Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive 6

Formal request to consider "concede" the same as "admit"

We currently list "Admit, confess, deny" as potentially biased words. I added "concede", which User:Neon white reverted for no apparent reason beyond the WP:BOLD nature of the edit. Fine: Here's a formal request that we no longer exclude "concede", as in "He conceded that there were errors in the military intelligence", a statement exactly as bad as "He admitted that there were errors in the military intelligence", in this list.

Also, "acknowledge" might also be a similarly inappropriate word, as in "He acknowledged errors in the military intelligence". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I clearly stated the reason in the edit summary, please do not misrepresrent other editors actions. We cannot allow editors to add words to this article at will. There needs to be a consensus. --neon white talk 11:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can, because Wikipedia is not a mindless bureaucracy, and it is not necessary to get explicit permission before improving a page. See also what the editing policy says on this point:

"Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes - nobody owns articles. In fact, some Wikipedians think you should not wait at all—simply change an article immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion is only needed if someone voices disagreement."

Note that said disagreement is supposed to be with the substance of the changes, not with the failure to seek advance permission for making a change that you agree with. Consensus, in fact, demands that you not revert improvements that you personally agree with, because the simplest consensus is the one in which a change is made, and nobody happens to disagree with it enough to revert it.

So: Do you have an actual problem with 'concede', a synonym for 'admit', being considered potentially as objectionable as 'admit'? Or do you just have a good-faith, but misplaced, bureaucratic complaint? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit the logic of your argument, assuming your premises -- which are the same as those that put "admit, confess, deny" up on the WTA page. The point is, there are almost no words in the English language that can't be used to convey some non-neutral meaning. WTA is expanding to be a massive list of "words used in rhetoric," which is not only pointless, but destructive and a royal pain to people using this guideline to review articles for GA status and the like. I was initially drawn to this guideline by a particular controversy, but since then I've taken up doing GA reviews, and I would remark that checking each article against every word on the list is undoubtedly the most unproductive, aggravating, and pointless portion of the GA review process. Ray^Talk 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd say remove that section. Verbal chat 17:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this section serves a valid purpose. I've been reminded of it because of a current dispute, in which an editor has repeatedly attempted to characterize a normal statement in a scientific paper (reiterating limitations to their previous work, but asserting confidence in the conclusion) as "retracting" the study, and "conceding" problems. This is both untrue (as the conclusion was affirmed) and a wildly biased way of naming limitations in the study.

The point of this section isn't to ban the words or to increase bureaucratic hassles (Verbal, if you're basically familiar with this page's contents, and you don't see actual problems, then your GA reviews do not require you to follow this page like a pre-flight checklist); it's to keep the rest of us from having to retype this information on dozens of individual talk pages, with endless explanations about how biased and factive substitutes for "said" must not be used to push a POV in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you support a move to fork this guideline, keep a basic summary of good style and concern as WP:WTA, and leave the rest in a separate guideline that's not part of the Good Article criteria, then? Ray^Talk 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The name of this guideline is a historical misnomer. It isn't a list of every word that should be avoided in Wikipedia articles, nor is every word that appears here a word that should never appear in a Wikipedia article. Instead it is a style guideline to help editors write better articles, and help reviewers identify potential problems. Words like "concede" and "retract" can cause similar problems to "admit" and "deny", but whether any of these words are problematic in any particular usage is a matter for rational discussion aimed at improving the encyclopedia. There is no point in expanding this guideline to cover every possible eventuality, as article editing is done by human beings, not machines. The only reason for changing this guideline is if it does not clearly articulate why some words are problematic, or does not help editors spot problematic phrasing. The guideline isn't here to quote as a tool to win an argument. Geometry guy 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't the name of this article been up for discussion before? "Use of controversial terms" would be far better in my opinion. --neon white talk 11:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not in mine. This is a style guideline. It isn't about controversy, but about misusing words. Often words mislead unintentionally, and editors need advice on how to spot problems and choose their words better. They don't need advice on handling controversy: we have an entire policy devoted to that. Geometry guy 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not suggest the title should be 'handling controversy', i clearly suggested 'use of controversial words'. This article certainly concerns the use of contentious and controversial words, read the lead paragraph, it's not about 'avoiding' such words as the titles suggests. If the words werent controversial we wouldnt have this page. --neon white talk 10:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I support Ray's proposal. Move the rest to a FAQ or something. Verbal chat 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy for this guideline to have an FAQ or something similar, with essay status. It might help us to shorten the guideline as well. Geometry guy 21:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible suggestion. One problem I see is that one function of WP:WTA is to extinguish (nearly) all discussions about the term "Terrorist". I think this is an important function (I am editing Sri Lankan topics, and if we had no WP:TERRORIST, everything would descend into flame and edit wars). If this part is demoted to essay, then it does no longer cut short these discussions. Still, I agree that there are at least three things here that should be separated, and can probably disentangled: 1) MOS issues 2) a list of words which fall under 1, with some explanation 3) a knock-out against "Terrorist" discussions. Not all of these need to be discussed on the same page, or have equal status for that matter, but I would appreciate if the terrorist thing could remain a guideline. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to giving the FAQ guideline status; the goal of this particular proposal is to make the guideline useful to people reviewing for style. Ray^Talk 21:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I know this old, but, I came out thinking, we are sacrificing the need to fight systemic bias because it is inconvenient for GA reviewers? I am sorry, but if GA reviewing were easy, more people would do it. The argument is patently invalid: suck it up. If you have any other argument am willing to hear it, but the argument that there is no possible unbiased (which is not the same as neutral, albeit similar) formulations and that this is make work is an underhanded and patient strategy to undermine WTA and introduce bias into wikipedia.--Cerejota (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "concede" should definitely be added to WP:AVOID.Vitaminman (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't actually think of a single example in which concede would be appropriate. (I exclude direct quotations.)

Admit, currently listed, can be used in entirely neutral ways: Theater tickets often say "admit one person". Physicians "admit" patients to the hospital. Courts of law "admit" evidence. It's only in the "opposite of deny" sense that admit has the potential to be a problem. This is one of the many reasons why GA and FA reviewers can't assume that the presence of a listed word is necessarily inappropriate. (If that's all it took, then we'd have a bot produce a report on it, and eliminate the fallible human step.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Unwieldy example?

This quote doesn't seem clear to me: '"At just three years out of law school, Griffin's family requested that Scarborough represent him at his trial."'. Could anyone recommend changes, or does it seem correct?

On an unrelated note to the above, I was wondering if anyone had any information on the usage of the term "terrorist". I've noted that David Aaronovich of The Times has referred to it in a past article, where the same actions against civilians were classed as either "killings" or "suicide bombings". I think this came from various commentators depending on their bias and the faction committing the act. I feel the neutral depiction is a fair mediation to avoid bias, as long as it can be upheld. That is, rather than using the term 'paramilitary' as an epithet for some and 'volunteer' for others, again depending on the editor. 92.5.140.104 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How about "Just three years after Scarborough graduated from law school, Griffin's family requested that he represent Griffin at his trial." The second "Griffin" is a bit unwieldy, of course, and you could substitute "Joe" or "the accused murderer" or some other form of words as appropriate.

The one word you might want to think a bit about in that example, however, is "just". Unless it is evidently remarkable that the request was made only three years after he left law school, "just" might constitute a bit of editorialising and you might be best to leave it out. But in a case like "He managed to defeat the entire Roman Empire armed just with a pair of scissors", it's probably acceptable!

On your other query - this has been debated at great length - see WP:TERRORIST. I believe there's a fairly firm guideline in place now. Barnabypage (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Marketing language

I thought there was a section on that here, but this does not seem to be the case. I think words like "seamless", "solution". "state-of-the art", "fit", "next generation" etc, which are rampant in marketing speech, should also be included as WTA. The reason for this is POV-policy, of course Jasy jatere (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah. I'd be favor of banning them just on grounds of bad style. Ray^Talk 13:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, solution is already mentioned as a WTA (in the marketing context). See Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Solutions, and yes the other ones do seem like they should generally be avoided, but of course they all have multiple meanings: State of the art is a copyright term (see Prior art; fit can mean many things: "The jacket fit well"; and next generation has many uses: "Members of the next generation of rabbits were larger than their parents." Cool3 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Cool3. Ray^Talk 01:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: "Welcomed" when used to describe a birth

I was reading Bruce Springsteen's article, and it felt weird to read that "Springsteen and Scialfa welcomed their first child" --it seems similar to why we avoid terms like "passed away" when dealing with death. Any agreement? --Bobak (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. It's an unnecessary (and in some cases, undoubtedly, inaccurate) bit of floweriness. Barnabypage (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Is the name of"

I think this should be added to the list. It's a benign phrase by itself, but it often shows poor writing. Too many times I have seen "X is the name of Y" when it can be substituted with "X is Y" or "The X is Y", even in featured articles (e.g.: "Main sequence is the name for a continuous and distinctive band of stars that appear on plots of stellar color versus brightness." against "The main sequence is a continuous and distinctive band of stars that appear on plots of stellar color versus brightness."). Please note this does not apply to where we have articles about names themselves. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"X is the name of Y" is one way to highlight the use-mention distinction. I agree it can lead to bad prose, but there is plenty more wrong with your example than this phrase. The main sequence is not a continuous and distinctive band of stars (the Milky Way would seem to be a better example of the latter), nor do stars appear on plots of stellar color vs brightness (ink and pixels do). One also has to be careful about presenting a theoretical model (even a highly successful and widely accepted one) as a fundamental truth. Geometry guy 18:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Unbeknownst

Any thoughts on the use of this word? It looks pretentious, ponderous and archaic to me, but another editor has defended its use. It seems to me that in a modern electronic encyclopedia it could always be replaced with "unknown". What do others think? --76.117.164.50 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The context, I believe, is Talk:The Silence of the Lambs (film)#Unbeknownst? (please provide links in posts to other fora). Even though "unbeknownst" could be an unencyclopedic usage, it isn't clear to me that it is a Words To Avoid issue. Geometry guy 19:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. Personally, I prefer "unbeknown" (two fewer letters), but that might be a UK-US thing.

Yes, that's right. I only brought it here because I couldn't think of an example (other than a direct quote of course) where (in my opinion) "unbeknownst" would be better than "unknown". Can you? --76.117.164.50 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

While a 'compromise' has been reached at the TSOFL article, the entire thing was taken a bit too far, and I think this is now an extension of it, no offence 76.117.164.50. The word, if interested parties take a look at the Lambs discussion, has a specific defined meaning that differs slightly from the comparable word. Although it can easily phrased differently so as not to be used if there is a specific preference against it, this fails me as to why a word with widespread usage would be regarded as one to avoid. For the love of Wikipedia, whatever the decision, please do not restart this debate 76.117.164.50 :P! And in answer to your question, the discussion we had on the Lambs article should address that, since in a broad sense that's essentially what the debate was determining. Sky83 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm deliberately not reading the context for now (otherwise I may as well join the talk page discussion). "Unbeknown (to)" means "without the knowledge of", whereas "unknown" means "not known, unfamiliar". These have different, but overlapping meanings. The former draws attention to the subject, who is unaware of something that another agent is aware of. In contrast "unknown" is often used to refer to things that nobody knows. I can imagine "unbeknown" being appropriate for the encyclopedia in plot summaries: it is often an important plot device that some characters do not know things that others do. Geometry guy 19:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(post ec) I've now checked the context, which is "Unbeknownst to both Starling and Lecter, Dr. Chilton tapes the conversation..." Substituting "Unknown" for "Unbeknown(st)" here would create a garden path that Dr. Chilton is unknown to Starling and Lecter. Geometry guy 19:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there Geometry guy. Would you rather see unbeknownst used, or a rephrasing entirely? Just trying to ascertain the best structure here :). Sky83 (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Unbeknown" works for me, as a reader, but "Dr Chilton tapes the conversation (without the knowledge of Starling and Lecter)" conveys the same information without using argued wording. This is a matter for article talk not WTA. Geometry guy 21:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Unbeknown" works better than the -st variant for me. Rewording to avoid the infelicity is always a good option too. Thanks, GG, for the third opinion. --76.117.164.50 (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

I saw the following box on the Irgun page. What does it mean in the context of the article?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It means you cannot call things by its name and you must use euphemisms. In this particular case, bearing in mind that Irgun established the pattern of terrorism for 70 years, the efect is specially comic. You can call them "politically motivated non-governement gunmen and bombers" which is very close to the standard definition of terrorist. --Igor21 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it means exactly what is explained in this style guideline, avoid loaded terms in favor of more precise description because for the most part they add heat without adding any conceptual clarity. In the case of Irgun, the organization is called terrorist - twelve times in the body of the article and fourteen in the footnotes and references, so we're hardly pulling our punches. The point there is that the article, correctly, documents a notable aspect of the organization is that it was deemed terrorist by many important relevant groups, but Wikipedia itself does not offer that opinion. We are not in the business of "calling a spade a spade". It is a matter of authoritative tone. Shakespeare for example may be the greatest writer in the history of the English language but we do not offer that opinion, we merely report in his article that he is "widely regarded" as such. Wikidemon (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if we are in the business of calling spoon to the spade and then say "some sources say that in reality was a spade" then is ok. Seriously, please check the modern academic works on terrorism. Read Hoffman and you will see that terrorism has definitions acurate enough to be used without problem. It is one of the most relevant issues in modern politics and Wikipedia is doing the policy of the ostriche instead of looking for relevant bibliography. --Igor21 (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A very interesting [1] link on the subject.--Igor21 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In 1947 "the British army in Mandate Palestine banned the use of the term terrorist to refer to the Irgun ziai Leumi headed by Mencanchem Begin because it implied that British forced had reason to be terrified (Wilson, 1949:13)" (Ray C. Rist,,The Democratic Imagination: Dialogues on the Work of Irving Louis Horowitz (Transaction Publishers, 1994 ISBN 1560001747, 9781560001744) p.141) --PBS (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

...which is relevant because...? I find Igor's link more interesting: a legal definition of terrorism is a nice idea. What it has to do with a style guideline is somewhat less clear... Geometry guy 21:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the start of this thread "I saw the following box on the Irgun page..." as for the legal definition, the devil is in the detail. For example "unless the act is based on a policy of employing terrorist acts (for example, a policy of suicide-bombing targeting innocent civilians" so it is OK to target non innocent civilians. What does innocent mean? --PBS (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, so really this was an unindent. As for legal definitions, this made me wonder why "war crime" is regularly tolerated on Wikipedia (and never mentioned here), while multiple editors want a blanket ban on "terrorism" (and believe this is a style issue). Geometry guy 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because the definition of "war crime" is most-likely less variable? And we do say "terrorism" when referring to the crime as opposed to the concept; "X is on the FBI Most Wanted List", etc. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Less variable? Sceptre, you have got to read more history. War crimes are an extraordinarily malleable concept with an extraordinary history. There was a time when the use of projectile weapons against proper knights was considered a war crime. By contrast, terrorism has a tight definition - after all, it's only existed as a concept for a mere 220 years or so, and has only gone through one or two incarnations, all related somewhat to the idea of creating terror. Of course, this isn't really a style issue either. Ray^Talk 18:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that exists an accepted definition of "terrorism" that is used regularly by scholars is highly relevant since converts the comments about "no definition exists" in primary source. The academic definitions are very similar and the more modern they are, more converge.

Many of the books are online and can be consulted like the one I sugested from Hoffman. There are academics on the subject on every country and they do international meetings.

The problem is that "terrorism" has a vulgar meaning that is "illegitimate political violence" but this only politicians&journalists speaking. Terrorism is a very well defined tactic and the academic definition has nothing to do with legitimacy.--Igor21 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that "war criminal" can be bandied about just like "terrorist", but these days it's less variable, partially because you can't just call someone a war criminal these days like you can call someone a terrorist, as it implies that they have committed war crimes and thus is defamatory unless backed up. That, and most war crime tribunals are international these days... Sceptre ^(talk) 22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say but honestly I do not see any serious answer to my comment. Everybody does jokes about PC at the same time that imposes frivolous and vulgar aplications of it. This is an enciclopedia, not a soap opera and if something has name it must be used.--Igor21 (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Militant"

In the terrorism section, Militant is listed as both a good factual option and as a word that might carry a POV.

I feel like only one of those two things can be true. Lot 49a^talk 17:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hah. Militant is a more-or-less universally understood euphemism for terrorism, at this point. It ruins the reputations of honest militants who don't terrorize by substitution, but the PC gods have decided this is the way it shall be. Ray^Talk 18:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Most terrorists are militants, but I wouldn't say that most militants are terrorists. When I think of the word "militant" I imagine an informal military or insurrection movement, like guerrillas. They might be using standard asymmetrical warfare tactics, ambushing convoys, raiding arms caches, hiding out in a jungle somewhere. They only become terrorists if they make terrorist actions in addition or instead. Terrorists may not always be militant - sometimes terrorists act, or are manipulated to act, for a strictly economic or practical reason, but militancy implies some ideology. I guess "militant" could be a neutral word if used factually to describe a non-governmental domestic opposition group that uses violent tactics for ideological reasons. It could also stray into non-neutral territory, one the one hand if used to describe a group that claims it is not using violent tactics (e.g. the Anti-Defamation league), that claims some government authority or purpose beyond violence (e.g. Hamas), or that claims it is responding to an external circumstance rather than dissatisfaction with the state (e.g. the volunteer border guards). So I would say use with caution, but not fraught with as much baggage as terrorist. I would say that in both cases, if there is legitimate good faith objection by editors that the label as applied to a group carries too much POV, it's best to listen to those objections and try to find a less judgmental word. Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, I applaud your distinction, and it's one I wish could be maintained, since it seems truer to plain language and clear thinking. However, my comment was not addressed at a proper definition, but rather the things that come to mind upon seeing the term. These days, when I see "militant" in the context of a news report or Wikipedia article, my mind is more likely than not to substitute "terrorist." I suspect things like WP:TERRORIST, and analogous attitudes among the press, are responsible in no small part for the distinction. Ray^Talk 19:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, true. At least it's easier to learn PC than, say, Italian. Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Should we reword the section somehow. Having the same word appear twice is confusing. Lot 49a^talk 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think ... that leaving the section as it is now, complete with apparent self-contradictions, gives the reader a better feel for the ... nuance and ambiguity of the subject. Ray^Talk 02:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The term "militant" is also colloquially used to mean merely "unusually vocal, assertive, and unashamed" -- as in the expression "militant atheist" which has been heard so frequently lately. That particular expression is never used to mean a person who literally bears arms in defense of a cause; it is used rather to describe peaceful gray-haired professors who are forthright and unapologetic in expressing their views in print. Such extravagant metaphor ("militant" used to mean "assertively spoken") is outside the realm of encyclopedic writing. --FOo (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"More than", "fewer than", "in excess of", etc.

Perhaps I'm the only one who feels this way, but I've always felt the above phrases a little non-neutral, reminiscent of television commercials that say that most items in a store are "more than 50% off". To me they seem to convey a similar feeling as "just" or "only"; e.g., to say "Church X seats more than 50 people" seems to indicate "wow, it holds a lot of people! More than 50!" when saying "Church X seats between 54 people" or, if the exact number isn't known, "Church X seats between 50 and 60 people" is strictly more accurate and doesn't give the same sense. Could this recommendation be made, or am I making this up? — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

These expressions are certainly awkward, and tend to suggest that the amount claimed is astonishing. We should not say that a church seats "more than 50 people" if the cited source specifically says 52. That said, exceptions may happen: we may have to describe a church that, "for its 'Christmas with the Homeless' service, seated more than 100 people in a sanctuary rated for 52" -- simply because the cited source (say, a newspaper article) is itself unclear. --FOo (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Eco-terrorist

I've added the word eco-terrorist within the scope of words simmilar to terrorism that need to be treated carefully. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is current talk about the applicabillity of this word within wiki on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Please come take a look! --68.41.80.161 (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not bring your edit wars on a particular article to this guideline. Resolve them at the article in question. The lists here are not intended to be, and should not be, comprehensive. This page has enough clutter and pointless redundancy as it is. Ray^Talk 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"Claims" vs "asserts"

I note that "claim" is correctly identified as a word that can be used improperly to cast doubt on an assertion; but by the same token, so can "asserts". If one side of an argument is presented as an "argument" (A argues that X) and the other side is presented as an "assertion" (On the other hand, B asserts Y) then doubt is equally cast on the assertion in favour of that which is described as an argument. In other words, I feel that "asserts" can be used as a linguistic synomym for "claims" in order to avoid falling foul of WP:CLAIM and yet still managing to cast doubt on the assertion. Any thoughts on this? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Words that assume a Mrs Grundy morality

(I was initially going to title this comment "Words that assume a bourgeois morality", but it occurred to me that this expression might be (a) archaic, (b) misconstrued as disparaging morality in general, or (c) misinterpreted as Marxist.)

There are a number of common expressions used to describe media themes or content in terms of their appropriateness for an assumed home or workplace audience: "family-friendly", "work-safe", "not safe for work" / "NSFW", "kid-safe", etc. I suggest that these be treated as words to avoid in articles, as they assume a particular point of view with regards to what is appropriate in these contexts: particularly, that the reader is assumed to believe and agree that sexuality (and sometimes a few other topics) is "unsafe" or harmful to a workplace or a family.

These expressions are specific to a particular set of views that is itself not appropriate to all readers. "NSFW" refers to Anglo-American notions of appropriate conduct by white-collar workers in the offices of a business: it has little pertinence to those who work outside of that particular social context. It is specific to culture, class, and political worldview; it erases and invalidates those readers who don't live in that world. And even what is "work-safe" in a New York advertising agency may not even be legal in Singapore.

Similarly, expressions such as "family-friendly" presume a particular set of views dealing with concealing certain matters from children -- usually sexuality, but sometimes violence, unusual political views, or non-mainstream religions. It is impossible to use this expression without assuming that you and your audience already agree as to what is excluded by it. It is not a description of particular themes, but rather a buzzword that can be used when the speaker and audience already share the same point of view.

As such, these expressions are not suitable for use in a general encyclopedia -- one which is accessible equally to children of the middle class and to children of the underclass or the counterculture; to sex workers and to office workers; to conservatives, hippies, liberals, libertarians, traditionalists, radical feminists; and to people of all cultural backgrounds. Indeed, these expressions may be not merely inappropriate, but incomprehensible to people who do not already share the social and political views they stand for. ---FOo (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well said, and absolutely right. —Noisalt (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, but I'll add there is a Mrs.Grundy mentality when it comes to political discussion too. Some people on this site will refer to the mere presence of words such as oppression, islamophobia, deprivation, torture (in the wrong context) or phallic (any of those in a source - a book or website devoted to discussion within some kind of community) as proof that said source for how X is perceived by a significant part of the folks discussing him/her is "extremist" and can be dismissed as unreliable and fringe. So it's not WP itself of course, but the use of any of those words on a website listed in a source note for significant opinions about a person or a movement. Of course that's very useful if you want excuses for not bringing anything to do with criticism or controversy into a BLP, except in weak strawman language that makes it look like only idiots could argue with the person in question.

The fact is, in many a bunch of people you don't have to go berserk or lose your sense of balance to use those words. There's nothing surprising about them unless you've been reared on a traditional-values kind of rethoric. /Strausszek (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

"War hero"

I notice that the lead paragraph of an article about an army officer and later veteran's advocate and politician describes him as, among other things, a "decorated war hero".
(He was awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star and suffered wounds in the field leading to amputation.) It seems to me that we should avoid the use of the term "hero" in cases like this. Would appreciate your thoughts. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely - it is an editorialising word. "Decorated war veteran" works just fine, or something more specific like "decorated former U.S. Army colonel" would often be even better. Barnabypage (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Some other words

Editing political articles I faced a number of other words which used to conway bias. I suggest to include them in the guideline. --Dojarca (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Using quotes

Some editors use quote marks to empathise a viewpoint:

After that there were conducted 'elections'...

So-called 'experts' from the USSR 'found' that...

Agreed, quote marks like this absolutely sow doubt. Barnabypage (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides, by making an elaborate attributive phrase about where and how X said Y so-and-so (Y being a controversial statement), it's easy to indicate that the quoted words should be seen as pompous, prejudiced or dumb. There is a kind of unspoken "Look, can you believe it!" about that way of attributing a quote: When he was interviewed in the New York Times after his return from North Africa, Joe Biden said 'xyz' - ref NY Times -". Someone who wanted to keep a neutral or vaguely positive tone would much more likely write: Biden commented as he returned from his North African tour that 'xyz' -ref NY Times -" That first way of quoting also makes it easy to cherry pick the damning quote you want and highlight it; it springs out off the flow of the text. It really is crappy, very often it gives a pretend innocent signal that the quoted guy is a jerk.

And, saying in the running text which paper it was and the precise date, unless there is a specific reason for doing this in the main text and not just by providing the reference link, adds to the impression that this is a quote that's meant to appear silly or misguided. /Strausszek (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it’s a valid point. The Wiki manual of style (Wikipedia:Quotations) addresses it indirectly in its advice to use quotation marks when using a “unique phrase or term from someone’s speech or writing.” The example given is Oscar Wilde’s famous, “The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.” The implication of this advice is that commonplace words do not belong in quotation marks. The main reason is no doubt that that such use of quotation marks misleads the reader, who is expecting something unique or noteworthy when he sees the quotation marks. However, it is also true that such usage can become a backdoor way of, as /Strausszek says, of emphacizing a particular viewpoint. Quotation marks definitely add drama to the words enclosed in them. The same thing is true of stating a media source for a quotation within the text rather than in a footnote. I agree that a caution in the guidelines against inappropriate quotation usage, and also against dramatizing facts by stating a media source for a quotation in the running text,would be appropriate. One other point: Wikipedia:Quotations also advises that “all quotations must be attributed to their source.” If this rule were adhered to, it would make difficult the practice of dramatizing single words by putting quotation marks around them.--99.240.234.199 (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)(Sorry, I forgot to log in when I made this comment, so I am signing again now:) --Early morning person (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Regime

Using word "regime" instead of "government" or "political order".

For example:

The regime demaned...

The regime feared...

...opponent of the regime...

...supporter of the regime...

This word conways definite negative connotation.

It can indeed have negative implications but I don't think a complete ban is in order - at times it might be a handy word just for variety; it also has non-political usages. Barnabypage (talk) 14:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When used in political context the word clearly implyes that the "regime" is a political dictatorship or tyranny. For example The US regime accused Iraq in producing chemical weapons. Dalai Lama is a known opponent of the Chinese regime. President of Iran is a fighter against Zionist regime --Dojarca (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but equally President Green introduced a new wetlands conservation regime - that's why I say it shouldn't be banned as such, just used with caution. Barnabypage (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is completely different meaning, not synonimous to 'government' or 'political order'.--Dojarca (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The word is tainted at the moment because of its usage by the Bush administration in the phras regime change. But that does not mean that regime can not be used legitimately. I think that the confusion lies in a US bias there can be an "administration" change in the US but so long as it is done under the constitution it is not a change of regime. But when one system of government and simultaneously one group replaces another then there has been a change of regime. For example, the French revolution lead to a change in regime, from the monarchy (the Ancien Regime) to the First French Republic but one would not usually say that the replacement by Charles de Gaulle of the Fourth French Republic with the Fifth French Republic was a change of regime. But note that in the article Fifth French Republic there is the sentence "It is France's third longest enduring regime, after the Ancien Regime and the third Republic". Which to me seems perfectly OK and an accurate use of the term. So I don't think one can say "When used in political context the word clearly implies that the 'regime' is a political dictatorship or tyranny." --PBS (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well when referring to a modern state as "regime" it clearly implyes that the state is undemocratic. Also personification "regime wanted", "regime feared" etc. Regarding your examples, "regime" can be easily substituted with "political order".--Dojarca (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fifth French Republic is a modern state and the term "political order" does not fit the sentence "It is France's third longest enduring regime, after the Ancient Regime and the third Republic" as well as regime. -- PBS (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why "politilcal order" does not fit? I cannot understand.--Dojarca (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

brevity and clarity -- simple. Otherwise we could write up to a paragraph for every word that does not appear in the vocabulary of the Sun newspaper. --PBS (talk)

Seems that Ancien Régime is borrowed from French and constitutes a proper name in English so it's an exception.--Dojarca (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think "It is France's third longest enduring regime, ..." is better in this context than "It is France's third longest enduring political order, ..." and I don't think it implies that the Fifth French Republic either democratic or undemocratic. --PBS (talk)

Dictator

In most cases the word may be substituted with more neutral "leader".

As in Führer! leader is not more neutral that dictator, and it is usually not very a accurate simile (if it is, it carries Orwellian connotations as in "Dear Leader" Kim Il-sung. The United States president is sometimes referred to as "the leader of the free world", but one could not substitute dictator into that quote and have it mean the same thing. -- PBS (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Leader" is used rather widely by high-standard news media, at least in Europe, for the presidents and PMs of any country. "A meeting of European leaders...", "negotiations between South Américan leaders and North American bankers" - I see and hear phrases like that every day! (I've heard Tony Blair and Gordon Brown called "the British leader" dozens of times, though rarely in English...) I know they don't have any intent of putting down these presidents and ministers but it irks me: the head of a country - if he or she has been chosen in a democratic way - is its elected representative, not primarily the "leader". The L word conveys a feeling that those people do not stand under the same laws as the rest of us.

It might be better to use autocrat(ic leader),that brings the point home. /Strausszek (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Well autocratic leader is also OK for me but I would prefere something more precise such as "head of government" or "party leader". While I agree the "dictator" may be appropriate, I think this word should be used only in one section describing the nature of political power/position of a person and on each usage well attributed. In other places it looks ugly. Some examples: Soviet dictator ordred offensive near Luga. Here Stalin acts as chief commander or head of government. Another case is attributing 'dictator' to an acting head of state uch as Putin or Lukashenko (rather than "president"). --Dojarca (talk) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dictator a precise and means something to people, autocratic leader is much less precise and unfamiliar. Why create confusion by creating a new term? Autocratic leader and Dictator are just as negative, because most people don't want to live under the yoke of someone with absolute power. In wikipedias affort to be neutral, it is actually serving the purposes of such rulers. We do not need newspeak on wikipedia. We need accurate information.

I agree that "dictator" is more descriptive than pejorative. It shouldn't be misused, but that's true of any term. I see no compelling reason to avoid this term when it is used by high-quality reliable sources to describe a situation that is clearly within the bounds of the common definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The same can be said about terrorist. Or there is difference I missing?

Democracy

Country X is a parliamentary democracy as opposed to Country X is a parliamentary republic

That the country is a republic is a fact while implication it is democratic may conduct bias.

Democracy has a fairly clear meaning; if used accurately, I don't think it's problematic. Barnabypage (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If a country is democratic may be disputed. When the characteristic used for some countries and not used for others, it becomes discriminatory. For example, it may be disputed if Russia, Belarus, China, Venezuela are democratic, on the other hand republican order in those countries is a fact.--Dojarca (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here with making a decision regarding usage on a case-by-case basis. The fact that the term's applicability may be debatable in some cases doesn't mean we should never use it in any. Barnabypage (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The decision on case-by-case basis may be inherently biased, just as using 'terrorist' vs. 'freedm fighter' which is already one of examples in this page.--Dojarca (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And what is Australia? -- PBS (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional representative monarchy? Or parliamentary monarchy.--Dojarca (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Or more usually a "parliamentary democracy". Google search:

• "about 120,000 for "parliamentary democracy" Australia", "35,400 for "parliamentary monarchy" Australia"

And it seems that "parliamentary monarchy" may be largely an invention of Wikipedia:

• "about 109,000 for "parliamentary democracy" Australia -wikipedia" against "about 5,840 for "parliamentary monarchy" Australia -wikipedia"

-- PBS (talk) 10:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This does not imply is is either neutral or accurate to use "parliamentary democracy". And also reflects only English language media usage. Just as using "Communist state" regarding the USSR etc. Besides this it is known English-language media has strong bias regarding political terminology (for example terrorist vs freedom fighter controvercy).--Dojarca (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If high-quality reliable sources are using this term, then so should we. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many such sorces for exampe call the USSR "Russia". Should we too?--Dojarca (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not nowadays as there is obvious scope for confusion. But in 1970, say, in the context of international affairs "Russia" was a reasonable and comprehensible shorthand for "USSR", so I don't think it should be seen as an error on the part of sources from the Soviet period. Barnabypage (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Allies

In some cases the word used to conduct sympathy to the side described as "alles". While in a war both opposing pareties if consisted of more than one country were alled with each other usually the term "allies" used to denote the side where participated Britain and/or the United States. For example when applied to some historical conflicts between British Empire and Russian Empire, British side usually denoted as "allies".

In other cases a country while being formally allied excluded from the ranks of "allies" to conduct negative sentiment:

During the Second World War the Allies recognized the Baltic independence while the Soviets did not

The Allies criticized the USSR's decision to postpone the offensive

What do you think about the above?

--Dojarca (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In the WWII context I think Western Allies may be a better usage anyway. However, it's important we don't get mixed up between the capitalised Allies of WWII and the more general, lower-case usage - to say that "Germany and Italy were allies in the early 1940s", for example, is fine. Barnabypage (talk) 14:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes capitalized "Allies" also used in the context far from the WWII. For example for conflicts between British and Russian empires as mentioned above.--Dojarca (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should ban as few words as possible. It is bad use of words that should be avoided. None of the words above is intrinsically bad enough for it to be generally avoided. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says about general avoiding. Just as nobody calls to avoid the word "terrorist". But it exists in this page as certain usage may conduct POV.--Dojarca (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The article title is 'Words to avoid'. Maybe 'Words to use with caution' or 'Words that are easily misunderstood' would be better. We all agree, I think, there are no words which must be absolutely banned. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But there are words that are recommended to substitute with others in certain contexts.--Dojarca (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any good reason to reject this term, so long as its use is consistent with high-quality English-language(!) sources. If English-language sources widely name this or that group "allies", then using that word is just fine with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In this usage it traditionally means allies of English-speaking nations. Sonce Engliush now used worlwide (especially in the EU and former British colonies), this may conway beas towards British crown.--Dojarca (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Um...I think that may be hunting for implied bias where none exists. If people think "the Allies" in such-and-such a conflict were the good guys, it's not because they're called allies. Barnabypage (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

None of these words belong in a general list of words to be avoided. If they are used inappropriately in a particular context, the problem should be dealt with there. Locke9k (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)