we're trying to eliminate WP:POLICYFORKs. We should also cross-reference that section at MOS:MED to MOS:WTW, too. When ever a topical MoS page is saying something that derives from a non-topical, site-wide MoS principle, it should link to the latter so people know where it came from, and don't get the impression that the topical MoS pages are making up weird pseudo-rules on the fly. (Where that actually happens, it should be undone, or the idea generalized to be non-topical if possible). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Arab, Arabic, Arabian

Since 2006, the main MoS page has had advice on this (in various wording). A general approximation: The adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Well-established noun phrases such as gum arabic (lower-case) and Arabic coffee are exceptions. Plus add something about Arabian, since many editors are unclear on the difference. Virtually every off-WP style guide covers this, and with mutually compatible advice, so we'll be on good footing to include it.

This was unilaterally deleted by someone in February of this year, and a later discussion concluded not to re-add it, on the basis that it was "weird" to dwell on one particular set of words. I suggested moving it to MOS:WTW, which is all about considering particular words, but this idea got drowned out in various argumentation about definitions.

I re-propose that it be covered here, since it's a matter of cultural sensitivity and appropriate usage, which is almost universally detailed in style guides. The "weird" thing is for MoS to remain utterly silent on it, after over a decade of providing clear (albeit incomplete) advice which has served us well. I think several months of leaving the matter as-is is sufficient to ask now whether consensus has change (or, rather, for whether a more specific consensus will emerge other than "don't revert the deletion from the main MoS page").
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to edit this in, given lack of objection, and the fact that the main MoS had this material without any complaint for many years. It's the entire purpose of MoS subpages to include drill-down details that have consensus but are too narrow for the main MoS page. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Object!. The "later discussion" (archived here) was an RfC and gained significant participation. This new proposal to reverse the RfC result has not so far garnered any support. Batternut (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore it seems a little disingenuous to say the removal of this guidance from the MOS (this edit) was done unilaterally when, as the edit comment pointed out, it was subject of a discussion (archived here) that had at that point four editors in favour and none against. I do accept that the edit was done without very quickly and without formal closure, but the subsequent RfC (actually to reverse that edit) was conducted with due process. Batternut (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so you have a bunch of wikilawyering proceduralisms, but nothing substantive. Why exactly are you on about this? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Re-RfCing Arab/Arabic

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.

Closed as not neutrally worded. Restart needed. (non-admin closure)

Should we restore the Arab/Arabic-related advice deemed correct but too narrow for the main MoS page, to this MoS subpage where it's on-topic?

Material recently reverted with "more support required", despite previous discussion of the idea meeting no opposition, on this very page:

Easily confusable terms

Shortcuts

Do not use similar or related words in an incorrect, distorting, or meaning-blurring way. For example, the adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Arabian relates to the Arabian peninsula or historical Arabia. (These terms are all capitalized, e.g. Arabic coffee and Arabian stallion, aside from a few conventionalized exceptions that have lost their cultural connection, such as gum arabic.) Do not substitute these terms for Islamic, Moslem, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Moslem Arab is someone who is in both categories. Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about terminology, consult major modern dictionaries.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Background

The RfC to remove the material from the main MoS page is archived here.
The previous discussion mentioned is above, at § Arab, Arabic, Arabian.
Arab and Arabic are listed at Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words#A.

Comments on Arab[...]

Support, as nominator. Advice on this was at MOS:IDENTITY for many years, and served us well. Rather recently, it was removed on the basis that it wasn't really main-MoS-page material, and that MOS:IDENTITY was focused on personal not cultural identity. But there's never been any doubt about the advice. I posted a proposal on this talk page to re-integrate that material into this sub-guideline, since this is obviously the proper page for it. No one opposed, which makes sense since it's just moving established MoS advice from one page to another. I integrated here, in the format of MOS:WTW, with a heading and some generalized "why" text. This seems non-controversial to me. This was then reverted with an edit summary that isn't actually correct under WP:CONSENSUS; that seems pretty WP:POINTy, but I'm never afraid of an RfC. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
PS: Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words is not a guideline, and no one seems to cite or use it with any frequency. It's an essay, and a former article that got project-spaced because it was not good enough for mainspace. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Reverting an unsupported addition that was rejected by RfC at the main MoS talk page is not pointy. This new RfC is the way to proceed though - glad to see it! Batternut (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Guideline material stable for years isn't "an unsupported addition"; you're confusing content (the advice) with process (whether an an opposed merge proposals is sufficient justification to proceed, which in fact it is). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose, this "Words to watch" guideline is about avoiding bias, imprecision, and offensive terms - important issues for an encyclopedia. While this proposal does appeal to my pedantic nature, I don't think imprecise use of Arab and Arabic is especially problematic - the WP:List of commonly misused English words deals with it well enough. If we want to stamp out all imprecision then we should consider declaring WP:List of commonly misused English words to be a MoS subpage. Batternut (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
That's the primary purpose of it, but not the sole one. However, this obviously qualifies anyway. Use of these words often is "imprecise", to use your own term. Avoiding "ugly Americanisms" like "Arab terrorists" for "Islamist terrorists" is important and qualifies under "bias" and "offensive". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:23, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this a frequent problem? Special:WhatLinksHere/MOS:ARAB reveals no article space discussions ever invoking MOS:ARAB. It does however give this MoS discussion in which SMcCandlish says The Arab[ic|ian] question doesn't come up often enough to need a shortcut. The "ugly Americanisms" thing seems like a straw man argument. Batternut (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Support, per nominator's rationale.

Comment: what are the reasons for not declaring WP:List of commonly misused English words to be a MoS subpage ? --BushelCandle (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Good question. The reason for not adding such stuff to the MoS is Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep - we already have enough to argue about without trying to codify correct English. Batternut (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand and sympathise with your answer, User:Batternut. However, I think this will always be a judgement call since, to a degree, any style guide will always be an attempt to codify and prescribe an acceptable house style and also be incomplete and unfinished (like Wikipedia itself). --BushelCandle (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

But why is Arab/Arabic a special case, different from lot/allot, algorithm/logarithm and all the other poor English at List of commonly misused English words? Batternut (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Start by, say, turning on the news, then reading Anti-Arabism, Persecution of Muslims, Islamophobia, etc. Obviously, world socio-politics doesn't frequently involve allotments or logarithms, but does frequently involve the Middle East and what groups are allegedly responsible for what actions and how to define them; we've had a few wars and a whole lot of deaths results from people not being clear on this stuff, and surely more to come. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Middle Eastern strife is more to do with oil, religious intolerance, historic injustice, poverty, greed and so on. Google find about as many books mentioning "Arab terrorist" as it does "Islamic terrorist". Should we reinterpret sources according to this political correctness perspective, or should we ban using them? Batternut (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop pretending to be obtuse in an effort to WP:WIN by handwaving. You know full well that no one is suggesting Mid-East strife is caused by anti-Arab sentiment among low-rung Wikipedia editors. Rather, such editors are inspired in their prejudices by that strife to misuse words on Wikipedia to push anti-Arab viewpoints. I know you're smart enough to have fully understood all this before you posted that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: This RfC would indeed be better off without speculation of war and death being the results from people not being clear on this stuff. I'd be happy to see this sub-thread hatted as a digression. Your comments about Anti-Arabism etc are pertinent and should be kept though. Batternut (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I made no such speculation, and continuing to insist that I did is patently disingenuous. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

How are we to interpret we've had a few wars and a whole lot of deaths results from people not being clear on this stuff, and surely more to come., your edit then? Batternut (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Already been over this. I'll just repeat it for you: "You know full well that no one is suggesting Mid-East strife is caused by anti-Arab sentiment among low-rung Wikipedia editors. Rather, such editors are inspired in their prejudices by that strife to misuse words on Wikipedia to push anti-Arab viewpoints. I know you're smart enough to have fully understood all this before you posted that." Don't make me start to doubt the latter sentence, please. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Batternut's scope-creep argument is a solid one, against WP:List of commonly misused English words being made part of MoS, as is the fact that it's just a rejected article draft kicked out of mainspace. This really gets to the heart of why I integrated the old main-MoS piece into MOS:WTW, wrapped in general advice: We don't want to list 1,000 examples, only give broadly applicable advice illustrated with a clear and pertinent example. The Arab[...] example is useful and timely (in the broad sense, i.e. relevant to world history for about the last century). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment I am ambivalent because I believe this addition doesn't fit the original and useful scope of this MOS subpage, but at least two other sections of the subpage already deviate substantially from that, which makes the current scope of the subpage rather vague.

The title says it all: words to watch. It's supposed to be a list of words that, when they appear in a sentence, are indicators that that the sentence may violate Wikipedia guidelines or just be poor writing. The good sections actually start with a list of the words to be watched for. For example, if you see "some people say", that should trigger you to look for and remove weaseling. It's not really about proper word usage.

But the section "Person or office?" is just basic advice on phrasing and doesn't list any words to watch for that would indicate a sentence is referring to a person where it should refer to an office. And "Neologisms and new compounds" lists no words that would indicate a sentence is using a neologism.

Likewise, avoiding easily confusable terms is so obviously a good idea it doesn't even need to be stated, but there are no specific words that indicate a writer might have made that mistake, so it doesn't fit this what this page should be.

Incidentally, as I read the proposal, it isn't meant to teach editors the proper use of the words Arab, Arabic, and Arabian. Those are merely an example of the problem of easily confusable terms. If an editor happens to learn how to use those words from this subpage, that is just a byproduct. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Giraffedata: On your last point, yes. I was careful to construct this in a way that suits this page's purpose and format. It's the format we've been moving it more and more toward: statement of a principle with one or more examples; away from people trying to make this a "list of banned words", which is not the purpose nor even within a guideline's purview. The reason the page now has some broader advice is because of this shift toward providing useful editor guidance on principles instead of trying to tell them their English is wrong. The "Person or office?" section should probably have examples. Same with the neologisms sections. We could also consider renaming the page. The current name is kind of weird for an MoS page, and is an artifact of its age. I'm not sure what a better one would be, and it's something that should be put to a different discussion if we wanted to cogitate upon it. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

If the main point of this addition is to avoid Anti-Arabism, Islamophobia etc, (which is indeed a laudable aim) perhaps we should minimize or remove the pedantry over Arab, Arabic and Arabian distinction. The wording should focus on the risk of bias, as it currently reads more like preaching on geography, and the bias issue is just an afterthought. Batternut (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What copyedit would you suggest for such a version? — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 20:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

An improvement (if we need this thing at all) might be:

Terms that can introduce bias

Shortcuts

Do not use similar or related words in an incorrect, distorting, or meaning-blurring way. For example, do not substitute Arab or Arabic for Islamic, Moslem, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Moslem Arab is someone who is in both categories. Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about terminology, consult major modern dictionaries.

This would leave the Arab/Arabic/Arabian pedantry in the WP:List of commonly misused English words (the home of "good English" bickering, perhaps), and focus upon the avoidance of bias. The above would be less objectionable to me, featuring less creep of the MoS into good English; but still makes a special case of Anti-Arabism over Anti-Irish sentiment ("Irish terrorist" is quite a common term), and all the other -isms listed at List of anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic terms. Batternut (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I could live with this version. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-neutral RfC wording

I find the wording of this RfC decidedly non-neutral:

the assertion of such advice being "on-topic" for this page
the claim re the "previous discussion of the idea meeting no opposition"
the summary of the previous RfC as "deemed correct but too narrow" does not reflect its closing comment, and ignores other views that included "just a matter of correct English usage" and "not really even a style issue".

Given also the ill-tempered spat over middle eastern war which hogs half the comment space, a restart of this RfC might be the best course, and perhaps with the modified proposal above. Batternut (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

[sigh] Or just see WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, and implement the compromise version. We have better things to do that argue about this for another month. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

While sympathizing with that view, I think that, given the trepidation with which expansions of the MoS can be viewed, the question deserves a clean RfC. Without the "good English" aspect and hopefully some of the rhetoric, there will be much less to argue about. Batternut (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

RfCs run for an entire month; if consensus doesn't converge on something specific, and probably this version, I would be astounded. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but pleading NOT#BUREAUCRACY is pretty funny when you're expanding that bureaucracy ... Batternut (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Bureaucracy is a process (or a consequence of a certain processes, depending on how you approach it). A line item in a guideline about not abusing terms like Arab/Arabic for PoV purposes isn't procedural, and not bureaucratic, but simple good advice; it's an application (like most of the rest of MOS:WTW) of NPoV policy to the style question of wording choice. Even if it were procedural/processual, that wouldn't make it bureaucratic, per the fallacy of composition. WP:Process is important, generally; the fact that some processes turn bureaucratic and we consider that a negative doesn't mean this sometime-failure of certain processes adheres to all process. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Very educative, I'm sure. Batternut (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Re "argue about this for another month", there is WP:NORUSH, and I also like your WP:Process is important - my view precisely! Can we not take the time and get this process right? Batternut (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2018 (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.

Trypophobia article -- using wording from quoted text

Opinions are needed at Talk:Trypophobia#Latest changes. The discussion concerns whether or not it is fine to quote this source as much as desired without the use of quotation marks, and whether or not we should always use a source's exact words. Regarding the latter, the question is whether it's WP:Original research to use our own wording as opposed to a source's exact words and whether wording like this needs to be tagged as WP:Weasel. The discussion additionally concerns stating things in Wikipedia's voice when sources disagree, the research is new, and/or there is no consensus in the literature on the matter.

On a side note: The Trypophobia article contains an image that some find distressing. So a heads up on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

"Report," "a Baptist church"

SMcCandlish, regarding this, I don't see "report" as much of an issue. I do see "reportedly" as an issue, though, since it's often used in a snide way. As for "a Baptist church," what is the reasoning behind that? I take it that you mean that someone might add "a Baptist church" to downplay or try to discredit the validity of the claim? You know, because it's a statement from a Baptist church? Or maybe someone trying to strengthen the argument of the claim by stating "a Baptist church"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It's "report" in quotation marks, as in 'In 2017, Princeton University published a "report" about electronic cigarettes". The section covers some specific terms, then scare-quoting, then undue emphasis, so making the nutshell do the same. I'll take a look at it a again. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I "hear you" on the general disapproval of pointy "snippets" (whatever their intended purpose), but those particular examples flew over my head, too. I don't think "the practice" really "needs" examples; it works virtually anywhere, and should be simply and universally understood to have no place on this website in any form (barring a damn good reason, of course). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, SMcCandlish. Before, I'd missed that the point of "report" is that it's in scare quotes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked the text to make it clearer. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"Overwhelming"

Carl Tristan Orense, why do you think "overwhelming" should be added to the WP:PEACOCK section? I've seen okay uses of "overwhelming" when supported by a source. And like I stated when reverting you, there are already enough examples. As others have stated on this talk page before, this is not a list. It's not a place to add every word we personally want highlighted. There are a number of other words we can add to that box, but the goal (like the other boxes as well) is to make sure editors/readers get the point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Suicides?

Sorry to raise a depressing topic, but does WP have a guideline or policy regarding the language or vocab that should be used for reporting suicides? E.g. in the biography of Darcy Clay, an editor has just changed "committed suicide" to "took his own life." I don't see anything about this under WP:EUPHEMISM or WP:SUICIDES.--Muzilon (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I almost always advocate for the simplest, most widely understood terms, I am OK with using terms such as "died by suicide" or "killed herself" over the commonly used "committed suicide". "Commit" is archaic and comes from the days when suicide was a crime (like committing murder or fraud); I would prefer to avoid the suggestion of wrongdoing. I reckon "Took his own life", meanwhile, is a euphemism, or at best needlessly indirect - not good writing for an encyclopaedia. Popcornduff (talk) 08:42, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

A common misapprehension. The phrase comes from irrevocable deciding to do something; "to commit to a course of action". A "committed Christian" isn't normally a convicted criminal for example. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Source? The Guardian Style Guide advises against the phrase for the reason I gave (and regardless of the etymology it has connotations of wrongdoing). In modern parlance "commit suicide" certainly doesn't sound like "committing to suicide" - for one thing the syntax is wrong. Popcornduff (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

We have had this discussion within the past year. Please check the archives here as well as at the main MOS page, and/or VPPRO/VPPOL. --Izno (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep. This is total rehash. There was no consensus to avoid "commit", despite language-change activism against the word. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, having searched the archives, I found the following discussions:

Stigmatizing language regarding suicide (VPPOL, 2018)
Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism? (MOS, 2016).--Muzilon (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, so no consensus against "committed" and none against "died by" either. I prefer the latter, but did not "win" on that matter, but that's how it goes. We need not re-re-re-argue the same stuff again. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"Furthermore"

Regarding this, this and this, furthermore isn't quite on the same level as "but, despite, however, though, although." I haven't really seen cases where furthermore "possibly unduly call[s] the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." I do consider "furthermore" editorializing" in our articles, but it's not on the same level as the first batch of examples in that section. From what I can tell, it's simply used to carry on the continuation of a thought, without bias, the vast majority of the time. In that vein, it's similar to "additionally." But then again, I usually see "but," "though," and "although" used appropriately as well. The words "despite" and "however," but especially "despite," are more problematic.

DVdm, I take it you added "furthermore" because it's such a common editorializing term? Not because it usually "unduly call[s] the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second"? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I added it for both reasons, but mainly because it puts a finger in the air and sometimes sounds like I told you something important, and now here's something even more important. It doesn't really matter in which category it is put in the guideline. It is not a forbidden word, but just a word to watch. So I don't care in which category it goes. - DVdm (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It's often just used to break up something, like "Additionally ...", "Moreover ...", but it can often sound pedantic and can just be removed in most cases. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DVdm and SMcCandlish, yeah, I sometimes get an "I told you something important, and now here's something even more important." vibe from it too. LOL. I never use it in Wikipedia articles, but I do use it when talking to people on Wikipedia. I remove it, or I'm likely to remove it, when I see it in Wikipedia articles. Still, I can't think of a case where it "unduly call[s] the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second." I sometimes use "additionally" in Wikipedia articles, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The vibe I object to is that it means the article is building to a conclusion, and Wikipedia shouldn't reach conclusions - it should just provide the evidence. "I've given you one piece of evidence that is probably sufficient to support my conclusion, but if it's not, here's another." Of course, articles often argue in someone else's voice, explaining how someone else reached a certain conclusion, and then I don't mind it. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Peacock?

In Drake (musician)'s lead section:

He is one of the most popular entertainers in the world,^[1]^[2] and one of the best-selling music artists of the 21st century. Drake's contributions to music have made him a global figure in popular culture for over a decade.^[3]^[4]

None of the sources cited state that, while the one that does is an unreliable website (uncharteddomain dot com). While discussing the topic I believe is WP:Peacock from the user that added it. The other sources, however, did note that he is 2018's top artist commercially in the United States. How could it be rewritten if it is indeed wp:peacock? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, if sources support it, we are allowed to note that a person is one of the most popular entertainers in the world, one of the best-selling music artists of the 21st century, and a global figure in popular culture for over a decade. But, per WP:Peacock, it's good to note why he is one of the most popular entertainers in the world. The lead is for summarizing, but there is surely a way to briefly note why (he's one of the most popular entertainers in the world) in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Sources don't say that exactly, Usa Today and Business Insider mention him as the top selling artist of 2018, but never mention "one of the best selling artists of the 21st century". Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Even if a source did say that, I don't think it is objective and factual enough to repeat in an encyclopedia. It would just be a source using peacock terms. Being 2018's top artist commercially, on the other hand, is a plain enough fact for a Wikipedia article. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

___

References

^ "Drake is 2018's biggest artist". USA Today. Retrieved August 4, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "The 10 most popular music artists of 2018, according to Nielsen". Business Insider. Retrieved August 4, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "What Makes Drake So Popular?". Uncharted Domain. Retrieved February 21, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ "How Drake became the all-pervading master of hyper-reality rap". The Guardian. Retrieved August 9, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

RfC Terms that can introduce bias

No consensus for proposed rewording; rough consensus for inclusion so long as Arab/Arabic/etc is not the only example.

The Arab/Arabic example has been in the MOS for over a decade, and so this represents less a policy addition than moving the policy to a different page of the manual, so instruction creep is tenuously applicable. The main addition to policy is summarized well by Alsee: "Do we really need a guideline to say 'Do not use similar or related words in an incorrect, distorting, or meaning-blurring way?'" Consensus seems to be yes. Other than Alsee's comment, all other editors here don't express opposition to the section rather opposition to the specific example. At the previous RFC which was dubiously closed, the sentiments were similar. Comments at the MOS RFC made clear it was too specific for that page, but was a wash on whether it should be included anywhere. Comments there, like here, were unfavorable to the example given. Those comments here which do touch on the wider guidance are still not happy with the specific example listed (and the lack of others) with some suggesting that new examples be added to the section.

Taking into account the support for the sentiment but not the example, there is consensus for the current text (as posted by EEng) only so long as Arab/Arabian is not the only example. Whether more examples are added or the Arab/Arabian example is removed (or both) should be decided by editors. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

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.

Should we add a class of "Terms that can introduce bias", listing incorrect use of Arab and Arabic as an examplar?

RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 01:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC). Batternut (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The wording would be:

Terms that can introduce bias

Shortcuts

Do not use similar or related words in an incorrect, distorting, or meaning-blurring way. For example, do not substitute Arab or Arabic for Islamic, Moslem, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Moslem Arab is someone who is in both categories. Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about terminology, consult major modern dictionaries.

Batternut (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

For comparison, the current wording is

Easily confused terms

Shortcuts

Do not use similar or related words in a way that blurs meaning or is incorrect or distorting.

For example, the adjective Arab refers to people and things of ethnic Arab origin. The term Arabic refers to the Arabic language or writing system, and related concepts. Arabian relates to the Arabian peninsula or historical Arabia. (These terms are all capitalized, e.g. Arabic coffee and Arabian stallion, aside from a few conventionalized exceptions that have lost their cultural connection, such as gum arabic.) Do not substitute these terms for Islamic, Muslim, Islamist, Middle-eastern, etc.; a Muslim Arab is someone who is in both categories.

Similar concerns pertain to many cultural, scientific, and other topics and the terminology used about them. When in doubt about terminology, consult major modern dictionaries.

E Eng 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Background

The RfC to remove related material from the main MoS page is archived here.
Arab and Arabic are listed at Wikipedia:List of commonly misused English words#A.
Previous related discussions are above at § Arab, Arabic, Arabian and § Re-RfCing Arab/Arabic.

Comments on Terms that can introduce bias

Weak oppose. I hesitate to recommend instruction creep of the MoS into political correctness when the issues are already covered by WP:NPOV, and incorrect use of Arabic etc can be dealt with per WP:FIXIT. Also, it seems to make a special case of Anti-Arabism over all the other -isms listed at List of anti-cultural, anti-national, and anti-ethnic terms. Although treating serious social issues, is this just watering down the MoS with anodyne platitudes? Batternut (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Support as the compromise reached in the above discussion, which was non-neutrally closed as "non-neutral" by its chief opponent (which I should probably revert), who then opened this new RfC just to oppose it. See WP:ONEHANDGIVES (at item no. 2) and WP:POINT. That said, it actually is a reasonable compromise, so I'll skip over doing anything about the above. "Nominator-opposer" Batternut's rationale for opposition is invalid: This is not "mak[ing] a special case of anti-Arabism", it's a general statement of principle illustrated with an example, which is what this page is for and how it is laid out in other sections. Additional examples could be added as needed, and Batternut even suggested an Irish one in the earlier discussion. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Weak support - I do like the idea behind this... but I have to question whether Arab/Arabic vs Muslim/Islamic is the best example to use. Suggest we discuss other potential examples to see if we can agree on a better one. Blueboar (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Support in principle. It is good advice for the ignorant, but whether it will penetrate the clueless is another question. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Heh. None of our P&G do the latter. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Soft oppose, seems like unnecessary instruction creep. Do we really need a guideline to say Do not use similar or related words in an incorrect, distorting, or meaning-blurring way? If something is wrong, fix it. The List of commonly misused English words seems sufficient to address the Arab/Arabic case. Alsee (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose in the proposed form of words The examples given seems to have a particular socio-cultural bias. What's with the obsession over people with some connection to the middle east? This looks like a form of bias in itself. If we accept that "Terms that can introduce bias" are a problem, how about addressing a wider set of them? For example, I'm Australian, and in my country the major conservative political party is the Liberal Party, and I do a double take every time I see a (generally American) article use the word liberal to describe something quite different. And we know that word is used as a pejorative by many in the USA. That's just one example. Are we going to create a comprehensive list of such words? HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Shortcut "MOS:CONFUSE" doesn't seem appropriate for this section. Is it needed, or would a different shortcut be better? Batternut (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me in the interim; very mnemonic for the keyword in the present heading. We don't have some other MoS section desperately vying for it. If we end up using something like "Terms that can introduce bias", then a shortcut like MOS:TERMBIAS might work better. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Too tired to opine on the wording change, but I'd like to see more examples in the section (whatever the wording). E Eng 05:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Cunard, Batternut, EEng#s: I agree with all points made under subheader "Easily confused terms." Respectfully --Aboudaqn (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (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.

demonologists?

In a sentence like "Annabelle is a Raggedy Ann doll said by demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren to be haunted" we can't put scare quotes around demonologists, or say "self-described" or anything, we just have to pretend like that's a real thing? EatenRiper (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

EatenRiper, well, this is one case where I can't object to "alleged." But, sure, go with "said." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and that article is on my watchlist, by the way, since I've seen that it is a contested topic and is sometimes subject to vandalism. At times, I'm tempted to remove it from watchlist because I have more important articles to worry about and don't want an extra distraction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

When claims are extraordinary, like “a doll can move, speak, and harm people” I don’t see any problem with using the word “claim”. In fact it is sometimes the most appropriate term. I don’t think we have a hard and fast rule that would force us to write “Alex Jones *said* John Podesta molested children at a pizza shop”. Also note that sources at our Ed and Lorraine Warren article describe them as self professed or self-taught demonologists, presumably to distinguish their status from religious orders that use such titles. So again, nothing wrong with using appropriate qualifiers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:Alleged is clear that WP:BLP is one concern. When it's an allegation with regard to a BLP issue, we should be clear that it's an allegation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

EatenRiper, I'll try to explain how we work. We deal with conflicting politics and religions and every just about controversy that exists. As I'm sure you know, debates on those issues often turn into endless and unproductive flamewars. So we don't get involved in those debates. We do not argue "truth" or pass judgement on "truth". Our personal opinions and judgement don't belong in articles. Instead our goal is to accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say about a topic, with conflicting views covered roughly in proportion of the presence of those views in Reliable Sources. That approach carries over to all topics. For example Flat Earth is "real" in that it's historically significant and people have written about it. However that doesn't mean all views are equal. A view or belief accepted by few people is called Fringe. We're not going to say that belief in a Flat Earth is stupid or kooky, but hopefully the Flat Earth article makes clear that the concept is obsolete and that it is almost universally rejected today. If someone calls themselves a demonologist, fine, we'll say that they call themselves a demonologist. Any reasonable reader hopefully knows that is loony. If we were to write that it's loony, the article would come across as unprofessional. That approach would explode badly if we started calling politicians "loony", no matter how badly some politicans deserve that label. Alsee (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

#Editorialising

To a user who edits in British English- it seems amusing to see a heading spelled Editoriali(z)ing under words to avoid! ClemRutter (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

As one Brit to another: why? Popcornduff (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Project space is an ecumenical zone where all spelling and usage faiths are welcomed into the communion, even to the extent of mixed marriages i.e. multiple modes on the same page. E Eng 14:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Does that apply to humour on the Talk page? --ClemRutter (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and to humor as well. E Eng 15:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@ClemRutter:, have you read Oxford spelling? Doug Weller talk 18:01, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: not only that but royalties from OUP used to finance my family holidays. At one level, the debate is about whether the word was from a Greek root (most -izo words) or Latin root (as judged in 1929), this word is a newbie, hitting publishing in the 1940s- as the stem was from Latin so for Oxford consistency- the suffix should be latinate too. At another level, amusing.ClemRutter (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Prodigy

Regarding this edit by Alsee, should "prodigy" be on the WP:PEACOCK list? After all, "child prodigy" is a legitimate term. Are we never to mention that someone is a genius or considered a genius? We note that Albert Einstein is considered to have been one. I can see an issue with putting "genius" in Wikipedia's voice if it's not something that is widely accepted like Einstein's genius is, but "prodigy" seems more objective. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion that led to this latest addition is seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using the term "chess prodigy". We also have an article on chess prodigy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Words to watch aren't banned or inherently illegitimate. I believe they are words which might easily be tossed around in a frivolous or puffery manner. If a child beats international chess grand masters, Reliable Chess sources will surely and widely classify them as a prodigy. And Wikipedia does describe them as prodigies, such as in the Paul Morphy article. Children who compete against other children are not normally considered "prodigies". Alsee (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Alsee, as has been discussed times before on this talk page, including in this 2016/2017 discussion, "words to watch" are commonly treated as "words to avoid." And WP:Words to avoid still redirects here. Editors commonly treat these words as forbidden words, which is one reason we are cautious of new word additions to this guideline. The other reason is so that the guideline does not have excessive listings. The words included are supposed to be examples. All it takes is a few examples to get the point across. I'm not sold on the idea of "prodigy" being added to this guideline solely because of the one instance that you and a few editors object to at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The addition is very likely to result in editors removing "prodigy" from articles without any thought to "prodigy" being valid in those articles. I agree with what Only in death stated at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard about reliable sources. Of course, WP:Due should also be a concern. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn the link you gave shows you making the argument, and what looks like multiple other editors shooting down that argument. However I tossed in 'prodigy' in as a causal addition, and I'm not aware of any widespread inappropriate use of the word. I agree it's probably a low-quality example. I'll remove it. Alsee (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Alsee, the link I pointed to shows me making the argument that "words to watch" are commonly treated as "words to avoid," two editors feeling that we can trust other editors not to use the guideline strictly, and one editor agreeing with me that it is commonly used strictly. So that discussion consists of two editors speaking of "words to watch" not meaning "avoid," despite WP:Words to avoid being a redirect here and there being numerous instances of editors treating the guideline strictly, and two editors noting the guideline is often used strictly. I can point you to other past discussions from this talk page if you like, or you can check the archives. Editors commonly treating the guideline as "words to avoid" is why the guideline is not titled that. It's also why we took to stating and partly bolding the following in the introduction: "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." The title change and statement in the introduction hasn't helped much. Most editors don't read or see the introduction. This is because they are usually pointed to sections of this guideline rather than the lead. On a side note: Since this page is on my watchlist, there is no need to ping me to its talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course, a number of words on this page should usually be avoided. The WP:Alleged section is a good section in this regard. But my and other editors' concern has been editors treating some aspects of the guideline too strictly. I've seen so many cases where this has happened. It's why I pointed out the BLP exception in the #demonologists? section above. I mean, it's right there in the section that a word such as alleged is "appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial." And yet...I have seen editors remove "claim" (citing WP:Claim) or "alleged" in BLP cases on the basis of this guideline. (Maybe there were more instances of removing "alleged" before the BLP aspect was made clear in the guideline; I'm not sure.) I understand that we don't want to make accusers seem like they are lying (so avoiding "claims" in such cases makes sense), but we need to ensure that we are not making the accused seem guilty unless the accused has been proven as guilty. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Weasel forever?

You don't think weasel words should be removed instead of just tagged and left there? EatenRiper (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

EatenRiper, greetings. The EDIT button is an invitation for you and anyone else to jump in and help. Go ahead and boldly fix problems whenever you see them. You can remove any tags once they are no longer needed.
Tagging problems is allowed if someone only wants to make a quick edit, or if someone is unsure how to fix an issue. Complex or controversial problems may need to be tagged while seeking an agreeable solution with opposing editors. It's usually kinda lame for someone to add a tag instead of fixing a small problem themselves, although editors busy on New Page Patrol may add a weasel-tag if it would take a while to clean up a lot of weasel language. A New Page Patroller's time may be better spent dealing with more difficult problems and clearing out the backlog of unreviewed newly-created articles. Alsee (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

A lot of tags forever

I personally see a LOT of very old tags, not just Weasel tags. Especially the tag "needs verifiable sources" (or "needs attribution"?). That tag has existed for many, many years on many pages. I don't have time or resources to edit the pages where I see that; I wish I did. I suppose it's just unfortunate that pages can get tagged with tags that persist for so long. 75.146.141.141 (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The use of "affluent" to describe places

An RfC on this subject has been opened here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of puffery and the words to watch in quotes

Hello. Does the stuff about puffery and words to watch apply to quotes? I assume it does, or what would be the point in the guideline in the first place? Since an article could circumvent it by using a lot of quotes. The article isn't totally clear on it though. It doesn't definitively say they do, but it also doesn't definitively say they don't. So id like some clarification. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Adamant1, see MOS:QUOTE. We don't alter quotes unless we are doing so for clarity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the OP is talking about altering quotes. He/she is asking whether the presence of words to watch in quotes means maybe we shouldn't use them (the quotes, that is). E Eng 04:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That depends. If the quote is relevant and directly attributed, something like:

Noted biographer Jane Doe calls Harry Smith "The greatest ever at what he did"

may sometimes be OK. But it definitely shouldn't be done as an end-around to good writing. Unattributed quotes of this type are usually just an excuse to get bad writing in through the back door. --Jayron 32 05:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

EEng, if that's what the OP means... Well, then, the section in question already makes clear that including quotes that use puffery language is okay. It currently suggests rewording a Bob Dylan piece to include the following WP:In-text attribution: "Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, in which he was called 'master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation'. " Either way, I was making it clear to the OP that we shouldn't alter quotes to avoid so-called puffery...unless the alteration is clearer and the meaning is the same. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. Looking back I could have been clearer in my original message. What I'm trying to get at is that if a quote from something like an album review in a critical reception section is overly positive, perhaps to the point of being hyperbolic, and doesn't accurately represent the opinions of its author about the album, is it OK to either rewrite the quotes as prose (or a summary of opinions) that fairly represent the actual review or to at least add a more neutral quote from the article to more evenly represent the subject to the reader? Otherwise, it seems a bit like advertising, or if not, it is at least misleading to the reader. Personally, I think re-writing as prose is the better option. A whole section made out of 99% quotes with a few instances of "so and so said" sprinkled in between is really hard to read anyway. I know that editing out or rewriting a word within a quote would be miss representation and massively unethical. So I wouldn't do that. Getting rid of the quote altogether as EEng suggests is another possible option I think would be viable in situations that warrant it, like in the examples provided. Anyway, I appreciate the feedback. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Adamant1, we include the opinions of reliable sources all the time, though. Reception sections include the type of quoting you are speaking of. The thing to do in those cases, whether one uses a quote or not, is to accurately reflect the opinion of the source, and to give the source its WP:Due weight. As we know, sources won't always agree. This is why WP:Verifiability states, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

revert

I was reverted with the edit comment "This isn't an article". What do you mean, User:EEng? CapnZapp (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

It means we do things in project space we don't normally do in articles. The examples don't work very well unless the current month and year are incorporated. E Eng 10:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove the incorporation of current month/year? Now, back to the issue at hand: "do as say, not as I do". CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

That's correct. In project space we do a lot of things that we say not to do in article space. It's one of the several reasons we have the different spaces. E Eng 17:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Martyr

Can we add "martyr" to the list of contentious labels? It is often used by the followers of some ideology or the other to incorporate their POV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Editorializing

Under "Editorializing" in the "Words to watch" section with "but, despite, however, though, although, furthermore, ..." I would like to add the watchwords, "nonetheless" and "nevertheless." - is that acceptable, or is their usage not prevalent enough to warrant inclusion? - Epinoia (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As has been stated in different discussions, and recently with this edit, the page is not to list every example there is. It's not a laundry list. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I think those two are worthy additions. I mean, if we can include the word "but", the -lesses can surely qualify (but not incredible). DonFB (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

By sheerest coincidence, moments later I was editing an article that said:

"...reiterated that it was designed per Boeing's standards. Nevertheless, Boeing proposed to make a software fix..."

A textbook case of editorial spin. "Nevertheless"--> translation: "even though X was wrong/at fault/mistaken/defective, there will be changes." There must be a million of these textual constructions in the pedia, and enshrining the -lesses here will help call them out as the pov they are. DonFB (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Refuted

Considering adding refuted, which seems to creep in sometimes, when disagreed or disputed is meant. Refuted is more categorical, and means disproven. Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What about when when something actually is refuted? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Then say refuted. E Eng 13:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

...and put a good source or two behind that. Sometimes it will even be appropriate to attribute it WP:INTEXT to an authoritative source. Wikipedia editors can't decide whether something's been refuted, because doing so would violate WP:NOR, so this is something we shouldn't say ourselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Of course. BTW, usually when you see refuted, it's actually rebutted that was meant. E Eng 03:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:EEng, I agree with you. Maybe someone will be inspired to search for inappropriate uses of that term and fix them. A comprises-style mission might help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

First I'll have to compose myself. E Eng 14:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Theory, hypothesis, proof, phenomenon, ...

I think at one time there was a WP:WTA#Theory link that has now disappeared. I want to make a request to include some prose that encourage people to be careful with terms which mean different things in different contexts. I am most familiar with situations that arise in scientific and empirical contexts. For example, I sometimes come across the word "theory" being used to refer to a "personal theory" or hunch which is fine in some contexts, but can be extremely misleading in others. In general, I think unless there is some overarching reason to prefer using the term "theory" in such contexts, synonyms are better in order to preserve the scientific sense of the word. The same thing goes for hypothesis, proof (which should be held for mathematics and legal standards of evidence), and phenomenon (which generally in empirical contexts refers to well-established observable events but in other scenarios is used to mean "fantastical" and is, therefore, often too ambiguous to use as a "label").

I don't think words like these currently have a good place for their inclusion.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that all of these terms are very broad. Dictionaries are probably good enough guides to consult with if one thinks that the term is being misused. I think that you would like to have them more focused or cautioned, but I don't see a reason to restrict language on wikipedia. After all, in the literature these terms are all disputed and they range from science to mathematics to the humanities in different contexts. For example, "proof" is different in math, in science, and law. Certainly still disputed in general philosophy and in the philosophy of science. Not only that, but many times there are no proofs except in math because there is no number or quality of things that are enough for a proof. Sometimes a person's word is good enough, in other times, many lines of evidence still are not enough.

In the sciences, proof is used less and instead they seek consistencies instead. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This is exactly my point. The broad (and varied) definitions mean that people should take care when using these words lest they imply a meaning different than the one intended. jps (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Right, terms that are ambiguous in the context should be avoided; words such as "theory" are often employed in such ways. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

In these talk page archives, I failed to find a previous serious discussion about "theory". This was mostly about myth/legend, this mentioned it in passing without full consideration; there are a number of discussions for "conspiracy theory" but that's irrelevant... Possibly that there was no clear consensus about both the addition and removal so far. I know that I've raised this argument at times at some articles, with other editors sometimes finding it justified, other times not. It also of course depends on the context... A few scenarios:

Does the common name for an idea or belief include the name "theory" (like some contain "science"), even when not scientifically justified? If so, do we use quotes, do we follow the first usage by a refutation?
Is the article about science, where distinguishing speculation, hypothesis, theory and law is important for accuracy? Alternatively, if the article is about science, perhaps no such precaution is necessary?
If the article is not about science, should we encourage the use of "scientific theory" (or link to it) in instances where it refers to actual scientific theory?
Should we distinguish between articles about pseudoscience and creationism and the above case of any article that's not specifically about science? If so, should the recommendation to specifically use or link "scientific theory" only apply here?
Since this is the manual of style, we may want to include language that allow it to remain flexible and subject to article-specific consensus (but if so, is any mention of this issue necessary)?

—Paleo Neonate – 08:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This essay used to be "words to avoid" and there was a time "theory" was included. Long about the time it was converted into "words to watch", that section was removed. However, I think that the basic point can be explained here that these kinds of words are not words you need to avoid, they just need to be unambiguous in context. There are scenarios where a word like "theory" does not mean scientific theory and can, or even must be used. For example, critical theory. The goal would be for us to explain the care that is needed when trying to apply loaded terms like this to the plain text of Wikipedia. jps (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree about context more than avoidance (as for pseudoscientific, quackery, claim, sect, ...) —Paleo Neonate – 23:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Came across another example just now

"evidence". jps (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm yes and evidence-based —Paleo Neonate – 23:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

And another

"argument". jps (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I see no need to add common words like "evidence" and "argument" to this guideline (it's not an essay). And I'm skeptical of adding anything about it on "theory" and "hypothesis," which are common academic/scientific terms. As has been discussed in the past, we already have to worry about enough with editors using this guideline to unjustifiably remove some words it mentions, as though the guideline is saying "never use these words." In the case of some words, such as "claim" (covered by WP:Claim), yes, those words are usually best avoided. But not all of these words are a "usually best avoided" case.

As for "phenomenon," well, an editor recently added it and then changed it to "phenomenonal." But I see no need to keep adding example after example. The words are supposed to be examples. Not every example there is. There gets a point to where we are treating editors as though they are stupid if we think they cannot get what we mean from just a few examples. Some editors just add words to this guideline because they specifically want whatever word they added avoided; that is why the examples are not enough for them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is important to document best practices and, as such, being careful when using these words is a good thing to do. That these examples are not listed here strikes me as an oversight because we don't have a place at Wikipedia where this is explained. Rather than starting a new page, it makes sense to include this here as a section. If this page were getting overlong, that would be a problem. But it's fairly succinct and so I think it is not becoming too laundry-list-y. jps (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

How would you go about trying to limit the usage of "Theory, hypothesis, proof, phenomenon" to only a few contexts on wikipedia? I don't see how this could be done. I agree with Flyer22 Reborn's comments in that not every possible word can be put in this list. I think that at most this guideline can advise to use "extra caution" with these words, but that is about it. Other words are more abused than these. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I can use some actual examples in the text. If you think other words are more abused, you are free to propose an alternative, of course. jps (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not certain here. I agree that in the field of research these terms have rather precise definitions but they become far more nebulous when used outside of that context. Probably best to avoid unless we are specifically talking about research. Springee (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

jps, I think that this would fit into WP:MEDMOS. Look for the line about the difference between a statstically significant amount of weight loss and a clinically significant weight loss. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

This edit request to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which has been attributed to his new position on foreign policy"

Please change this to

"In April 2012, Senator Smith's approval rating increased by 10%, which poll participants attributed to his new position on foreign policy"

Merely "has been attributed to" is weasel-words, since we don't know who's doing the attributing. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The proposed alternative is terrible: polls never collect this kind of data. (In general they don't even re-poll the same people, so there is no possibility of people attributing changes in their views to anything at all, as changes in individual views aren't being mentioned.) Perhaps the example should be scrapped for something better. --JBL (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists and comment. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Now it's an RfC. Found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#RfC: Should we provide attribution when using "TERF" or "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" when describing BLP subjects?. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Would any of these terms in a title be considered a problem?

Would the terms that indicate the final results of a conflict be a problem: victorious, failed, triumphant, unsuccessful, etc. Examples: 2018 Ugandan failed coup, or 2020 Moroccan victorious referendum. Would any of this term be recommended? I think it is preferable to use other terms like attempt or none of these terms at all "2019 Ugandan coup attempt" or "2020 Moroccan referendum". Is there any guideline related to this issue?--MaoGo (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Given your examples, it depends. I typically wouldn't use "victorious," "failed," or "triumphant" in biographies about people, in the heading or otherwise. They might be okay in fictional character articles with appropriate context. That stated, "failed" is certainly direct and can be appropriate. Your "2018 Ugandan failed coup" example could also be changed to "2018 Ugandan unsuccessful coup." If something was unsuccessful, I don't see an issue with using the word unsuccessful for that matter as part of a heading, as in the case of an unsuccessful political run. As for "victorious," I think I've occasionally seen that in the case of articles about historical figures. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents#RfC: List criteria. – Levivich 17:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic

There seems to be consensus to include these terms in some form, though there might be some concerns about which terms are best included in the long run (i.e., is there a point at which it might be inferred as a prescriptive listing of all explicit value-laden judgements rather than a guideline of examples from which others can be inferred). --slakr^\ talk / 09:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

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.

WP:RACIST says (obviously!) that it's not good for a Wikipedia editor to decide whether someone is racist. Instead, that view should generally be attributed to specific reliable sources. It seems to me that we should probably mention sexist, homophobic, and transphobic in the same section. They're all value-laden labels and should normally be treated the same way (i.e., avoided unless the label is widely used, and attributed to sources rather than to editors' personal views). What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Strongly support this idea. This kind of "my personal socio-political assessment" OR and PoV is already a mounting problem both in article content and in CIVIL-transgressing internal posts. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree and strongly support. CThomas³ (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe also "misogynistic"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. There are editors adding these words in Wikipedia's voice simply because a number of opinion pieces use whichever term. Some of these editors think that engaging in citation overkill makes the statement in Wikipedia's voice better or valid. Opinion pieces are called opinion pieces for a reason. And WP:WIKIVOICE couldn't be clearer about avoiding stating opinions as facts, or facts as opinions, or seriously contested assertions as facts. We all know that people don't always agree on what is racist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic. If we go by some men at Talk:Sexism, the Sexism article mostly focusing on women and girls because the literature overwhelmingly does is sexist. That stated, I think that society has a better grasp on what is racist, sexist or homophobic than it does on what is transphobic, as transgender issues have only recently started to get more attention. The term transphobia has recently been criticized as being too broad because now, for instance, we even have some people saying that a cisgender person not being sexually attracted to a transgender person (binary or non-binary) is transphobic. For some using the term in this way, this also applies to a cisgender person not being sexually attracted to a transgender person who has not undergone sex reassignment therapy that might result in the cisgender person being sexually attracted to them; this view is problematic because the biology of sexual orientation is about sexual attraction to physical attributes. And by this, I mean sexual characteristics, especially secondary sex characteristics. It's not about sexual attraction to one's gender identity, which cannot be seen. Gender identity cannot be measured, at least not in the way that sexual attraction to sexual characteristics can. No scientist thinks that people are wired from birth to find a certain gender identity sexually attractive. Even me stating this might be deemed transphobic by some, but what the sexual orientation literature is focused on and why is a fact. There are many transgender people who understand this and who wouldn't use transphobic in such a broad way. When it comes to WP:LABEL, I've had somewhat of an issue with the "in which case use in-text attribution" part, though. This is because if the news media overwhelmingly labels something "racist," for example, I don't think we should attribute that to one author, as though one author has stated it. That is misleading WP:In-text attribution. I think the text should state something like what the lead of the Roseanne Barr article currently states. And on a side note: I know that we don't need an RfC for everything, but I think that WhatamIdoing's proposal should become an RfC. People are more inclined to heed something like this when it's not just a few editors in a non-RfC who agreed to add it. But then again, the same editors not heeding WP:WIKIVOICE are also unlikely to heed WP:LABEL. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. These terms are way too broad and should not to be used on wikipedia by any editor as if they are the deciding party. If one Wikipedia editor thinks something is homophobic, transphobic, etc that does not necessarily make it so. These are indeed value-laden and subjective at best and is just juvenile name calling at worst. I would also add mysogynist like it was mentioned above. Another gender or sexual based terms could be added. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Support per above comments. I agree that these terms are often applied by parties wishing to stigmatize other parties and lack nuance. Springee (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Since there has been unanimous support over the last few weeks, I've added this. If someone objects (actually changing the guideline is often a more effective method of gaining attention for a proposal than any discussion on the talk page, so maybe someone who didn't see this discussion will see the change now), then we can start an RFC then. I don't think that's very likely to happen, though, since this is really codifying long-time practice. Hardly anyone is likely to say that "He's a racist" needs careful treatment but "He's sexist" doesn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit late, but for the record, I support your 16:12, 27 June 2019 edit which added these terms—it would be extremely unsatisfactory to label a person or a group with these terms on the basis of what editors think. I recently commented regarding an assertion that "... is best known for ..." did not need a citation per WP:BLUESKY. We can't list every bad idea but the contentious labels definitely need highlighting. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Support It seems so obvious that we should do it, that I'm surprised we don't insist on it already, although I suppose BLP will cover a proportion of articles. - SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Why do we need to explicitly list all of them? If we make an extensive list, does that not then imply that anything not forbidden is permitted? Instead we need to trust our editors a bit and emphasise the fact that any "value-laden" label could be included similarly. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Could it be that you are asking this after defending the use of "transphobic" at the TERF article? At that article, Aeusoes1 has it right. The only way "transphobic" should be used in that article is with in-text attribution, such as "[So and so writers] have characterized them as transphobic." or "[So and so writers] have characterized some of their views [such as this and that] as transphobic." As made clear at the end of the paragraph in this section and the "the bar to being called a 'terf' is remarkably low" commentary in this section, "TERF" can be broad in its meaning, and not everyone (not just those who the term is applied to) agrees with every way it's used, especially when it's applied to lesbians who can't force themselves to find the trans women who are male in appearance, like Alex Drummond (who hasn't undergone sex reassignment therapy) is, sexually attractive. There are trans women who object to Drummond being called a trans woman. We should explicitly mention these terms because of the kind of thing currently going on there at the TERF article. At the Men's rights movement article, we don't even say "they are misogynistic." We currently say, "The movement and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynistic." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

No.

And please, never again, write other editors' opinions for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

That's not really a defense of yourself. He She wasn't writing your opinion. He Shewas asking, and with good justification. You're expecting us to accept it to be pure coincidence that the very term you object to including here as something that is so obvious as to not merit inclusion is one you personally argued in favor of including there in defiance of this guideline. In other words you have already personally demonstrated the need for including transphobic here.

You're arguing in bad faith and we can all see it. You don't get the moral high ground when someone calls you out on it. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Aeusoes1. And I'm female/a she, by the way. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no reason whatsoever to "defend" myself from you. And do not ever take such an accusatorial tone with another editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You do if you want to convince anyone. Otherwise, there's no reason to take you or your commands seriously, no matter how many words you italicize. Regards. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 01:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree TERF needs some work. I had trouble understanding what it says as worded, and how factual a description of "transphobic" is. Did it really mean to say that not thinking trans women are women is transphobic? Under whose expertise? What opposing experts would be allowed? Only trans advocates are experts being they are the only ones who work with the term transphobic? Needs attribution, perfect example of why we might want to list a few examples here. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, I suspect that article's going to stay messy for a long while, because terf may be turning into one of those words that doesn't mean what it says on the tin. One might have thought that a trans-exclusionary radical feminist was a radical feminist who excludes trans folks (or at least trans women), but that doesn't necessarily seem to be the case any longer. In particular, the "radical" part seems to be optional in common use, and "progressive-ish woman who doesn't embrace transwomen in every context" might be just as accurate a definition.

Andy, on your earlier question, this page adds whatever terms seem to be the source of difficult disputes. That's quite a bit less than "all of them". We might want to consider removing some of the old/stable ones, if people think the list of examples is getting to be too long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2019 (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.

intention

This page seems to indicate that one should avoid weasel words, as they might make it seem that a statement is more true than it actually is. However, sometimes I need to make a statement less exact than it seems. For example (not an actual example), one my state that there are billions of stars in the universe. That might be seen to imply that there are between one and ten billion, otherwise it might have said tens of billions or hundreds of billions. Since we can't count them, and if we did it would only be the visible universe, the intent is for a vague but large number. I need to imply that the value isn't meant to be exact. Gah4 (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your example isn't related to weasel words. Do you have one that's more closely related? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

[1] "while". Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. XX (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 1989. p. 232.

[2] "whilst". Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. XX (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. 1989. p. 234.

[3] "Drake is 2018's biggest artist". USA Today. Retrieved August 4, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[4] "The 10 most popular music artists of 2018, according to Nielsen". Business Insider. Retrieved August 4, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[5] "What Makes Drake So Popular?". Uncharted Domain. Retrieved February 21, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[6] "How Drake became the all-pervading master of hyper-reality rap". The Guardian. Retrieved August 9, 2018. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Adding a SOME shortcut

RELTIME and "the late {person}"

Request for comment: mention protologisms?

Wikipuffery

Aptly

More contentious labels

Survived by

Litotes

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Most recent additions reverted

Vulgarities other than in article space

Words in the WP:PEACOCK section, and "iconic"

The term "illegal alien"

Is "dropped out" a proper synonym for quitting school?

RfC: Remove "adult" as a descriptor from the opening sentence of Family Guy

Obsolescent words/spellings

"Iconic" yet again

"in fact"

"Deceased", and tense for the dead

Edit request: Upcoming

Term: Criminal without attribution/context

Are -st variants of words archaic?

"e.g Watergate"

"Hoax"

Arab/Arabic/Arabian

"Oldest" given context violates WP:PEACOCK

"Issue" vs. "problem"

"Official"

Supported attributions

"The guest list included Charles, Prince of Wales – This is usually acceptable, as a confusion with Charles I of England, Prince of Wales until 1625, is highly unlikely."

Clutter

What is a label?

A relevant RM, on "regime"

Is "fall in battle" a euphemism?

Victim, sufferer/suffering

Arab, Arabic, Arabian

Re-RfCing Arab/Arabic

Background

Comments on Arab[...]

Discussion

Non-neutral RfC wording

Trypophobia article -- using wording from quoted text

"Report," "a Baptist church"

"Overwhelming"

Suicides?

"Furthermore"

Peacock?

RfC Terms that can introduce bias

Background

Comments on Terms that can introduce bias

Discussion

demonologists?

#Editorialising

Prodigy

Weasel forever?

A lot of tags forever

The use of "affluent" to describe places

Use of puffery and the words to watch in quotes

revert

Martyr

Editorializing

Refuted

Theory, hypothesis, proof, phenomenon, ...

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists

Would any of these terms in a title be considered a problem?

RfC: terrorist incidents list criteria

Racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic

intention