Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

So-and-so believes

This page lists synonyms for said including those which sound judgmental about the validity of the statement (such as assert). I find that a similar common judgement is to write a person's statement as a belief rather than a statement. This can additionally cause problems with clarity, resulting in mind-reading on the editor's part and occasionally in unverifiable statements about the subject of the writing. To put this into an example, let's say we have an article about the views that nasal allergies result from drinking water. You might see written "Dr. John Smith believes that contaminated water results in high mucus production. He believes that all water should be filtered before drinking." This should be distinguished from use of the word believe where people make statements about what they believe, or where the element of belief is a core issue. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Collateral damage and ethnic cleansing

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

I propose to remove "ethnic cleansing" and "collateral damage" from the section "Euphemisms" as neither term "lacks precision" (see the previous sections listed above in the talk page archives for more details on this. -- PBS (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried to fix that last summer, but DCGeist thought that providing useful information was "verbose". The problem is that some people abuse those words for the sake of (in their personal opinion) softening the claims being made in the articles. It is the use that you put a word, not the word's dictionary definition or its vagueness, that makes the word a euphemism. There is technically nothing "imprecise" about "I'm going to go powder my nose now", but that is still euphemism for "I'm going to go urinate and/or defecate now".

IMO what we need there is to educate the less-informed editors that these words have very specific meanings, i.e., "Sometimes using a euphemism significantly and wrongly changes the meaning of the sentence: ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and genocide are not synonyms." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems much more sensible way to go. BTW so we don't repeat what was said last summer, if there was a talk page discussion on this "last summer" (please add a link to it under "last summer") -- PBS (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how that adds anything to what we already have: "Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided..."—DCGeist (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then the list should include words and phrases that are always used euphemistically not words and phrases that may have euphemistic senses. "nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide; civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage". Ethnic cleansing can include mass murder and genocide. Genocide includes mass murder. If Ethnic cleansing is an euphemism is not genocide also an euphemism for mass murder if not why not? -- PBS (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed these issues before in great detail. This guideline is Words to watch, and there are two sorts of euphemisms editors needs to watch out for: words and phrases that are always euphemistic, and words and phrases that are properly encyclopedic in some contexts but euphemistic in others. It would lower the quality and effectiveness of our guideline to cut out the second sort from consideration.—DCGeist (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you one example where "ethnic cleansing" or "collateral damage" has been used euphemistically? -- PBS (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if you have not got one then how do you know that either is used as an euphemism? If they are used so infrequently that you know of no examples then they are not good examples to use here and are misleading. -- PBS (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, we have been over this ground before. It's not our job to spend time finding you old examples during your periodic visits here. You have made no new case for the words' elimination that stands up to examination.—DCGeist (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You have not made a case for keeping them. Neither in the RFC or here has the majority of opinion been with you. In this current conversation you are the only one involved who is opposing a change so when you write "It's not our job" who do you mean by "our"? -- PBS (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) I don't need to come here and "make a case for keeping them". That case has been made repeatedly in the past and their presence is the well-established status quo. You want to alter the status quo in a contentious fashion. You need to make a convincing case and build a new consensus. You have failed.

(2) Nor is the "majority of opinion" with you. WhatamIdoing wanted to change the phrasing of the section (but was unable to explain how an additional gloss would do more than repeat the substance of what's already said). You want to remove the examples entirely. I am fine with things as they are. I sense you've been tallying up more support for your opinion than actually appears on the page.

(3) "Our" refers to me and those editors who have responded to you in the past on these very points but who now are choosing not to indulge you by riding around and around again on your ol' dead horse.—DCGeist (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive 3#RfC on collateral damage and ethnic cleansing four people expressed an opinion in that RfC. One was in favour of deleting one in favour of keeping. Two people who expressed an opinion of placing them in a different section have suggested a change of wording in this section. So who is it on that "ol' dead horse"? -- PBS (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Does RS superceed WP:WEASEL?

There are NPOV problems on Josephus on Jesus regarding what would otherwise qualify under WP:WEASEL. My question can one RS that says "many scholars" or "most scholars" (without naming single one) be used in an article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it can be used if it's a quotation from a book. If Professor Bill Bloggs writes in his book "Most cooks like roasting pork" that quote can be included in the body of an article. It's only when something is claimed in the body of an article without citation that violates WP:WEASEL Lung salad (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but now how can it be used? Do we present it as fact or do we go the according to so-and-so in this book route? As shown by 2002 Ingle's Endodontics 5th edition which stated "(i)n the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection" even though the 1952 Southern California State Dental Association Volume 20; pg 32 stated "One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection..." and there were works clear into the 1950s promoting the theory of focal infection even peer reviewed textbooks can get it wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Present it as fact that todays' scholars consider the Josephan passages as authentic within the confines of the quotes. Lung salad (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST

Needs to be changed. It ought to read that if there are an overwhelming amount of sources which describe a group as terrorist then it is reasonable for us to do so. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

For that to work, you might need to find an unarguable definition of overwhelming. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not difficult Al-Qaeda. I doubt there are any sources which do not refer to them as terrorists. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked all sources from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This guideline, IMO, is poorly thought-out and has caused problems for a while. I agree there needs to be changed. I think it should be made clear that there are special cases where organisations/individuals are universally referred to using such terms, and as such it is appropriate to use the same labelling in the encylopaedia. As for sources from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, I think English sources are more appropriate. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reuters does not use the term, and as an international news agency it puts out most stories on the wire, so there is no universal use in English. Besides what do you mean when you use the word terrorist? For example during the troubles most UK media and both the Irish and British governments described the IRA as a terrorist organisation, yet sections of the US government and sections of the media did not, so do you think IRA volunteers were terrorists? -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A search of Reuters tells a different story 7030 hits for terrorist on that site. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reuters quotes people calling groups terrorist, convictions of terrorism, etc. but does not directly call people or groups terrorist. This is what WP:TERRORIST intends for Wikipedia too. Shrigley (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hell no! This word has a vague definition and is constantly abused by POV-pushers. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, it is a loaded controversial word and rightly placed here. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Despite this"

See Dan Norris: "During the parliamentary year of 2006/07, Norris was serving as a backbench MP. Despite this he had the 4th highest expenditure,". Should we add this to the section where we mention "however"? Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Go on, and include "featured" too. Diego (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Revisit "arguable" and "arguably"

Constructions such as "arguably better", "arguably best", "arguably led to", while not common in WP articles, can be found easily enough. I think the idea is to convey that "there are arguments to support this statement but here is not the place to get into it and these arguments may not be conclusive anyway", but there is something unencyclopedic, a weaseling quality, that is bugging me: who is offering these arguments and if they're not conclusive then why are we passing over them?

See past discussions here and here. Participants note that "arguably" is often a flag for OR which may be one source of my discomfort with it. There appeared to be consensus to add "arguably" to WP:WEASEL, WP:ALLEGED, or WP:EDITORIAL but that does not seem to have happened or it was reverted. Jojalozzo 17:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Semicolons

surely these lists of phrases should be seperated by semicolons, not commas. It would make it a little clearer that non of the commas are part of the phrases concerned and show, to my understanding, better writing skills, which inspires confidence more. IceDragon64 (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Award-winning

Is award-winning a word (or phrase) to avoid or is it okay to use in describing someone? I've seen it used in introductions and other areas of articles. I guess if they've won more than one award, it's technically accurate, but I thought I'd check here. Someone had brought it up in a past thread but it was never discussed. Comatmebro (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO it could be admissible in certain circumstances but should be treated with care. If the awards are undoubtly prestigious, "award-winning" can be a good "claim of notability" at stubs to comply with the speedy deletion criteria. But there's the risk that it could be used to describe an organization winning some run-of-the-mill awards that are routinely given to companies in a business field. So yes, it should usually be avoided, most of the time; it's safer to enumerate the most important awards it won, to achieve the same effect. Diego (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I was thinking the same thing about it; you summed it up very well. This article, Daniel Boys, used it to describe him and I removed it because it doesn't seem like he has many awards and the article had a lot of other 'words to watch' in it that I took out. It still is written a little too much like an advertisement or resume for him I think but I don't want to remove too much content. Comatmebro (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

has been featured by

As in, Our company has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Good Morning America, Sports Illustrated, the Oregonian, and the Sydney Morning Herald. (sometimes with, sometimes without, citations to specific articles)

This seems to be an annoyingly common tactic among paid editors to stave off speedy deletions at NPP, without saying anything other than, "Don't speedy delete this, we're notable." Wouldn't it be much more enlightening, and almost as easy (if one's motives were pure), to report with a citation whatever it was that made the company interesting enough to feature? Kilopi (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletions

Here and here Gnevin deleted guidance on certain terms in 2010: note and bear in mind; I and you; myth and legend. The rationale was, "per my suggestion that see also don't extend MOSs"; but the fact that these were three extensions of see-also sections is not a deletion argument, and the actual suggestion mentioned did not appear in this page's archive. But here I did find a discussion about the removal of myth and legend, yielding several views but without a conclusion. Dougweller, the OP there, has some good instincts and pointed out two or three problems with the removal. The related section WP:RNPOV alludes to the deleted material, but since a key adjuration now doesn't appear anywhere ("When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion") I am concerned that RNPOV is insufficient to prevent the use of the word "myth" where it could easily be inferred as an informal use. (In leads, e.g., formal senses should be eased into rather than thrown in cold; I found numerous cases on WP where "mythos" gracefully avoided the problem of the word "myth".) N.b.: While I was "invited" to comment on this at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Creation mythos, I alluded there that this is not the only article in which ambiguous use of the word "myth" appears. Nor have I been the best conveyor of this concern in the past.

The questions are whether the deletions are ripe for reconsidering, whether any other deletions were made in close proximity, and whether material should be restored, either to this article generally, or to the current sections on these topics (MOS:OPED, WP:YOU, and WP:RNPOV). JJB 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As the links in your last paragraph indicate, the principle relevant to "note and bear in mind" is covered here under Editorializing, while "I and you" are addressed on the main MOS page. No more material on these matters is called for. I am not sure "myth and legend" are significant enough sources of problematic usage to warrant reinclusion. The most common misuse of "legendary" is already addressed here in Puffery. "Myth" might arguably be a worthwhile addition to the list with which Contentious labels leads off, but an essay is the appropriate spot for any extended discussion of the term.—DCGeist (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks! How about the following:

• WP:OPED: add "importantly" to box, and add " and it is important to bear in mind" to text.
• MOS:YOU and MOS:FIRSTPERSON: no changes.
• WP:LABEL: and "mythology" to box, and add "Avoid use of myth in its informal sense; e.g., establish the context of sociology, mythology or religion or use the unambiguous mythos instead." to text. JJB 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of "importantly." We have enough examples already in Editorializing, and its inclusion adds nothing to the communication of the relevant principle. I've edited the addition of "myth"; I'm not sure there would be a consensus for advocating the use of the relatively uncommon term "mythos". "Myth" is a perfectly good word; we just want to watch that it's used precisely here.—DCGeist (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, myth 1a in Merriam-Webster (mythos) is a perfectly good word, and myth 2b (misconception) is not. For mythos a good link is http://www.grassie.net/articles/1999_epic.html 8th graf. Accept your position generally (i.e. not debating "importantly" for now). JJB 01:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Several conflicting changes

Affirm changes by Pol098 and Tony1, they can be restored. Example by Jprg1966 makes no sense to me, can be deleted. Others might want to discuss these or other changes. I'm generally an inclusionist. JJB 17:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, most of the undiscussed changes by Pol098 were redundant, verbose, and/or got us away from the focus on general principles rather than takedowns of specific words. Your restoration of "eminent" also fails to recognize that this page was designed to focus on principles of good writing, not to create laundry lists of bad words. The addition to the Puffery example field of "acclaimed"—which was discussed on the Talk page of the main MoS guideline—makes specific sense, as it's a term that does appear to be widely overused here. However, it expanded the field to an excessive nineteen examples, way more than is necessary to exemplify the principle, which is the objective here. No other example field includes more than fourteen examples. So...we add a stronger example, and take away a weaker one to hold the line and maintain focus on what counts. You may not take "example creep" seriously, but it was a major contributing factor to why an earlier version of this page ("Words to Avoid") was deemed a failure. "Words to Avoid" was ultimately sunk by...wait for it...redundancy, verbosity, and a lack of focus on general principles. This page was crafted by a group effort to avoid those problems and provide much more effective guidance to the average Wikipedia contributor.—DCGeist (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

So 14 is good, 18 is acceptable, 19 is not. Spock would not say "eminently logical" to that, sorry. I have a number of things to say about the text and subtext of examples that need not be said at this page right now. The various issues are to be determined by current consensus. You might help guide current consensus by adding a clearer talkpage hat that properly summarizes and links the former consensus. Thanks. JJB 20:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Murder

Can the word "murdered" be used to describe what appears to be a universally condemned killing of civilians? I'm referring specifically to the killing of civilians at 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings.

Or is it more neutral to say "killed".VR _talk 02:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It is most neutral to follow whatever your best sources say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"possibly", "probably"?

What about "possibly", "probably"? Acceptable or not? -- megA (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I use those all the time but only when sources show uncertainty. Dunno that a note is needed for "possibly" when they show certainty; I think adding "possibly" when it's not implied would be WP:OR, not WTW. JJB 15:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My problem was from a history article, where it was used without any references... -- megA (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Definitely weasely, but use WP:V and WP:RS to preclude them first. JJB 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've tagged the section with {{unreferenced section}} and will see what happens... -- megA (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Weasel punctuation

I would like to nominate "" (quotation marks) as a form of "weaseling". I recognize there is proper use, such as repeating what someone has said, pointing out that a word may not be a word at all, or talking about a word itself. However, sometimes it appears to indicate that something is incorrect or a speaker is ignorant, without supplying any supporting evidence or further recourse for the skeptical reader - just like weasel words.

For example, the Wikipedia article on Energy includes the line:

It is not uncommon to hear that energy is "equivalent" to mass.

I call weasel. This line should be changed to:

It is not uncommon to hear that "energy is equivalent to mass".

The lead-in "It is not uncommon to hear..." smell like weasel words to me, but the original placement of the quotes sealed the deal. At least moving the quotes makes sense in terms of indicating exactly what is being heard. Ideally, the line should be:

Einstein showed, in his most famous equation, that energy is equivalent to mass.

but that is another debate. Staying on topic, I think we should be as vigilant regarding weasel quotation marks as we are for weasel words.

68.144.100.86 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a real concern that I've seen in the wild (and fortunately someone fixed it by removing the quotations). I support adding a mention of this in the guideline. Diego (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to start a new section suggesting something similar. I think this guideline should cover both punctuation (!, "", etc) and formatting (e.g. italics), since either can provide otherwise neutral words with charged meanings. Also, note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Emphasis already mentions that "It may be preferable to avoid the need for italics by rewriting a sentence more explicitly". I think this potential misuse should be explicitly addressed by this guideline. --Waldir ^talk 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

They're called scare quotes when used that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? By whom? And why? I've never heard that expression. Is this unique to some cultures and not others? HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing was good enough to provide a link to our article on scare quotes. That article should answer your questions, both directly and through the many sources it cites. Please read it.—DCGeist (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It didn't answer my questions, so I've asked there too. Unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to get many visits, so I'm not confident about a rapid response. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, what do you think about including these cases in the guideline? --Waldir ^talk 10:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No. This page is called Words to watch. Let's keep it strong by keeping it focused, and not try to wedge formatting and punctuation matters into it. As noted above, the main WP:Manual of Style page already addresses the use of italics for emphasis. Anyone who believes the MoS should directly address the use of scare quotes should seek to make that happen on the main MoS page.—DCGeist (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I do see your point, but disagree on the best place to make this addition. This feels like the proper page, and the fact that someone else had the same idea just a few days before should be telling. I don't think the page would lose its strength because of this. I'm interested in hearing what the other participants in this discussion think. --Waldir ^talk 00:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, however things may "feel", this page is Words to watch, not Stuff to watch. By definition, it is devoted to lexical matters, so it's simply the wrong venue at which to address scare quotes.—DCGeist (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I understand you point, and agree with it to a certain degree, but I believe the benefit of making the guideline more comprehensive (i.e. what it's useful for) would outweight the need to preserve the purity of its contents or exactness of its title (i.e. what it is by itself). Again, I would like to hear the opinions of others in the matter. Note that so far 3 people supported the inclusion while only one opposed it (and two participants haven't manifested either way). --Waldir ^talk 11:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

DCGeist, if the problem you have is one of consistency - that the title is Words to watch and punctuation is not words, we could simply change the title to "Stuff to watch" or "Expressions to watch". If it's one of including only related matters, scare quotes provide a meaning that shouldn't be misused, exactly the same than with weasel words or puffery, so they are adequate to cover in this article; just because their meaning is represented with symbols instead of letters doesn't make it less valid to be described in this article. Diego (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, since nobody else has manifested after over a month, I guess there is enough support for inclusion of a clause dealing with "weasel punctuation" (support from 68.144.100.86, Diego Moya and me, opposition from DCGeist, and no opinion from WhatamIdoing and HiLo48). I think we should start working on a draft to be included in the page. Any suggestions? --Waldir ^talk 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't support this, but it's possible that something could be written that wouldn't be completely objectionable. I think that MOS:QUOTATIONS might be a more natural fit, however. Or maybe just a sentence added to the section that already includes "so-called", since scare quotes have a similar effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What is being talked about here is the use of quotation marks as scare quotes, which are not always (I'd even say, seldom) used when actually quoting a third party. MOS:QUOTATIONS actually says that "The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as [...] 'scare-quoted' passages", but then makes no further mention of the scare quotes usage, and rightly so, in my opinion, since that fits better on this page than there. I'd suggest removing that part of the sentence and adding a "see also" note pointing to this page, once/if the addition is made.

Also, while scare quotes are a good example of the use of punctuation to charge the meaning of words, they aren't the only ones. Italics can have a similar effect. Neither are necessarily connected with actual quotations.

Finally: I agree that the Expressions of doubt section is probably the most appropriate place to make the proposed additional remark, even though these usages of punctuation can be constructed to convey a positive opinion (as a silly example, from the top of my head: "the reception of the film was very good" vs. "the reception of the film was very good"), in which case they would belong to the Editorializing section. But I think we can agree that the negative usage is more prevalent (at least with scare quotes), and that they're more harmful, so "Expressions of doubt" would probably be the best place to add this. Thoughts? --Waldir ^talk 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'm back. (Sorry about the absence of a comment here for a while. I've been in a place with no Internet or mobile phone coverage for some time. What a delight! And I won't apologise for not calling my phone a cell phone. It's not in prison.) I'm very confused by this whole discussion. It must be very culturally biased, perhaps to American English, but certainly not to my version of English. The ONLY sensible line (to me) in the OP's post that started this was: Einstein showed, in his most famous equation, that energy is equivalent to mass. The other examples were just plain inaccurate. So I'm still not sure exactly what the issue is. And the term scare quotes still bothers me a lot. I'm Australian. I had never encountered the term before discovering it here in Wikipedia. I teach in high school. Completely independently of this, I heard an English teacher colleague recently ask anyone who who was within earshot "What are scare quotes?" Nobody knew. (Except me with a tiny but still confused inkling.) We should not use the term in any definition or explanation of this matter. It's obviously not used globally, and it's a bad term because the meaning has no relationship to the words. There's actually nothing scary about scare quotes. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can avoid using the term and describe the use directly instead (perhaps with an example), while using the article as a piped link for those wishing to get a deeper summary of the topic. That would in fact be in accordance with this very guideline's "clichés and idioms" section :) --Waldir ^talk 23:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"very first"

Is there any situation where "very first" has a valid use (outside of direct quotes and references)? I've seen it quite a lot (e.g. "The very first issue of the newspaper contained a number of errors" within The Guardian) but I can't think of an example where simply "first" would not be better, so I am thinking of correcting many of these. I wanted to get some input from others before I make too many edits, however. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess it is not a job for a robot. Very first emphasises "first" and is stylistically ok in my view when there are differing ways to be first, and first is of itself notable. So for example in the Settlement of the Americas one might talk about Clovis first versus Colombus using such terms. --BozMo talk 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

avoidance of the active verb

I've often removed decided to and managed to; the point is what the subject did. Similar examples? —Tamfang (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

TDS

I just followed another referral to WP:Weasel which goes to this attribution section. This doesn't work. Weasel is not really about attribution and the attempt by the manual of style editors a few years ago to shoehorn it in any old how is detrimental to Wikipedia since there is an important point about language there. --BozMo talk 06:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The essential nature of weasel words is to make a statement which asserts something but subtly implies something different or stronger by being made. "Some people say" can be weasel words (because they can imply what is said is contraversial or wrong) but it is not about attribution. Another example might be "As a mathematician, he supports the Labour Party" or "as a Scientist I am a Protestant" or "Northern schools value girls equally" which are weasel worded because of a cloaked implication (similar people all do, or in the last case that Southern schools do not). Therefore the right summary for weasel words (which used to be the text of the article) is along the lines of "avoid cloaked implications". --BozMo talk 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the essential nature of weasel words is their vagueness: "Some people believe that ____" is weaseling. This is primarily a problem when the sources give one person as an example, and the Wikipedian has generalized from one example to "some people" (when it's possible that only one person has ever believed that ____), but it's the use of vagueness to cover up a tiny-minority position, not the implication that it's something different, that bothers me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Weasel_word is more accurate. Vagueness is weaselly but it is certainly not limited to attribution. --BozMo talk 10:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Funny" images

These "funny" images are out of place in P&G and imho exude a passive-aggressive vibe. Could a proponent of the images outline any benefit of having them in the page? --213.196.219.4 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not a proponent of these particular images. However I think some image of a weasel and peacock is useful because they provide a point of reference (memory) in a changing and over-wordy policy jungle. Weasel and Peacock get refered to by text editors a fair bit and are some kind of fixed point (apart from when they get changed). --BozMo talk 06:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed next text on Weasel

Per above here is a proposed next text

... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ...

"Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Equally editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the {{Weasel}} template so to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue).

Reference

Can you give me an example, using one of these phrases, of a sentence that "subtly implies something opposite" what it says? I understand "stronger" (although I'll contest the "subtly"), because "some people say" often means "exactly one person said". But I'm not sure that we use the phrase weasel word to identify a phrase that indicates the opposite of what's nominally said. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification, and weasel word templates

I see that the WP:Weasel words guideline has recently been clarified. But perhaps it can do with some more clarification, particularly with regard to its weasel word templates...such as Template:Who? Too many editors are misusing these templates, often adding "who," "whom," "which" and other such tags to articles, even when the uses of "most," "many," "others" or some variation thereof, etc., are needed. This has been addressed on this talk page before, but sometimes...the sources themselves are using these words, as WP:Weasel words now points out, and it's often that not every name can be mentioned, such as the majority of scientists believing in the Big Bang. We can't list every scientist who believes in the Big Bang. We have to state "most," "majority" or "scientific consensus." And in a lot of the cases where we can name everyone, it looks messy, creating a WP:LINKFARM, with names that don't even have Wikipedia articles (sometimes because they are non-notable). This is exactly why Template:By whom states: Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. Do not use this tag if naming the individuals who hold a position would be silly because of the number. Facts that are widely held should be asserted as simple facts. Do not use in-text attribution to imply that a widely held view is a minority position. Thus, we write simply that "The Earth is round", not "Scientists like Suren Ayvazyan, Teki Biçoku, Donald Canfield, Ricardo Cirera, Hartley T. Ferrar, Nicolae Frolov, Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain, Manuel Santillán (and about a million others) say that the Earth is round.

I feel that Template:Who should state similar to Template:By whom, and that clarification about when to use such templates should be added to the WP:Weasel words guideline. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Using "can be" instead of "is"

Should this guideline caution about using "can be" instead of "is" to instill unwarranted impression that alternative views are (somewhat) commonly held? E.g. "The Earth can be considered a planet." "Barack Obama can be considered the current president of the US." Etc. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Please complete your question above, in order to enable others to understand your point here! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk) 10:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Time and "now" perspective

I've suggested in WP:DATED to recommend that articles should be written using "timeless" text instead of simply listing some rules without explanation. While this guideline is on words to avoid, some reason for avoiding these words would help; and I don't see "formerly" or "in the past" as objectionable as they're future-proof. Rather than have two discussions of what is the same topic, I suggest that anyone interested see my comment and any responses there: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Time and "now" perspective. Pol098 (talk) 12:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What I find irritating is the insistence by a few people that large, diffuse changes be pinned down precisely. So you write something very basic, like "Cancer used to be considered a uniformly fatal disease, but now it is not", and someone will come along with a {{when}} tag to demand that you supply the exact day on which public sentiment changed, even though no person will ever be confused by the time statement in this kind of statement. (Well, no non-autistic person, but not even most of them.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion here is that the wording should be chosen in a way that prevents the article from becoming dated, as far as possible, and has nothing to do with requesting a time.

However, I don't see why the (separate and distinct) request for an indication of when is objectionable (the comment above uses "pinned down precisely in a weaselly way. "Cancer used to be considered a uniformly fatal disease, but gradually lost this reputation from the last decade of the twentieth century" gives useful information without any spurious precision. Consider "it was considered that there was no way to protect against smallpox infection, but now there is".) Pol098 (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the factual answer is "in different decades spanning more than a century, depending on your location, class, and education", not "during the 1990s", and saying that "it changed at different times in different places" is really no more useful to the reader than "Once upon a time, people believed that (the Earth was flat, that cancer was fatal, whatever), but now we don't". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

That makes me wonder if it is true everywhere, even now. I suspect not. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Peacock/puffery

I believe that your directives are entirely suitable for the main article. But where reliable sources have been quoted, I feel that words like 'noted' and 'acclaimed' should be considered appropriate for summarising the same points in the lede. 109.154.7.5 (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The peacock wording is not mine. However what you propose is difficult because reliable show biz sources use puffery about people on a daily basis. So if you allow such terms a vast number of uses could be argued and the arguments would be tedious. Better to quote opinion accurately or give supporting facts I feel. --BozMo talk 06:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If they are not "noted" we should not have an article, so that is redundant. "Acclaimed" raises the question "By whom?" and is better addressed with hard fact "Was awarded 17 Nobel prizes" "Had more air-play than any other artist in several years" "Was subject of three documentaries." This, being the lead, can reasonably be supported by the body rather than a direct reference. Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

"hang up his boots"

Is the expression "hang up his boots" OK for an Encyclopaedia or term like "retired" should be used instead? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely use "retired". "hang up his/her boots" is unnecessarily idiomatic and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Jameboy (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I will start fixing some of these "hung up his boots" --Jameboy (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Also "hang up his boots" "hanged up his boots" "hanging up his boots" --Jameboy (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose if we're being pedantic, the player doesn't "retire" either, as most will go on to some other form of employment after their playing days, be it coaching, broadcasting or something else. But I'll assume that "retire" is OK unless anyone can come up with a better phrase. --Jameboy (talk) 07:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

"retire" does not imply slip into a virtual comma: it means to cease the particular activity. The phrase in question obviously is inappropriate for a publication that seeks to employ a formal tone. Kevin McE (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Or "slip into a virtual" coma for that matter! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 17:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

D'oh: got me :@) Kevin McE (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The only time the phrase should be used is if it is in a direct quote. Otherwise, yes "retired" or "retired as a player" should be used. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In many cases the phrase can be excised completely. Rich Farmbrough, 17:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

The same applies to all parallel terms for other professions, whether for retirement or death. Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

I should add that I have also been removing the female equivalents, e.g. "hung up her boots", it's just that there weren't many instances of those. --Jameboy (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Earning" medals

Is "earned" an acceptable word in a phrase like "She earned/won three gold medals"? Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Dispute about use of word "earn" to describe winning medals. Graham87 09:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It is, but using it dozens of times in articles on the similar themes is a very bad idea. It can be rotated with several other words. "Earned" is not the first word of those available that I'd choose. Tony (talk) 10:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tony about the potential for overuse, but that's a general word usage comment, applicable to any word which might get overused in some particular article, not anything special regarding "earned".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Won is more NPOV. Even more the case with degrees and prizes, which are "awarded". Don't be afraid to re-use the simple or obvious word. A show "had" an audience of 2.3 million, not "garnered". A businessman "made" $60,000 not "trousered". An agreement was "signed" not "inked", and a book is "written" not "authored".

Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

Agree won is more neutral. After all there are cases like Paul Hamm who won the medals but arguably did not earn/ deserve several of them. --BozMo talk 14:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Weasel punctuation

As a follow-up to this discussion, I propose the following change to the "Expressions of doubt" section (additions in green):

Words such as supposed and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others. Punctuation can also be used for similar effects: quotation marks, when not marking an actual quote, may indicate the writer is distancing themselves from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression; the use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be avoided.

Any thoughts? --Waldir ^talk 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

support.--BozMo talk 06:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Support. Diego (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- after a month and a half, with unanimous (if limited) support, I implemented this change. --Waldir ^talk 16:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Press Releases

I came across this analysis of the most commonly used words in press releases and couldn't help but wonder if the image wouldn't be helpful for "Reads like a press release" or peacock to actually have grounded examples based on a data-based survey. I would be happy to ask them for copyright permissions if anyone feels the image would be useful. It might be a little big for the places I was thinking of though. CorporateM (Talk) 14:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps an expression of doubt or a weasel?

I've recently become increasingly aware of an apparent excessive use of the word "perhaps", for example SSH File Transfer Protocol currently contains "The most widely known is perhaps OpenSSH, ...". It's got so that whenever I see one of these I want to change it to "The most widely known is OpenSSH, ..." (Assuming it is uncited). Am I being unreasonable? Would making this change (where it seems reasonable) be appropriate? Should "perhaps" be added into Words to watch? If so, as an expression of doubt or a weasel? Thanks Kiore (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the sentence has some kind of source. If so, look at what that says/ --BozMo talk 09:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

When there is a source it should be possible to verify if the "Perhaps" is from there, but the cases I can think of were uncited. This leads me to see them as employing "perhaps" as a weasel word. Kiore (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

"Perhaps" is not the only problematic phrase; "The most widely known" is also to blame in that it is WP:PEACOCK. I would delete the entire sentence myself. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have no problem with removal if a statement lacks RS support. I don't see a phrase such as "perhaps best known for" as puffery, however -- it is not at all like saying someone is the best in a field. It is simply saying that the person or thing, of everything it is known for, is perhaps best known for x ... and everyone has something that they are best known for. But, if it lacks RS support, that is appropriate reason to delete. IMHO. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

moot punctuation

If I am not mistaken, in section moot, mean should be means and understanding should be understandings. 204.191.89.147 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to "Label" section

I note that the word "Myth" is included in the section as a word to perhaps consider not using. This has been a rather contentious topic for some time, but I personally very much believe that we might benefit from making it clear that the modern consensus primary usage of the word according to the dictionaries available to me, that a myth is a story (true or untrue) which presents a story which often in some way relates to a certain religion's worldview. Also, I think it would make sense to add the word "dictator", to the list as well, as it can and often is used in a way more inflammatory than informative. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I would just remove the word myth. I don't think it really belongs in that list. --BozMo talk 08:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, John. For one reason, I support your proposition of removing "myth" but oppose addition of "dictator". As your statement shows, "Myth" is used in metaphorical sense to mean "untrue" while its literal sense is still in use. Whether to use "myth" or not is matter of context. "Dictator" has the same status: Its metaphorical sense is used for inflammatory purposes, but its literal sense (an autocrat) is still in use. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Moot

I haven't been able to find a source that suggests that moot is a word that can be confusing because of opposite meanings. In anycase there are hundreds of such words and we can't include all, nor should we include only some unless there are a special reason (such as some other style guide warning against them).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Manus

Here are a source:

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, third edition, MG64:

DISCUSSION: 1. Often discussed or argued about and having no definite answer
It is a moot point whether building more roads reduces traffic congestion.

LEGAL CASE: 2. (Mainly US legal) having no practical use or meaning
The district attorney said if McVeigh was given the death penalty and his conviction was upheld on appeal, the state prosecution would become moot.

I added this section after seeing the word moot on several dozen occasions and saw how useless it is to contact the writer to ask whether they mean "futile" or "controversial".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. please be sure to check the word moot on Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). That is yet another great source. Best wishes, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how those two words are confusing at all. The basic meaning of the two uses is the same - it is a point something that it makes no sense to discuss either because it has already been discussed to death or because the question has been rendered obsolete by subsequent events, and furthermore each specific meaning is restricted to a particular context making confusion even less likely. If we were to include this word in the list of words to watch we would have to include half of the vocabulary of the English language, since most words have two or more meanings in different contexts.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Manus

Your failure to understand was neither a concern nor an issue. Both of us knew it. Yes, you "don't see how", but why do you not try to improve your grasp of the matter by studying the example in my last message or referring to the more examples in CALD or COCA? Meanwhile, others do understand. Please this example in my talk page archive. Please note that your lack of willingness to see is not a good ground for content removal.

Just for the record, none of the CALD examples I provided above means "it has already been discussed to death".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record I have not broken 1rr since I have reverted exactly once. Second you inserted the example without any type of discussion, and without the example being backed by a source that states that this example is a common source of confusion. Most words have multiple meanings but that does not mean they should be explicitly mentioned with their own subsection in the MOS. You have not shown that this word is more confusing than any other polysemic words, and you have not gained a consensus for the insertion. These are both good reasons for removal. I am not very interested in looking at your old talkpages archives since they are utterly irrelevant for this discussion. If there is a consensus to include "moot" with a subsection in this MOS page then we can of course include it,. Untill then I think you would do better to produce actual arguments why the word should be included than to continue your veiled ad hominem argumentation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this was added as a misunderstanding. I've never encountered it to mean "worthy of discussion." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

I also never knew it means "not worth discussing" until I came to Wikipedia and saw people writing "it's moot". (Hence this example.) I have checked several dictionaries and none of them say or imply that it means "leave it alone":

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, 11 edition (2008):

1 a : open to question : DEBATABLE b : subjected to discussion : DISPUTED

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 4th edition:

something that has not yet been decided or agreed, and about which people have different opinions

Concise Oxford English Dictionary (from Babylon Ltd., v1.0):

adjective subject to debate or dispute: a moot point.

Which of these say "let's not discuss it"?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The OED (requires subscription) (Third Edition, December 2002, online) is quite clear about the two definitions: its definition (1) is "open to argument, debatable, uncertain" etc.; definition (2) is "(N. Amer. (orig. Law) Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic (Now the usual sense in North America)". The associated nouns for (1) include question, point, problem; for (2) argument, motion, lawsuit, case, question, point.

Merriam-Webster online has (1) debatable, disputed; (2) deprived of practical significance.

Apparently the abridged editions haven't caught up. --Macrakis (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. It has been dropped anyway. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pejorative language

I have noticed that there are a lot of edit wars over pejorative language.

Contentious labels is the section that addresses this most. There are also references to "loaded expressions" and "loaded terms" elsewhere in the article.

I have just come from NPOVN where someone is attempting to categorise Psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. As I state on that board, pejorative language should only be used on Wikipedia when reliable sources say the same AND intend the pejorative meaning, and then only according to due weight. Else you are introducing pejorative meaning when reliable sources don't warrant it ie POV.

It is my opinion that we need much clearer guidelines on this, both here and elsewhere. I'm still new to WP and don't know how this should be approached. WykiP (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your position about not using the PS category for psychoanalysis, but that decision is based on the PS Arbcom. Otherwise psychoanalysis is often described/labeled/characterized as pseudoscience, but that doesn't override the Arbcom decision for using the PS "category" on the article. The Arbcom decision still allows ("requires"... as always ) us to follow the sources, and thus psychoanalysis is listed at the List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. We do document that it is often characterized as pseudoscience, which is not the same as categorizing or classifying it as an absolute pseudoscience. We just document that RS have done so. That doesn't settle the issue at all. Whether it is or is not is another matter entirely. We just follow the sources.

Here is the box used to notify of the PS Arcom decision:

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee created guidelines for how to present pseudoscientific topics in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Neutral point of view as applied to science: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

The four groupings found at WP:PSCI Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Note the first two of the four groupings allow for using the PS Category, but psychoanalysis falls in the third grouping ("questionable science") and we must not use the Category for it. It is even mentioned as an example! We can (and must) still document that some RS (of many types, including scientific skeptics) do call it a pseudoscience. Some of those RS are very notable and controversial, but we still use them, even if we don't like them. That's the Wikipedian way.

BTW, attempts to defend pseudoscientific subjects and fight against the use of the term pseudoscience have been such a problem that the Arbcom has special "discretionary sanctions" for such editors:

So....beware. Editors have been banned or blocked very quickly, and any admin can do it.

As far as pejorative terms, Wikipedia is uncensored and we don't care a flying hoot whether a term is pejorative or not, the only exception being in BLPs. There we are a bit more careful, but even then, if RS use a pejorative term, we use it too, but not in Wikipedia's voice. We use the source's voice, and when doing so we do not censor the source. Editorializing and editorial censorship are very unwikipedian. We must present things in the same manner and spirit as the sources. If a source presents a subject with a bite or punch to it, we try to preserve the source's tone and convey it the way the RS does. Doing otherwise violates proper use of the source and actually misrepresents it. Editors aren't allowed to do that. The same obviously applies if a source is favorable. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, so let's not get into challenging the ARBCOM ruling right now. What can we do on pejorative language aside from that?

Whether or not the ruling is a special case, it does not say that using pejorative language is generally OK. Since the ruling is policy, it will not be overriden by (corrected WykiP (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)) any guidelines we have against (mis)using pejorative language. It doesn't prevent us from making a clearer and more prominent guideline on pejorative language, though it may or may not inform that guideline. So where do we go from here? WykiP (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. We've discussed this many times here. As you may have noticed, the first part of my reply doesn't discuss the "pejorative" issue, but only sheds light on your concerns about the categorization of psychotherapy.

Regarding pejorative terms, that Arbcom decision doesn't directly apply, although the issue may have come up during the proceedings. It's been a number of years, so I don't recall all the details. A search of the proceedings for the word "pejorative" (including common misspellings) might turn up some mentions.

We are obviously not required to use pejorative terms when they are unnecessary, but we should not avoid them when they are the proper term to use. We don't exclude any words in the dictionary from coverage here, nor the concepts and controversies associated with them. The deciding factor is how RS use them. There is no question that the word "pseudoscience" is often used in a decidedly pejorative manner. That is something we should document and not shy away from.

This really freaks out believers in those ideas and practices to which the term is applied, and understandably so, but that is of no concern to us. Using the word in the lede at Homeopathy has probably been the biggest battle of this type. Every true believer and quack has tried to get it deleted, but because it is one of the most notable examples of grossly pseudoscientific piffle, and myriad RS describe it as pseudoscience, we document that fact and don't hide it.

We cannot whitewash Wikipedia articles out of concern for the feelings of such people. We are not allowed to censor reality to appease the feelings of readers or believers in pseudoscience. We must objectively document "the sum total of human knowledge," which is the primary goal of Wikipedia. All existing encyclopedias have been censored, but this is a totally different encyclopedia. Everything notable gets covered here.

There is something in your wording which troubles me, but you may not have meant it as it comes across. Policy always overrides/trumps guidelines, not the other way around. Guidelines are often applications of policy for special circumstances, or they exist because they have not yet become policy, if they ever will. We must not deviate from policy, but guidelines can be applied more liberally, and even ignored if the situation demands it. That's where WP:IAR comes into play.

To make some progress regarding your concerns about the use of pejorative words and phrases, I suggest you propose some wording and see how the community reacts. Get a discussion going here. Just start a new subsection below for discussion of the proposed wording. Good luck! -- Brangifer (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see it was a mistake to mention pseudoscience, let's leave that one to ARBCOM. ;)

You were right, I did indeed mis-edit... and accidentally reversed policy & guidelines. I've corrected it now.

I searched for both pejorative and perjorative. I see dozens of accepted uses of it in arbitration, but I see no discussions about it on a policy or guideline front.

I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia and am frequently getting picked up on rules so please bear with me on my attempts. WykiP (talk) 05:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're doing just fine. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Pejorative language (first draft)

Pejorative language (often misspelled perjorative) includes loaded terms and expressions. It implies connotations or points of view which might not have been intended by the original sources at the time of publication.

Pejorative language should only be used where the inferred pejorative meaning can be reasonably assumed from the sources. Otherwise, neutral language should be used. All pejorative language should be properly sourced and cited inline. Extra care must be taken when using pejorative language in lead sections of articles where connotations can have much more impact.

WykiP (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

An admirable first draft! Good work. I do have some thoughts on the subject that may or may not influence how other editors view this matter. Here they are. The Arbcom doesn't usually get involved in content matters, but I wouldn't rule out some involvement in a matter like this. You could try to contact the Arbcom members and see if they are willing to take on the task, and what procedure to use. The problem would not be "sanctioning pejorative language", but to violate policy by censoring its use. Our de facto position is that we use what RS use. The one area where we are especially careful is with BLPs. We do take some consideration there, unless the individual starts violating policy in attempts to whitewash their article of any properly sourced negative information. In such cases I have seen the article quickly getting more such content that is even better sourced. That's an example of the Streisand effect, a sort of Pyrrhic victory, but without any victory, just a negative outcome caused by their attempts to censor Wikipedia. In the end, if RS use pejorative language, we will likely use it too. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that much of your comment was copied over from WP:NPOVN re: psychoanalysis. I'll respond partly over there and partly here.

As I stated earlier, this is a guideline and therefore cannot overrule ARBCOM nor policy. As such, I used the word "should" as opposed to "must".

The sentence "Pejorative language should only be used where the inferred pejorative meaning can be reasonably assumed from the sources" is the core guideline. I didn't even mention quoting. An example: I recently used "Controversially, X" in a WP article. "Controversially" is pejorative yet was the word used in just one of the sources. However, all the other sources that expressed or implied an opinion, strongly implied that the matter was controversial.

Do you agree with the guideline to inline cite all pejorative language?

From what little I understand, the next step is to RfC this, and then submit it to the Village Pump? WykiP (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear about this. WykiP, could we please have some examples of problems that you see this as fixing? Other than the one above? I'm not convinced that our current guidelines (not just including this one) won't cover them. Does pejorative equate to critical? Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Equate to? Not for me, perhaps you could refine your question. Maybe this will help: pejorative language creates negative associations. Sometimes the association is subconscious. We don't perceive it as critical, but it will colour our thinking regardless. Obviously, pejorative language is sometimes fine in WP articles - but only if those associations are intended by the balance of sources.

NPOV covers it -- it's just not very clear. This Manual of Style covers it but I think this draft is already significantly better. So we're clarifying and possibly simplifying existing guidelines. Perhaps more importantly, it will give editors a resource to refer to before it turns into an edit war, escalates and turns up on a Noticeboard, via a new tag, WP:PEJ?

There are no doubt thousands of examples. Here's an interesting one which might help refine this draft. It is well-known around the world and merely mirrored on Wikipedia: Barack Hussein Obama [1] WykiP (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

An RfC only comes after long discussion has failed to provide a satisfactory collaborative outcome, or if no response has been forthcoming, it can be a way to call attention to the matter and get more participants. The Village Pump never enters these matters. It's just a place to get the opinions of whomever is there. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, next task after this: reduce the learning curve of Wikipedia ;)

"Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal process for requesting outside input concerning disputes, policies, guidelines, article content, or user conduct." (my emphasis) WP:RFC

Obviously, I'd like to bring key Wikipedian's attention to this discussion and I presume something like that is necessary before changing guidelines. So what do you suggest? WykiP (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to start a new thread as an RfC and see what happens. If you need any help, just ask. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

“if RS use a pejorative term, we use it too, but not in Wikipedia's voice.” Brangifer

Pejorative means expressing contempt or disapproval. This doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia's voice, the general text for an article, though RS are free to use the voice they choose. "There are no forbidden words on Wikipedia". Following other guidelines from MoS, such as Contentious_labels, etc. an inline citation, making clear the RS's voice/POV would avoid confusing readers to think that Wikipedia is expressing contempt. Maybe this suggestion is close to second paragraph of Contentious Labels with more attempt at clarity when to keep labels tied to the RS? "in wide use" seems open to POV. Eturk001 (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Merriam defines pejorative more generally, much as I did.[2]

I wholly agree with merging Contentious_labels. Effectively, the suggestion clarifies it and generalises to other forms of language, not just labels. "in-text attribution" is fairly descriptive, however, "inline citation" has an article to explain it better.

You seem to be stating that some parts of Contentious_labels aren't particularly well-written and I would agree with that.

Aside from possibly DougWeller, we seem to have 3 people broadly in favour. As such I will RfC this. WykiP (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller brings up a good point: "Does pejorative equate to critical?" We want the predominant points of view expressed in an article. "Critical" has multiple meanings. There's the sense of "disapproving", which "pejorative" better reflects in English. Wikipedia's voice shouldn't "disapprove" (though editors may personally). We definitely want the other sense of "critical" that is "expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults". Contentious_labels already lists several words in the box, to Dougweller's point of examples. Another word that might be added to the list is "invalid". Adding "pejorative" to CL section guideline, with examples of form can help MoS as few published academics are editors on Wikipedia. It's subtle grammar of Wikipedia disapproving or RS disapproving. We don't want any whitewashing or censorship, just a guideline for how to express an RS POV as opposed to Wikipedia's POV. Using in-text attribution example shows style. This could guide encyclopedic grammatical form rather than Editorializing, which is also in MoS. This addition may further Wikipedia:Systemic_bias-what to do. Eturk001 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Should Wikipedia have a guideline for using pejorative language?

Should Wikipedia have a pejorative language guideline? Please read earlier comments. Is there anything about the draft text which concerns you? WykiP (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would advise putting something in your body, besides "please see discussion above". Anyway, I think "pejorative language" should perhaps be defined before discussed. You do a decent job of it, but it does leave the reader somewhat confused as to exactly what might be considered pejorative language, especially if they're unfamiliar with the term or non-native speakers. Also, it needs some examples. Using the pseudoscience debate would be good. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with this point and as such, I am unwilling to discuss it until it is defined here. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for both of your inputs. The definition, for me, is as simple as "Pejorative language is language which has negative connotations". Merriam-Webstar's definition is somewhat similar.[3]. As regards to the draft, I now think it's missing the word "negative" ie should at least read "It implies connotations or points of view..." WykiP (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• No. Everything problematic is already Wikipedia:Offensive material. Trying to create a a whole new definition for the concept of "pejorative language" will open an unneeded can of worms. Diego (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"can of worms" -- like what? Not sure what Wikipedia:Offensive material has to do with this either. WykiP (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The only reason I can think to regulate pejorative language is because it's offensive, so all the caveats from Wikipedia:Offensive material apply. The can of worms is because every time you introduce new rules, people will have countless arguments about their precise meaning and application, see instruction creep and not a bureaucracy. Diego (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

OK we're not trying to regulate (WP:NORULES), we're trying to guide. This is nothing to do with offensive language, it's about editors trying to (or accidentally) sneaking in a connotation which creates POV.

For example, Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison. It would be technically accurate to call him a criminal. Instead, we call him a "anti-apartheid revolutionary".

If WP existed 25 years ago, some editors would be trying to call him a criminal or a terrorist. The way WP works, if these editors had greater numbers or more experience, they would probably succeed. WykiP (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Any label can be seen as offensive to someone... hell, there are people who object to calling Osama bin Ladin a "terrorist". We should not attempt to make "rules" to settle every dispute or resolve difference of opinion. Sometimes the best way to deal with differences of opinion is simply to hash it out on the article talk page. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe I'm right in saying that the sole purpose of every WP policy and guideline is to help settle disputes and resolve differences of opinion... because WP has WP:NORULES?

Yes, the test is not whether it's offensive to any single person (and perhaps this should be specified?) but whether alternative language can be used that more properly reflects the sources. WykiP (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No / Oppose -- I don't think there is any need to nitpick all of this stuff. It is already covered under WP:NPOV, WP:PROFANE, and/or WP:EQ. Trying to create another policy that reiterates any part of or all of those is a waste of time and would add to the biggest problem that Wikipedia's policy/guideline/essay sections already suffer, which is too much irrelevant redundancy. On most of these policies, trying to read through them is painful as if trying to walk through a battlefield. This leaves much of the point of the guide missed and actually works against the process here in my opinion. Technical 13 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance of WP:PROFANE or WP:EQ. Can you explain? Also, this is a guideline suggestion, not a policy suggestion.

Your redundancy point applies to the whole page. It is an argument for deleting the page but not an argument against improving it.

If the meaning of WP:NPOV is obvious, editors do not need to read this or similar pages, therefore there isn't really too much to read. It's entirely because the meaning of WP:NPOV is either ignored or contested that more clarification is needed.

Lastly, this suggestion could replace WP:LABEL and much of WP:CLAIM. If it simplifies this page, would you be in favour? WykiP (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No -- Wikipedia is not and should never be censored especially just because some people think just thinking about is offensive. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Where is the censorship? The suggestion is clearly about better representing sources. WykiP (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - This appears to be a guideline in search of a problem. You'd have a much easier time finding appropriate clarifying language and getting consensus to insert it into the MoS as a clarification; after all you are at the MoS talk page. From what I can gather your proposal doesn't add anything substantive. Of course we shouldn't be drawing controversial conclusions if they're not supported by a RS--that's already fundamental to our guidelines (and non MoS ones too). I also don't like the blurring of lines between content guidelines and the Manual of Style. I don't think it's your intention, but as the ARBCOM case referenced above demonstrates, this is a substance issue being addressed through something that should be purely procedural. I don't think there's a problem to be addressed, and the ambiguity and potential for abuse isn't worth the risk. Shadowjams (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused by your answer. You seem to be suggesting altering this page but that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

As per whether there's a problem to be solved, I've provided two examples already. Here's a list of some of the times a pejorative language issue gets elevated to WP:DRN[4] and one for WP:ANI [5]. WykiP (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't imagine what's confusing about my response. You're talking about a new guideline; it doesn't matter if it's a new section or a new page, it's all the same. And you apparently didn't register my central point, which is the MoS isn't about substantive issues, nor is there anything necessary about your proposal. It only invites confusion at little to no benefit. Shadowjams (talk) 01:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"MoS isn't about substantive issues" -- I don't understand this point at all.

It seems quite likely that the benefits will be less pejorative language that isn't supported by the sources; fewer edit wars; and fewer DRNs & ANIs. And if it simplifies WP:WORDS, would you then be in favour? WykiP (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

WykiP, the "examples" you've provided are confusing at best. You have provided a link to search results in which some astonishingly ignorant people say that the current US President's middle name is pejorative, and to more search results that prove that DRN and ANI discussions occasionally include the word pejorative.

What we need is a practical example of how your proposed text would solve a specific, concrete problem in a real article. So rather than "Look at all the ignorant people over at Talk:Barack Obama!", show us a diff in which someone actually adds a pejorative word to an article and then show us the dispute-related conversation in which the person resists having it removed explicitly on the grounds that there is no specific rule against using pejorative terms, and so he therefore believes it's just fine. And if you can't provide a specific dispute that would be solved by this addition, then we probably don't need it and I will therefore oppose it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

One can argue that we don't need most of MoS. The question is whether a pejorative guideline could make Wikipedia better.

Unfortunately, I'm unable to access old DRN comments -- they get closed. I find it very very difficult to believe that experienced editors don't see this problem and so I don't know where all the opposition is coming from.

The Barack Hussein Obama example is pretty clear. An edit war raged for years over people trying to make his article title (and name) pejorative.

For what it's worth, I was prompted by the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_39#Psychoanalysis_and_the_pseudoscience_category over the use of the word pseudoscience, as Eturk001 mentions below.

If you can show me how to access old DRNs, I'll put in the effort to find you a nice example, but a single editor shouldn't have to go through all this to get some decent feedback on a suggestion. WykiP (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Obama example isn't clear. His name is not a pejorative term. The name means good or handsome, neither of which are considered insults in any language or culture that I've ever heard of.

DRNs are archived. This shows a list of search results containing the word pejorative. Closed DRNs are hatted, so you'll have to click [show] to read them.

The WP:pseudoscience example is also not helpful, because we already have specific rules about that particular word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any problem our existing rules don't cover. If one finds instances of pejorative words being used, in Wikipedia's voice, without any sourcing, that can be fixed by adding sources. As to words like pseudoscience and quackery, they are very offensive to believers, so we always use them with RS. In instances where the mainstream consensus is that something is pseudoscience, we can use the term in Wikipedia's voice if it is covered in Arbcom's first group (of the four groupings found at Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience). The second group also allows that information and use of the PSI category. We can still document use the term for subjects in the third group, but not in Wikipedia's voice and the subject must not be placed in the PSI category.:

1. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. For example, since the universal scientific view is that perpetual motion is impossible, any purported perpetual motion mechanism (such as Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) should be treated as pseudoscience.

2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.

If you ever find examples where this Arbcom ruling is violated, our existing rules allow editors to fix the problem by adding sources, but not by removing the word "pseudoscience" or removing the subjects inclusion in Category:Pseudoscience (if the subject is covered in groups one and two). There are "discretionary sanctions" for editors who do that. Pushers and defenders of pseudoscience and quackery, which obviously includes those who don't like those pejorative words being used, are not tolerated well here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral/undecided -- Needs better wording or may not be a useful addition. I'm coming here from the NPOV Noticeboard discussion 'Psychoanalysis and the pseudoscience category'. I've watched this discussion a little but not sure a MoS clarification can be added or worded well to really add something. Worse yet, just using the word "pseudoscience" to clarify one possible example risks incivility appearing. This is the nature of pejorative language.

I used the term pejorative on that Noticeboard discussion to delineate opinion or O.R. being written in Wikipedia's voice vs. what authors actually state. Pejorative language can be a quick red flag that an editor may be editorializing and the citation/article needs to be reviewed. The example I gave was the editor posting the notice wanted to "categorize" psychoanalysis as "pseudoscience", [They cited 10 authors] who supposedly labeled psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. I took the time to review the citations, and other than Popper, the classic citation, the other citations had not stated this term. Science rarely uses pejoratives. Some of the citations didn't even use the word psychoanalysis in the text. Again, I hate to speak the word "psuedoscience" as an example for one might think I said "Beetlejuice". It seems a holy word now. The point: Pejorative means "expressing contempt or disapproval and "intended to disparage or belittle" Should belittling ever be the voice of Wikipedia or any encyclopedia? "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" If an editor uses pejorative language, expressing their disapproval, when authors have not used the word directly, we're in OR land or are an opinion blog. If a word is pejorative, it ought to be in the voice of the author, inline quotations. And surely one doesn't use a pejorative like pseudoscience because they've imagined what 10 authors said, but didn't. Contentious labels already states "The prefix pseudo- indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable." Adding pejorative in reference to Wikipedia's voice and accuracy of reporting without publishing original thought would be useful. I just don't see the sentence that can be added. We're not censoring authors. Just helping editors understand adding their own disapproval isn't encyclopedic. Adding a pejorative label could help editor watch for editorializing by saying things citations just don't say.

P.S. The Chicago Manual of Style is quite large and has added greatly to literature and high quality journalism. I'd say adding one sentence to help editors learn encyclopedic style is a small cost to benefit humanity with impeccable, accurate, writing. Eturk001 (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I see no need for this. Our existing policies and guidelines are good enough. We already know that RS determine what words we use, especially controversial ones, and unsourced editorializing, whether unduly positive or negative, is not appropriate. This really adds nothing. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Deceased" is much like "passed away", yes?

Should we generally consider "deceased" a euphemism, and generally use "dead" in its place? If the below discussion is dauntingly long, see the summary subsection (at least for an overview). If you'd prefer reading more, you could check out where this issue originated InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Per this etymology site, "deceased" is basically the same as "passed away", in that it implies a departure (of the soul, one would presume), going down/away. This source explictly says the Latin root "decessus" is a euphemism for "mors" (death), and that the word is still used with a "tinge" of euphemism today. So should we recommend avoiding it here, in favour of "dead"? I say certainly. "Dead" is also twice as concise. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Deceased" conveys an objective cessation of life. "Euphemism" is incorrect. The quality being referred to as "euphemism" is actually respect and dignity accorded a human for whom one can presumably experience emotion. "Dead" is also correct but it may dispense with some of the niceties which "deceased" may retain. "Passed away" may be euphemism due to what I think is its indirectness. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the terms are comparable as euphemisms, and I think that using deceased is fine. It doesn't really matter whether something was considered a euphemism a few centuries ago. Toilet was a euphemism a couple of centuries ago; it's not now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a root word. Whatever words have grown from it still carry the same aspects of "departure", and are still euphemisms for the words that sprang from "mors". The "mors words" are about ceasing life, the "decessus words" are about ceding life. Presuming we leave Earth when we die is basically original research (though it is a nicer thought for survivors). We can cite speculation about it, but no facts exist to prove or disprove it. Saying someone is dead, without hinting where the life went, is much better. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Would it be inappropriate to say that a well-known atheist was "deceased"? It would not, because "deceased" carries with it no religious implications. Bus stop (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's slightly wrong to call any dead person deceased. But yeah, probably moreso if the atheist in question believed his soul/brain would stay in his body (till it decomposed, anyway). Religion aside, the words "go", "cede" and "depart" strongly suggest leaving, at the time of death. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree; as an atheist, I would find someone saying that I "passed away" (if I were somehow there to read it) slightly offensive.  — TORTOISEWRATH 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy already suggests that we not use "passed away". Bus stop (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not policy, Bus stop. But your point is noted. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but irrelevant: the question is whether you would be offended to have someone refer to you as "the deceased editor, TortoiseWrath" or to say "This change was made by a recently deceased editor"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, what was "toilet" a euphemism for? I see that it used to mean cloth or bag for clothes, and then a changing room with what we call a toilet today in it. But I'm a bit lost on where the sugarcoating is. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Toilet used to mean "getting dressed", an action, not "a device used for pooping and peeing". For example, an old etiquette book said, "A lady or gentleman should finish their toilet before entering the room for dancing, as it is indecorous in either to be drawing on their gloves, or brushing their hair."[6] Dressing rooms did not always contain places convenient for bodily functions; in a house party, the "dressing room" was a bedroom the rest of the time. The word toilet comes from a piece of cloth that the combs, brushes, cosmetics, etc. were spread out on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment When I think of deceased, I think of it as the singular form of dead, which I use as a plural. "(S)He is deceased" vs. "They are all dead". That might be just me though. Passed away doesn't necessarily mean deceased or dead to me. "The bottle of beer was passed away by her to her friend." Technical 13 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I am also atheist, and I am fine with use of "deceased." I would even be fine with my family using "passed away" to refer to my death. Since they are religious (believe in God as the topic relates to Christianity, though they are not strictly religious), I know that they would also want me to have a religious type of funeral and burial. I don't consider the word "deceased" to be religious, and Wikipedia uses it for tags and categories in relation to Wikipedians who have died; see Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The wordings "dead people" and "dead Wikipedians" somehow sound colder than "deceased people" and "deceased Wikipedians." Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"I see dead Wikipedians." — unsigned...

LOL, Technical 13, it's like you read my mind! I considered stating that I often can't think of the words "dead people" without thinking of "I see dead people!" Instead, I decided that I would note that fact if someone replied to my comment about "dead" vs. "deceased." And so here I am again. Flyer22 (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... Well you set it up, I just tossed it out there. Figured someone would get a laugh... Technical 13 (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I came back to note here that I never thought about the words "passed away" as being religious until this discussion. I'm sure that a lot of non-religious people use that wording. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Flyer22. Our wording refers to "softener". I think that also relates to "indirectness". Some of these terms are more direct and some more indirect. But I don't think any of the terms we have been discussing suggest anything about religious beliefs. Bus stop (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, "deceased" or "passed away" aren't necessarilly religious. But they are intentionally softer. "Dead" means the person isn't alive, "deceased" means the dead person has left to go somewhere. It's comforting, therefore sugarcoated. But we don't know if it's true. The soul might remain in the body till decomposition, just like a brain or kidney. "Dead" makes no presumptions about what happens after death, and doesn't preclude anything. Instead of having me repeat myself, please see my points in this discussion. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Deceased is to cease living. I see no presumption in the word of what may or may not happen after death. I honestly do not see it as any softer than dead, either. It is simply a synonym for dead (as the redirect from Deceased to Death implies). Wikt:deceased says it simply means dead. Merriam Webster, Dictionary.com, and The Free Dictionary all also so that it is simply a more formal word for dead. None of them make any reference to any "assumptions" or "presumptions" of anything further. Technical 13 (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Dictionary.com, Merriam and Wiktionary define the noun as "departure from life" and the verb "to depart life". All agree it is a form of "decessus", which is noted in my first link as a euphemism for "mors" (death),and "still used with a tinge of euphemism". They agree it still contains "de-" and "cede" ("go down"), and not "cease" as we use it alone. We have different words in most languages, centuries later, for the very reason that one has a subtly different meaning. One allows for the possibility of recycling here on Earth, reanimation, oblivion and departure. The euphemism, only departure. Clear as day to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd also not given it much thought, and just assumed that it meant something like "ceased existing" or "ceased living". That should be entirely compatible with an atheistic POV. (The formality of the word actually makes it preferable: encyclopedias are supposed to use formal-sounding words.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, "cease" is a transformation of "cede" (go), as in "proceed", "concede", "recede", "decedent", "predecessor" (in the political sense) and others. Our Manual of Style says plain English works best. "Dead" is briefer, clearer and more straightforward. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know how to read an etymology statement, too, but I'm telling you this fact: before I spent any time thinking about it, I (incorrectly) assumed that it had more to do with "ending" than with "going down (about six feet below, in most Western countries)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I feel that this is needless quibbling. But I take it that you would also prefer that Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines be titled "Wikipedia:Dead Wikipedians/Guidelines" and use the word "dead" in place of "deceased" for its guidelines? Flyer22 (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't hold categories, talk pages, essays and guidelines or whatever else you find in an "Everything" search to the same standard as article content. I don't think we're meant to, anyway. Whatever they want to do there is fine by me. "Deceased" is nicer, being a euphemism and all, and we treat our fellow editors (dead or alive) more personally than we should objectively view our article subjects. You'll notice those guidelines say a memorial is cool, but our article guidelines say memorials are not cool. A dead Wikipedian's page stays up as a "symbolic gesture of respect", but a dead subject's article can be removed for notability or verifiability reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't consider "deceased" as an euphemism for "dead"; it's an alternative name for it, but that doesn't make it an euphemism. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Think of it this way, considering the after-death possibilities I listed. You're at a funeral, and have to offer some condolence to the widow. Do you tell her you're sorry, but at least he'll become a worm or maggot? Or at least he'll possibly raise later to drink blood? Or at least every trace of what made him "him" is utterly obliterated? Or at least his spirit is bound to haunt the place he died? Nope. You say he's gone to a better place. "Decease" doesn't imply "better" on its own, but the gone part's the same. Much softer. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of verifiability, how does this rule sound? A subject should only be described as "deceased" provided a reliable source explicitly refers to them as such. Assuming they have departed rather than vanished or stayed is original research and may be seen as not presenting a neutral point of view.

That seems fair, I think. Verifiability, not truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think one could just as easily cherry-pick the wp:rs to suit their preference. And you will find plenty of wp:rs that use the various euphemisms as well. My76Strat (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a caveat saying that a source for "deceased" would overrule a source for the less-precise "dead"? All deceased people are dead, but not all dead people are deceased (as far as anyone knows). It would be like how a source calling something an octagon is better than one calling it a polygon. Detail is good, but not unsourced detail. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how it can be stated that "not all dead people are deceased." I understand that you feel that "deceased" can suggest an afterlife, but I don't. Flyer22 (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If your soul/personality/awareness is a physical object (a piece of brain, for example), it'll stay in the body, not depart anywhere. If it's like energy, it will simply stop being produced (like ATP). If life is recycled like organic material, it'll only depart once a mouse eats it and uses it to fuel a litter. Never really leaves the "land of the living". If ghosts haunt our world, they haven't left, either. If our personal faith in the afterlife has an effect on what happens next, then some dead people decease, and some don't. If there's an absolute rule, we have no consensus on what that is. But whatever the case of the soul, the person is dead. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I do not consider deceased to be a euphemism at all. It is plain language, without ambiguity, and does not favor any particular group over another. Concision is measured by much more than counting characters. It is also about the sentiments conveyed in choosing the words that constitute your prose. Dead is and has always been an absolute condition. It conveys the sentiment that nothing else is possible. Deceased is the clear absence of life though it carries sentiments of the era after death, without suggesting what that might be. Euphemisms like passed, departed, resting, and similar likes, carry sentiments of absolute animate activity after death. The absolutes at each end of the language spectrum themselves favor deceased as a more neutral form of the concept. IMO, My76Strat (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that "decease" doesn't suggest where they go, but it does suggest that they do not stay. Actually, it does suggest they go "down", if you want to get overly literal. The word's from a time when most people figured everyone went to the underworld, but considering it in modern terms, it may also be as an anti-euphemism (or whatever it's called). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• • We must not choose our language based on the premise that there might be a god. We base it on what we know for certain. If someone is dead, that's it. They're dead. HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Deceased does not imply a religious perspective and it is not a euphemism, it is a perfectly plain yet respectful way of referring to dead people. Also: etymology is not meaning. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, but we've got a few dictionaries agreeing that "decease" is currently a noun and verb meaning departure from life, and breaking down the parts of the word. And they say "deceased" is "decease" with an "-ed" tacked on. That's meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No, that is nonsense. Deceased is neither a verb nor a noun it is an adjective and it means "dead". There is a verb but it is almost never used, and is basically irrelevant. You're on a ridiculous ideological crusade against a perfectly good and harmless English word. Give it a rest. You need a VERY good reason to try to ban p0eople from using ordinary English vocabulary and here you have no reason at all.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's as irrelevant as "tire" is to "tired", or "fly" is to "flew". I have several very good reasons why it's inappropriate, and won't retype them. Not on a banning "crusade" against this poor, innocent word, either. At least not anymore. Just asking it be sourced. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• • You contradict yourself. We know for a certainty that there might be a god and it's not wrong to acknowledge that certainty. It is wrong to mollycoddle the group that wants to teach "someone is dead, that's it." Deceased allows for both. My76Strat (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If we wanted to mollycoddle the ultrafinalists (probably not a word), we'd probably use "demised" (an actual word, suggesting the type of death I think you think "death" does.) It also just sounds worse, like something only slimy despised misers become. Basically the opposite of "mollycoddle" onomatopoeically. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed Merriam-Webster's "Learner's Dictionary" entry. In the usage notes, it says: "Dead and deceased both mean “no longer living,” but deceased is a gentler term, and people often use it when the person who died was close to them or when they are talking to someone who knew the person who died."

It also defines "euphemism" as a mild or pleasant word or phrase that is used instead of one that is unpleasant or offensive, and "gentle" as not strong or harsh in effect or quality.

Do we have a higher authority on words than Merriam-Webster? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you please point to an actual example in article space in which you feel that "deceased" should be changed to "dead"? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question, which I should have asked myself first. A quick search shows this isn't nearly as widespread a problem as I'd assumed. Fixed a bit in the Boston bombing article already. Cemetery seems a place to start, since it already uses a redirecting Wikilink. I'd visit the funeral home, too. List of deceased American comic book characters and Yorick could use it, even if they're fictional. Jewish honorific for the deceased is already properly redirected, but still uses the word (here, we could just use "them"). List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science seems like a group that probably doesn't generally believe in departure.

Wolfgang Bauer (deceased writer) doesn't seem a useful redirect. I don't suggest we touch Deceased (band). Basically, wherever "dead" works better, for clarity (which we still seem to be a bit fuzzy on) or for avoiding euphemism (which is hopefully clear to all now). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think that "deceased" is not a euphemism, but a difference in focus, in most instances. For example, the disposition of property of the deceased is indeed based on the fact that they left - it wouldn't matter if they died or rode a flying saucer to heaven in Central Park, the point is, they're gone, and somebody has to figure out what to do with their stuff. In the case that started this, I think it is quite reasonable to speak of a memorial scholarship named after a deceased student, because people commemorate the student's absence, not her body. However, a coroner determines a body is dead, not deceased (it didn't get up and walk away!), people are killed and left dead by an attack, etc. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflicted with you on my last comment. Guess we're not all clear on the euphemism part, after all. I know this section has gotten a bit long, but if you just scan for the blue words, you'll see that two reliable sources say it's a euphemism. In legal contexts (wills and taxes and whatnot), deceased is more appropriate, if a bit jargony. An absense is not the same as a departure. If the person stays in their tomb, they're still absent from college, but not departed from where we left them (or from life, if recycling is true). If they're utterly destroyed, they're absent, but didn't go anywhere. Also, Webster defines memorial as "serving to preserve remembrance" or "relating to memory". Nobody remembers her from the time she wasn't there. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, not nobody. Growing up in a funeral home, I saw quite a few of my neighbours in ways Mr. Rogers wouldn't recommend. Seeing someone opened on a table sticks with you more than passing them on the street. So we can sometimes remember the dead. But, in a school's case, they remember the living. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that you're going to find support for this proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I make an excellent case. And there's another editor up there who prefers "dead". This is getting too long to read, though. I think I'll summarize the points and do a Request for Comment. Not today, though. Maybe tomorrow. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You say "And there's another editor up there who prefers 'dead'."[7] Which editor are you referring to? Bus stop (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48. Seems that way, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You may be right—I hadn't noticed that post by HiLo48. I was anticipating you would say TORTOISEWRATH, who I do not think clearly supports your position. Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

No, not clearly. I tend to assume he means he wouldn't want someone saying something to the effect of he "passed away", but those quotation marks suggest otherwise. If there's one thing I've noticed about tortoises, it's that when they speak, they speak in riddles. I count him as "undecided" for now. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I just spent 20 minutes reading this entire thread, largely out of curiosity. Two things are apparent (to me, anyway). First, the editor who started this thread misapprehends the relationship of word derivations (etymology, that is) and present definitions of words. The meaning of words evolve over time, gaining and losing subtle nuances in different contexts. Attempting to impart the original, literal meaning of the Latin root word to a present-day English word is an error in logic and etymology. Whether a present-day English word is derived from Anglo-Saxon low German, Latin, Norman French, Greek or other foreign language (or some combination thereof), very rarely does the present-day definition match the exact definition of the ancient predecessor root word. Arguing about the correct meaning of a present-day English word based upon the exact meaning (or meanings) of an ancient Latin word is a mistake. A word in present-day English means what it means now, not what its Latin predecessor word meant 1,500 or 2,000 years ago.

Second, "deceased" is not a euphemism or a metaphor. In 20th Century English, it literally means dead; the Merriam-Webster etymology notwithstanding, the word has no hidden meaning, religious or otherwise. In my profession, "deceased" is simply a slightly more formal, legalistic way of saying "dead." Like most commonly used Anglo-American legal terms, it originates not from Latin directly, but indirectly through Norman French (sometimes referred to as Law French). So, if one were to attempt to link the meaning of the present-day English word to its original meaning at the time it was imported into English, logically one would seek to understand the nuances of its meaning in Norman French post-1066, not its Latin root word in 250 BC, 43 AD, 476 AD, 1453 or present-day church Latin. While intellectually interesting, none of those searches for original meaning(s) change the fact that the meanings of words evolve over time, and the present-day definition of a word in English may only be tangentially linked to the meaning(s) of its ancient Latin root word.

Bottom line: in the here and now, "deceased" means "dead." Nothing more, nothing less. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster doesn't just say "decease" used to mean "departure from life", those are the first three words of the current definition. You could say the adjective "deceased" is technically a different word, but that's iffy. The old French word has the same meaning as the Latin and English euphemisms. Two reliable sources call it a euphemism, and others a "more formal" word (i.e., not plain English) Are there any that say it isn't? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of American English -- noun: "a person who has died"; adjective: "dead; no longer living".

Oxford English Dictionary -- noun: "the recently dead person in question"; adjective: "recently dead".

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.) -- noun: "a dead person"; adjective: "no longer living; dead".

Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.) -- noun: "a dead person".

None of the foregoing mention the words euphemism or metaphor. I think all four would be considered reliable sources per WP:RS. Moreover, the Latin infinitive decedere literally means "to depart," but can have multiple connotations and shades of meaning depending on the context, including "to depart life." Several of the sources above confirm that the English word "deceased" was not derived directly from Latin, however, but from what they call "Old French," i.e., Norman French. Methinks you are beating a departed horse. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough that a source doesn't note something other sources do. Should note the opposite. Several sources also don't note Abraham Lincoln is dead. But yes, good definitions. Note they all use "dead", though, which would work just as well, without any connotations of departure. Departing life precludes the possibility that life is continuously recycled through decomposition and growth, or that ghosts exist. The French word, décès, is the same deal. "de-" + "cede" = "go away" (basically). I'm no vet, but this is a perfectly healthy horse I'm riding. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, the online version of Merriam-Webster's simply defines "deceased" when used as an adjective as "no longer living; especially : recently dead —used of persons "; and when used as a noun as "a dead person". The online version does not mention a "departure from life". Please see here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But it also says it's "decease" + "ed". Not synthesis to make that jump, I imagine. And still indicative of how "dead" would work just as well, even if you think "deceased" is fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• If there is a dispute about which word to use, consider the reliable source that is cited for the info and use the same word that is used by the reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If the source says "Johnny Oldman died Monday, at 106" or "Johnny Bulletproof was killed by a pitbull", which would be the appropriate adjective? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to clarify your point, but in the meantime I'll try to answer. In the two hypothetical examples you gave, it's not clear that deceased or dead would be considered for the corresponding Wikipedia material, so there wouldn't be a question of whether to use deceased or dead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's an actual example, from where this issue arose. This source says Lingzi Lu "was killed" and "died". If we wanted to use this to say the school established a scholarship for the _____ student, which adjective would best reflect those sourced verbs? I say "dead" is closer to "died" than "deceased" is. Most times (in news stories and obits), the verbs are all we're given. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For your real example, I made a real edit.[8] Considering your example, I would change my original remark to, "If there is a dispute about which word to use, consider the reliable source that is cited for the info and use wording along the lines of the wording used by the reliable source." --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A tad wordy, but specific and directly verifiable. I won't contest it, or your revised rule. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary for people with busy lives

Good discussion above, but its length is probably discouraging to new readers. Here's the TLDR version:

• • Points for using "deceased"

• It means the same as "dead", but with dignity and respect. "Dead" does not retain these niceties, and sounds colder.
• The euphemistic qualities of the original words no longer apply, similar to "toilet".
• Etymology is not definition.
• It sounds more formal.
• It carries no religious implications, and non-religious people use it.
• It is used in Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians
• "Dead" is too final, and suggests there is no possibility of afterlife. "Deceased" allows the possibility.
• It is irrelevant to the verb and noun "decease".
• It is used in legal contexts regarding property.

• • Points for using "dead"

• It is clear and simple plain English, and twice as concise, even if all else was equal.
• "Deceased" is a euphemism [9], [10]
• Wikipedia's article on Euphemism, linked to on this page, uses "deceased" as an example for death, since before January 2007.
• "Deceased" is very closely related to "decease", defined as "departure" or "departure from life", implying a deceased person is one who has departed.
• "Dead" is neutral, allowing for the possibilities that nothing about the person goes anywhere at the time of death, while also allowing that it might.
• Presuming a person "deceased" when a source merely says they "died" or are "dead" is original research.
• It is not a cold or cruel word, only seems so by its lack of warmth, compared to the reassuring certainty of euphemisms.
• "Deceased" is slightly offensive to some atheists.

I tried to be objective, but if anyone from the other side wants to edit any points, that only seems fair. But please keep it brief, and use the long section above for any further argument. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Positions on RfC

• Oppose. On the question of the RFC, "Should we generally consider 'deceased' a euphemism, and generally use 'dead' in its place?", I oppose the proposed change. I believe that both words, deceased and dead, are perfectly acceptable and may be used interchangeably. Notwithstanding the Inedible Hulk's best efforts above, I am not at all convinced that "deceased" has the connotation of "departure" in modern English or that it has some pseudo-religious meaning that is or should be offensive to atheists, agnostics or anyone else. "Deceased" is just another synonym for "dead," and it surely beats "pushin' up daisies" for encyclopedia articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Probably obvious, but per all the points in the summary above and everything else I've said here. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: The only one suggesting that "deceased" offers a possibility of afterlife as opposed to "dead" not offering such a thing, if it exists, is IncHulk himself as far as I can tell. There is no euphemism here, the two words mean exactly same thing other than deceased is more formal, professional (as in used as a legal reference), and the better option when referring to a single decedent. I think that dead is only more appropriate when referring to groups of dead or when it is part of a direct quote such as "99 dead in plane crash." Thank you, have a nice day. Technical 13 (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a huge deal, but I'm InHulk. No relation to IncHulk or copyright infringement intended. You'll notice I responded with a polite small correction, not by throwing a tank through your house. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not worried about you bulleting my post (I came back to do it myself anyways, but you had already done it). I've also struck through the c in IncHulk above, I hope this works for you... Technical 13 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Deceased" is objective language which speaks directly about the subject at hand and should be used in encyclopedia writing as a reference to the cessation of life, also known as "death". Bus stop (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "decease" is a fine word, not a euphemism, but generally considered a respectful way to talk about the dead. Using "dead" wholesale instead of deceased risks offending many more people than the odd couple of atheists who don't know that a words meaning is not its etymology. Also regulating other peoples language use requires a really good rationale - here is none. 03:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

You confuse me when you say it's considered a respectful way to speak of the dead, and that "dead" is basically the same, but potentially offensive. That describes a euphemism, to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you dont know what the word euphemism means. It is not a euphemism to call someone sir or mr. instead of dude or bro, but it will often be considered more respectful.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Euphemism", in the context of our discussion, may merely refer to erring on the side of "indirectness". We can just as easily contemplate that the word "death" may err on the side of "directness". The word "deceased" may be appropriately positioned to avoid "mealy mouthedness" while still maintaining an appropriate degree of "directness". I am not ruling out the word "death". They are similar in sensibilities as well as meaning. But I am distinguishing between the two. Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Dead" is dead center, dead level, dead serious. The "departed" and "deceased" are on the bright side, and the "destroyed" and "obliviated" are on the dark side (even though plenty of Tales from the Darkside episodes are about ghosts). "Dead" is only offensive because it doesn't promise the bright side. It doesn't suggest the dark side, either. It's cool, but not cold. Like an objective word should be. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no promise whatsoever inherent in "deceased" except in your mind. Also you have had 'plenty of chance to argue your case above, so perhaps you could desist from badgering those who post their !votes in this section with your dead horse beating stick?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Not badgering, asking for clarity. But yeah, we don't want this getting long. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite the distinctions that we can point to, "dead" and "deceased" are so similar in meaning that both are acceptable for encyclopedia writing. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose context and editorial judgement are the only factors in determining which of the plain language synonyms to use. Nothing about deceased falls under "Words to watch". My76Strat (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a Wikilink here, "avoid euphemisms", in a section about euphemisms, following "died is neutral and accurate". In that article (for at least six years), it says "Deceased is a euphemism for dead". It falls under "Words to Watch" that way. Sorry for "badgering" again, but needed to note that, since I hadn't above, aside from point form. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk—we should avoid words and phrases that can possibly be misunderstood. "Passed away" may not mean "died". But "deceased" cannot possibly mean anything other than "died". Bus stop (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Except "departed", as the dictionaries have shown. What can be misunderstood about "dead"? If it is clear enough to use in a definition for "deceased", it should be clear enough for readers to read directly, skipping the "middleman". One word means "dead and gone", one means "dead" and presumes no further. You acknowledge distinctions yourself, by saying despite them, both are acceptable. In a way, we agree, just not on whether to set a rule in stone. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

InedibleHulk—"deceased" means "no longer living". Both "dead" and "deceased" mean "no longer living". You are saying that we agree. I'm sorry but we do not agree. The two words can be used interchangeably. I don't think we even have to look to sources as Bob K31416 suggests here. Under most circumstances I would insist on adhering closely to actual words used by sources. But there is no meaningful distinction between "deceased" and "dead". Note that the section on Euphemisms is a subsection of the section on Expressions that lack precision. The problem is not "the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt", but rather imprecision. Imprecision means that words and phrases can be misunderstood. Consider the examples given by dictionary.com. For instance to pass away does not have to mean to die. Another example: to sleep with does not have to mean to have sexual intercourse with. Another example: departed does not have to mean dead. Another example: relieve oneself does not have to mean urinate. Another example: rest room does not have to mean toilet. Can you say that deceased does not have to mean no longer living? Of course not. We are concerned with imprecision. There is no possibility of misunderstanding. When we wish to say that a person is no longer living we can say that they are dead or deceased. Bus stop (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

We agree both words convey the "no longer living" part. We agree all "deceased" people are necessarilly dead. We disagree on whether they also must be departed, per that extra word in the definition that "dead" doesn't have. Dead is less precise, but imprecision's good when we're not sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Fire crews had surrounded most of the blaze with plowed furrows, and it was 95% contained..."[11] ....and then there's natural selection in Wikipedia. "Put 'em up. Put 'em up." --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I am being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I don't think "deceased" means "departed". Of course, if a person is "deceased", that person has clearly "departed" from the group of people known as the living. But by the same token "dead" people can be said to have "departed" from the group of people known as the living. These are two virtually synonymous words with slightly differing usages. We don't need any language in our manual of style to distinguish between them. The distinction is too subtle to formulate meaningful rules for usage. You posted "If there is a dispute about which word to use, consider the reliable source that is cited for the info and use wording along the lines of the wording used by the reliable source."[12] This would be true in other instances but I don't think it matters in this instance. Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Bus stop, Re "If there is a dispute about which word to use, consider the reliable source that is cited for the info and use wording along the lines of the wording used by the reliable source" and your comment "I don't think it matters in this instance" — Part of the purpose of policies and guidelines is to prevent or settle conflicts in editing. This is especially important when a considerable amount of editor effort is being expended in debate, rather than article editing. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that we are concerned with the potential for misunderstanding, and there is none here. A Manual of Style does not tell us how to speak in the sense that it doesn't nail down every possibility. We are allowed discretion. Even if a source uses one of these terms, in most cases we can use the other. So you don't really want to be saying that we should follow the example set by our reliable source. Our aim here should not be to "settle conflicts"[13]. The two words are not identical in meaning although they are very close in meaning. The biggest difference I notice is that non-human things are more likely to be called "dead" and human things are more likely to be called "deceased". But there is ample crossover: there are deceased caterpillars as well as dead humans. (I did a Google search for "deceased caterpillars". Poor caterpillars. I am shedding a tear.) I am obviously giving greatest weight to usage as concerns this discussion. I feel the two terms are interchangeable enough to obviate any need for guidance in our Manual of Style. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I read and considered your message, and I'll stand by my previous message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The word "deceased" is not a euphemism as an adjective, it's a synonym of "dead." More importantly, not only is it not a euphemism in its nominalized form, i.e. "the deceased", but it's exceedingly concise, useful, and difficult to replace.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment is "brown bread" and enuphanism or just not encyclopaedic? I personally do not think that deceased is an enuphanism for dead, I think it is an alternative. There is a danger here of stifling writing style by imposing a narrow POV held by some editors about what words mean and how they are used. -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment "nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide; civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage" As I have repeatedly raised on this talk page "ethnic cleansing" has a specific meaning and while it may include "mass murder or genocide" both those terms also has specific meaning under international humanitarian law and it is no more a euphemism to use "ethnic cleansing" for "genocide" than it is to use "genocide" for "ethnic cleansing" (both substitutions are wrong). Similarly "civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage" is a nonsense as "collateral damage" has a specific meaning and "civilian casualties" may or may not be "collateral damage". The phrase could just as easily be "collateral damage should not be masked as civilian casualties" and have as much meaning as current wording does. -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  I agree that the collateral damage/ethnic cleansing/mass murder/genocide problem is inadequately explained. I've tried to address it repeatedly in the past, but DCGeist reverted it. Perhaps it's time to try again. There's no good reason not to educate our editors about the fact that these words, which are sometimes tossed about carelessly in lower-quality or politically biased sources, actually have different meanings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• I oppose InedibleHulk's effort to ban the word deceased based on his etymological fallacy. I do not understand why this conversation has gone on so long. There is no realistic hope of getting support for this odd idea of what the word means in this century. We are basically wasting everyone's time with this RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"Wasting everyone's time" is part of the function of Wikipedia. Since we are, as you say, fulfilling that function, we aren't actually wasting time. We're getting the job done!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a waste of time. Regardless of the outcome, we now have a record of opinions on the matter that other editors can consider if the issue arises in article space. I may not have support for making it a explicit point in the MoS, but most of these oppose votes agree the two words are mostly the same, aside from respectfullness and formality. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WhatamIdoing above, saying that deceased holds the meaning of "departing (to another place)" is as incorrect as saying that a cellar (from Old French salier) must necessarily contain salt. The point above, 'presuming a person "deceased" when a source merely says they "died" or are "dead" is original research' seems like utter nonsense to me. Is it also original research if I say that because Patrick Stewart is an adult male, that he is also a man? While "deceased" and "dead" have different connotations (one is a bit softer and more formal), they are very nearly synonyms, and "deceased" does not imply anything that "dead" does not already. This whole thing is silly. In a manual of style, "deceased" should actually be preferred to "dead" for recently dead/deceased individuals. Imagine a news article: "Jeremy Smith was killed in a car wreck yesterday. The dead 24-year-old leaves behind two sisters and a mother." This is jarring, not really due to the harsher "dead" being used, but rather because that's not common usage. Common usage and modern English prefer the word "deceased" in that kind of situation. Arathald (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

A man is an adult male, and deceased are those who are dead and gone. If we just know someone is an adult or a male, we can't be sure if they're a man. Same for those we know are dead or gone. Tiny Tim is "dead". Jimmy Hoffa is "gone". The Lion King's dad (though fictional) is deceased, because we know he died and was later in the sky. I appreciate your opinion, and am not trying to change it. Just trying to clarify mine. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this isn't really a matter of opinion, but one of definition. "Deceased" means "dead", not "dead and <x>". Tiny Tim is deceased (also dead). Jimmy Hoffa is presumed deceased (dead). Mufasa is dead (also deceased). You're trying to attribute extra meaning to the word "deceased" which simply doesn't exist in modern English. Arathald (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

"Deceased" is just "decease" with an "-ed". Transforms it from a verb and noun to an adjective, but doesn't change the meaning from dead and departed. Clearly not an exact synonym when one word has the other in its modern definition, plus another. Why do you think we've kept both for so long, through many different languages, if they didn't serve different purposes? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You're arguing with the assumption that I agree with how you're defining "decease", which I also think is flawed. In practical usage, I don't think anyone (except maybe a poet playing off of archaic meanings) uses the two terms to mean different things. If I'm an atheist and I say 'deceased', I'm not implying the existence of an afterlife. If I'm a theist (or anyone who believes in life after death, or any semblance of departing the body to somewhere else), and I say 'dead', I'm not implying the nonexistence of an afterlife. Arguing that the words must necessarily mean substantively different things because otherwise, we wouldn't have multiple words for them, is a flawed premise, and misunderstands the organic nature of languages. In an ideal created language, this would certainly be the case. In English, though (and in any naturally evolved language), we have many words for the same concept that mean substantially the same thing -- "happy" and "glad", "angry" and "mad" (which have converged in modern English to be synonyms), "drink" and "imbibe" (and, in many contexts, "consume", which while more general, doesn't imply anything more than "drink" does). In the same way, like I explained before, "deceased" is a synonym of "dead" that fits, stylistically, better in certain contexts without providing any additional implications. Arathald (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not my definition, it's Random House and Merriam-Webster's. Just showing that a significant difference does exist in modern English. Clearly, we have different opinions about that definition. That's fine. But I didn't invent any extra meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Where are you getting that from, anyway? Collins, M-W Online, Compact OED, Cambridge, and Wiktionary all just say "dead", or "recently dead". Nothing at all in any of the dictionaries I looked in say anything beyond "dead" or "no longer living", except some do use the qualifier "recently". —Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at "decease". The dictionaries seem pretty clear that the adjective is directly related to the noun and verb, just like "worked", "copied", "hammered" and whatever else. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's best to look at the actual word, because "related" does not mean "exactly the same", as a comparison of these two forms proves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons given by Dirtlawyer1, WhatamIdoing and Arathald. Also, may I respectfully request that InedibleHulk cease to argue within this Positions on RfC subsection, particularly when merely repeating earlier comment. yoyo (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Repetition may be persuasive because people tire of being hammered on the head! ;-) But that doesn't mean it's a good argument. yoyo (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Also useful when people have clearly missed something already shown. I'll refrain from arguing opinions here, but if someone says there's no departure in the modern definition, I'll correct them. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please recognize that we understand your point, and simply disagree with it. You're interpreting it differently than we are. It's not a lack of understanding on our part, but a differing opinion from yours. Simply repeating yourself isn't really helping move this forward, since we've already read the same thing from you many times. I don't know if you're not a native speaker of English and are thus unaware of common usage of the terms (which is fine, I wouldn't hold that against you, but in that case, you should defer to those of us who are native speakers who understand the modern usage of the word), or if you are being overly prescriptive in your use of the language, but either way, it's important to understand that common usage simply doesn't agree with the point you're trying to make. "Deceased" and "dead", regardless of etymology, historical usage, or what you are inferring from dictionary definitions, are used in modern English as synonyms, with a different tone and usage, but an identical meaning. Arathald (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

In my experience, the different tone and common usage are softer (like "passed away") or legalese (like "eschew"). Maybe we just speak to different people and read different things, but English is my only language. I don't think there's any need to move forward. Consensus here is clear: We shouldn't have a rule about it, though the words are basically the same, aside from the air of formality and respect. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Nobody, in America at least, uses deceased differently from dead or died. As I noted in my reply above, all of the dictionaries I looked in confirm this. There's no reason to impose an arbitrary wording requirement on editors when it serves no useful purpose. —Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Deceased" is very common usage in formal contexts. An encyclopedia is such a context. (As someone who confesses deliberately using etymological fallacy for polemical purposes myself,[14] I do not think it serves any purpose here.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment if "deceased" was to be depreciated, then we would have the strange situation where one could write "predeceased" in an article but not "deceased". -- PBS (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If I ruled the world, we'd never use "predeceased" either. The word only ever looks right in genealogies and obituaries. If we refer to a subject's family members in a Personal Life section, better to mention their deaths separately from the subject's or parenthesize dates by their names.

But I don't rule the world, and the people (these people, anyway) have spoken. Apparently, they're both fine words when used right. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not as simple "better to mention their deaths separately from the subject's or parenthesize dates by their names". When one is talking about inheritance, particularly the inheritance of titles, it is useful succinct word to explain why for example an earldom passes from grandfather to grandson because the son predeceased the grandfather. There are many articles where this is useful for example see Earl of Stamford. -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I never had a problem with using it in contexts like those, dealing with wills, titles and other legalese things. But I've seen a few biographies along the lines of "Johnny Decedent died on January 1. He was survived by his wife and predeceased by his son." In those cases, it is as simple as earlier saying "He married Jenny (b. 1930) in 1955 and had a son named Jimmy (1957-1978)." InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've waited this long to see whether the dust would settle ... Now I believe I can state my position quite exactly by simply reiterating something written by another, thus:

Oppose. On the question of the RFC, "Should we generally consider 'deceased' a euphemism, and generally use 'dead' in its place?", I oppose the proposed change. I believe that both words, deceased and dead, are perfectly acceptable and may be used interchangeably. Notwithstanding the Inedible Hulk's best efforts above, I am not at all convinced that "deceased" has the connotation of "departure" in modern English or that it has some pseudo-religious meaning that is or should be offensive to atheists, agnostics or anyone else. "Deceased" is just another synonym for "dead," and it surely beats "pushin' up daisies" for encyclopedia articles. Dirtlawyer1

My own preference is always for the simpler term, as more people understand it; however, where a quoted source uses the pseudo-classical "deceased", I'd be tempted to follow suit to retain its flavour and thus avoid misrepresenting it by (just possibly!) changing its connotations. yoyo (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Perceived"

There is varying opinions on if the word "perceived" is a weasel/alleged word. For some articles it totally is, and any inclusion in removed within seconds. For others when you take the word out it's reverted within seconds. In order to keep this site NPOV, we must have a consensus on this: different pages can't have different rules. I think it's quite clearly a word we should be avoiding, if a reliable source uses it we would be ok to attribute that to the source, but not use as a blanket statement like in the lead. --TheTruthiness (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The word perceived can be neutral, much like alleged; both words are often used on Wikipedia in places where there is doubt about something, or in places to convey that that's how the side in question views the matter, especially with regard to WP:BLP topics. Flyer22 (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the same care should be taken when using the word perceived as it is when using the word alleged, per WP:Alleged. Flyer22 (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Care should be taken; the word should be appropriate relative to reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perceived can be used incorrectly but it is a useful word. Bus stop (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Should always note who perceives something as something, in my opinion. And yeah, sourced. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Needlessly obscure words

User:Spannerjam has just added a section discouraging the use of "Needlessly advanced words". My concern is with the word "advanced". I'm not sure that it's clear what an advanced word is. I know it's a good faith addition, but in a manual of style, the meaning of words is all important. Maybe it's common usage in User:Spannerjam's world, but not in mine. Words here need to have very common meanings. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this section is about the section that seems to have been renamed Needlessly obscure words? I've reverted the section and am awaiting some discussion on it here. I'm not "entirely" opposed to the section, but feel there needs to be some details figured out. For example, "invoke" is not obscure or advanced in my opinion in anyway. In fact, a lot of those words that were listed would be appropriate in certain articles directly related to their use. Technical 13 (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I tell you what, I will parsimoniously invoke one tantamount obfuscating article as an example of the ostensibly superfluous use of obscure words. Perhaps "gratuitously circuitous locution" would be a better title? --Spannerjam 15:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you call those advanced words? I wouldn't. I'd call them obscure and silly words. Can someone define an advanced word? HiLo48 (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That is why I changed the definition from advanced to obscure. --Spannerjam 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

See http://books.google.com/books?id=xb6ie6PqYhwC&pg=PA456 on how to use the word tantamount correctly (hint: it should be followed by the word to). Your case for suppressing polysyllabic words would be stronger if there were no reason for cynical people to suspect that your objections to these words were founded on ignorance. A (gratuitous) circumlocution is one that (pointlessly) talks around the subject without directly naming it, usually using a large number of very common words. You probably meant to say that you object to sesquipedalianism, which is the use of long and obscure words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The content of the section can be viewed here which before I reverted it read:

== Needlessly obscure words ==

{{shortcut|WP:CLEARWORD}}
{{subst:User:Plastikspork/1|quote  =  <big>'''... ostensibly, tantamount, parsimonious, obfuscation, superfluous, invoke ...'''</big>
| width  = 70%
| align  = center
}}
Prefer words which are well-known, clear and concrete to those which are not. Using words 
which are needlessly unknown, ambiguous, or abstract will only make Wikipedia less readable.

Put this here as a reference to all of those interested... Technical 13 (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

He tried it last fall, too: [15] and [16]. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now. There are good reasons to avoid pointlessly fancy vocabulary words, and there are sometimes good reasons to use them. Our goal is WP:Brilliant prose, not dumbing down our writing so that readers will never encounter an unfamiliar word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

This is tantamount to WP:instruction creep. Bus stop (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying you should avoid using a vast vocabulary, but I am saying you should avoid using a needlessly vast vocabulary. For example, I could have written "I am not saying you should avoid using a lot of different types of words, but I am saying you should not in vain use a lot of different types of words." This would not have been an improvement, because the sentence would lose in brevity. However, many times texts could be made more simple, and become more readable. But I see the problem you guys have perceived: My examples just does not prove my point. I guess I will come back with better examples, and if I will not find any, then there probably was no problem in the first place. --Spannerjam 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you come up with a different wording that you think may persuade us, please present it here in on the discussion page and let's not go through the bold/revert part again. Let's just discuss. Thanks. :) Technical 13 (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me this is already covered in the second paragraph of the wider MoS. If there's an ambiguous, jargony, vague or unnecessarily complex word or two somewhere, we're supposed to make it clear and concise. But I don't think we should list specific words. Sometimes a longer or less common word is the perfect one for the job. Sometimes it's just flowery. Should be judged case by case, with that second paragraph as a general guide. On that note, "needlessly unknown" is probably the most mysterious term I've heard in my life. Congratulations! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Where is this already covered in the "second paragraph"? --Spannerjam 20:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Manual of Style. Second paragraph, last two lines. "Vague" and "unnecessarily complex" seem to be the kinds of words you dislike. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah there it is, what I was looking for. --Spannerjam 11:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, is this now moot? Of course one should not needlessly employ obscure vocabulary, and sesquipedalian showboating is poor form; but neither should an encyclopedia eschew the clarity afforded by precise language for the sake of abecedarian readers. Reading an encyclopedia with a dictionary at hand is a Good Thing™. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am in unadulterated homologation with you. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just writing small because you're right. Moot InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Lake Superior State banished words?

This external link seems non-relevant to the MoS. Might it be promotion? Notice on their FB page they are celebrating raising their trending (a link from the external link). Shall we have a consensus to remove it as non-relevant to avoid it popping up again?

I would think a more relevant link could be Chicago Manual of Style, which is important in literature and journalism. This would have readers understand the importance of a MoS and usage in editing. (one of my personal favorite references) Eturk001 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with either organization, but it seems a list of banned words is more relevant than the whole Chicago MoS is to this specific MoS section . If they have a similar list, seems fair to have it. Whenever a major page (any Wikipedia article, really) links to another, it's promotional. Can't avoid that, we can only keep them where relevant and refrain from praising them. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at the actual list of "banned words". They aren't really banned by anyone and the list is not relevant to editors on WP using them. Is this a WP:RS? It seems it's just some random people's opinions of "annoying" words/phrases. It's more of a joke list. Should this particular list really be used as a guideline for WP? Eturk001 (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's meant to be viewed as a guideline for Wikipedia use. Only as an aid to people who wish to know more about which words they might want to watch for and why. If the "Why?" matches one of our rules, one can go from there. Having it here doesn't mean Wikipedia editors should remove any and all words on the list. More of a companion guide to our guideline itself, opening up avenues of thought.

Of course, if I'm wrong and it is an extension of policy, we should lose it (unless we're not allowed, I guess). If it's fine in that regard, I really don't care either way about keeping or leaving it. Just saying it's relevant and possibly useful. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed my mind after reading it a bit. The amount of promotion to its Facebook and Twitter pages, and brevity of the list, have swayed me. I'll be bold and delete it (not too bold, though, since you suggested it). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

only

I would deem this to be editorialization and therefor a word to watch. One can simply state "5-10% of X is due to Y" rather than "Only 5-10% of X is due to Y" Wondering if this should be added here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I normally treat it that way, too. Unless it's clearly used in a comparison, like "Johnny Business made $100 million in 2008, but only $1 million in 2009." Without another thing in contrast, it always sounds like a judgment call to me. I wouldn't mind it on the list. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Unqualified use of many and most

An article nominated for good article status that I am reviewing contains multiple instances of phrases unqualifiedly using words like "many" and "most", such as (all my emphasis):

• "Canada has adopted xxx for most purposes"
• "xxx was one of the most influential figures in yyy"
• "xxx are used in most areas where yyy are regulated"
• "xxx were seized on by many newspaper editorialists as being yyy"
• "xxx have continued to be used across the globe in many spheres including yyy"

Do those watching this policy believe that uses such as those contravene this guideline? FishGF (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, FishGF. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch is a guideline, not a policy. And, for the matter you brought up, I feel that you should follow what the WP:Weasel words part of this style guideline states. There are going to be times when using the word many or most is appropriate and/or needed; one example is if the source does not specify an exact number. Another example is when naming specifics will create a laundry list (a word and/or WP:Link farm). Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Flyer22, thanks for the reply. As I read Weasel, it only applies only to unattributed and unspecified people, and not to unspecified inanimate objects. So, if my understanding is correct: "many newspaper editorialists" is weasel, whereas "in most areas" is not. Is that your understanding too? I wonder what policy or guideline covers the use for the inanimate type scenario. FishGF (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change in "Contentious labels"

"may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution"

...to...

"may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case follow the policy set out at Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View"

If the terms are "widely used", does it make sense to attribute them? How many sources should be used for attribution? The policy as it is currently written would seem to say it is OK to call Osama bin Laden a terrorist or Anders Breivik an extremist, but only if there is attribution, so you would end up with something ridiculous like "according to the Beano, Anders Breivik is an extremist" or whatever. Formerip (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not unsympathetic to your proposal, but you are aware that it would bring massive upheaval to WP? Frankly, I think that such a far-reaching change could only be agreed upon by a wide group of users, not just a couple of us. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think it would bring massive upheaval? I would see it is as just amending a guideline that it is not really possible to follow anyway. Formerip (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Because I have followed the long history of inserting and removing the term "terrorist" in the articles on OBL and Al Qaida and this would happen all over WP, if your proposed change comes into effect. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why? I think the only effect of this change would be that instead of automatically attributing claims, editors would be required to comply with the policy which is actually relevant. Formerip (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Only"

I think the word "only" immediately adds a negative connotation. I just read an article on Elisabeth Colbert that said she "only got 45% of the vote" compared to Sanford's 54%. That word is problematic to me. To me this word completely violates NPOV in these circumstances. Imagine if I had flipped it and written "Despite being defeated by Sanford, he only managed to get 54% of the vote.". I don't think this type of problem is covered in the article at all, so I wanted to see if any of you believe it should be added to the page as well. Feedback ^☎ 02:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I usually remove them when I see them. Seems like the same general problem of the other words in MOS:OPED. Wouldn't mind seeing "only" explicitly listed there. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Relative time references: As of

I'd suggest that explicit mention of the As of technique, as well as the existing See also on the section, is useful, as in WP:DATED. I've added the following text, subject to others' later edits.

Information can be written in a less time-sensitive way by using the as of technique, implemented in the {{as of}} template; it additionally tags information that will become dated. {{as of|2024|05}} produces the text As of May 2024 and categorises the article appropriately. "A new widget is currently being developed" can usefully become something like "a new widget was under development as of 2024".

Pol098 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

If anyone's interested, I'd welcome comments at Talk:Sicilian Defence#Not listed. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Relative time references

The text as of now says: "Expressions like "former(ly)", "in the past", and "traditional(ly)" lump together unspecified periods in the past" (true), and implies that these are all undesirable (are they?). I tend to agree about most uses of traditionally ("solid-state drives are faster than traditional electromechanical drives"), but should "former(ly)" and "in the past" be deprecated? It's not like "currently" and "now", which are indeed a moveable feast; once in the past, always in the past. In the past traditional print media used these expressions about things that had happened formerly, but were no longer the case; why shouldn't Wikipedia? I won't myself make any changes which might be controversial, but suggest that the sentence I quote be modified to include only "traditionally". Pol098 (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

My first take on this is I agree that such expressions should either be removed or changed to be specific. I then searched wikipedia for "in the past" and the first example found, in Retro style, seems Ok: "Retro fashion is a clothing style which consists in wearing clothes commonly used in the past." That wording works for me, but could it be made more precise? Maybe "from the past"? Otherwise, examples from Uses of English verb forms also look acceptable. This search for formerly finds examples which appear Ok (as adjectives). Your question has not gained any responses until mine, so it might not be a big deal to manual watchers. I guess we should judge each case on its context and understandability. -84user (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Active and passive voice

We used to explicitly prefer active voice to discourage weasel words and unreferenced statements. That seems to have been left out of the current version. I have come across sentences and phrases loaded with WW, W2W and passive voice but some editors don't see the problem and can't read enough into the MOS to figure it out. It's almost as if two bad styles cancel themselves out in terms of qualifying a weasel word statement.
Bad phrasing (two types):

• Despite his stellar character, some have alleged that John Smith murdered his wife.
• Despite the overwhelming evidence, some believe John Smith is innocent.
• Despite being wrong, some think they are right.

This seems to have qualified expression of doubt, weasel words, and passive voice. MOS should explicitly discourage passive voice as well as prepositional editorial expressions/qualifiers of doubt (not just words) such as "Despite ...". We no longer explicitly call them out.
Preferred:

• The family of John Smith's wife stated they believe Smith murdered her.[1] John Smith has not been charged with a crime.

Comments? Does this fit in with existing sections? --DHeyward (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We have "Writing should be clear and concise" in the general MoS. Active voice is almost always shorter. We're explicit about WP:WEASEL and MOS:OPED here. If we follow these rules, passive voice will almost disappear. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your preferred version should read "John Smith's wife's family said they believe Smith murdered her." And try to find out which family member(s) said it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether the active or the passive voice is better is entirely dependent upon context. Sometimes the active voice is better, but often the passive is much more appropriate, for instance when things are happening to the subject of the article (which is not exactly unusual in an encyclopaedia).

• "Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas."
• "Nuclear weapons have been used twice in the course of warfare . . ."

are entirely appropriate, and these examples are fairly typical of encyclopedic prose.

The people most in need of advice probably couldn't correctly identify a passive, anyway. --Boson (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, those don't suck (though "assassinated" has a bit of a classist ring to it, compared to those "killed" or "murdered"). I only want passive almost eradicated. I can (and will) trim a comma from the JFK one and two letters from the nukes, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. They were made up examples. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Clarity made it easier to point out. Real cases are part of fringe viewpoints and trying to cover the fringe viewpoint ends up with crappy style when simply direct is better. The fringe view gets written in a passive voice which is easily recognized by {{who}}, but that gets covered by the oped opening so it's not as obvious. Similar to (made up again)

• Despite the Warren Commission report, there are allegations of multiple shooters.

Who alleges it is lost, and the introductory OPED clause is used to hide it. It makes it sound less passive although two sentences would be clearer.

• The Warren Commission determined there was a single shooter. X alleges there were multiple shooters.

For facts that are historical, passive voice would be okay. It's present, inconclusive or fringe that needs active voice, AFAIK.

• John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas by Lee Harvey Oswald. X alleges there were multiple shooters.

That's a mix of active and passive that I would consider as OK for entry especially for a historical fact that well documented or wiki linked to the source that establishes the fact. It's the vague "they" that needs to be active voice. --DHeyward (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I still see no inappropriate use of the passive voice in any of the examples given. --Boson (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And "Despite the Warren Commission report, there are allegations of multiple shooters. isn't even passive, it's active. "Multiple shooters were alleged." is the passive form of that statement. This is just a case of unclear agency, which is already covered by guidelines about clarity. Editors make vague statements that elide agency using both active and passive voices. If we want people to be clear about agency, the best guideline is still "be clear about agency" rather than "don't use the passive voice because sometimes people use it to be unclear about agency". __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Make love have sex

I noticed someone who thought there was a problem with "make love" described it as "presumptuous". This violates NPOV. David F (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Backstory to present: The Titanic (1997 film) Plot section would sometimes have the words "make love" in place of "have sex" for the instance that Jack and Rose become sexually intimate. Other times...it would be vice versa due to people changing it because they believe that "make love" is flowery prose (a fancy/prettier way to state "have sex") or simply to abide by WP:EUPHEMISM; I pretty much told Ferrierd (David F) this after he'd change "have sex" to "make love" in June 2013; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 12#User page content FYI, and plot section of the Titanic (1997 film) article. Ferrierd did not care to change it back, stating, "'Make love' is artistic, 'have sex' is crass. ;^}." And I didn't care to fight him on it because I don't much care either way, though I do prefer "make love" in this case.

In October 2013, Connor Behan came along and changed "make love" back to "have sex." This led to a newly-registered editor putting in an edit request on December 31, 2013 to change "have sex" to "make love." Betty Logan turned down the editor, per WP:EUPHEMISM. Ferrierd showed up to the article today (which, by this action, makes it clear that it is on his WP:Watchlist) to relay that "Yeah, it's an euphemism, but it's a GOOD euphemism." See the link to that discussion (December 31, 2013 link). He then marked the answered question as "not answered." Doniago showed up to re-mark the question as answered and to seemingly indirectly disagree with Ferrierd. Ferrierd came to this guideline, which should have WP:Consensus for its changes (as stated on the guideline page), and changed the guideline to suit his argument at the Titanic (1997 film) article; he then begin WP:Edit warring with me over it, as seen here, here, here and here, insisting that WP:Consensus is needed to remove his changes to the guideline. Apparently, he has never heard of the WP:STATUSQUO and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) essays. But that does not surprise me since he doesn't seem to be familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines either, such as the fact that WP:Edit warring can get one or both parties blocked. Ferrierd's changes to the guideline, "make love is not preferred." in place of "the euphemism make love is presumptuous," is not an improvement, in my opinion; it is POV-ish, exactly what he claims use of presumptuous is in this case. Not preferred? Such strong wording that begs the question: Who does not prefer it? Use of presumptuous, by contrast, is simply telling you that you are being presumptuous if you use "make love" in place of "have sex"; while such a matter is not always presumptuous, that wording is better than Ferrierd's wording (again, in my opinion). Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to reply to ad hominem arguments. Forget it. David F (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "no time to reply" is how I feel about Wikipedia editors who can't follow simple Wikipedia etiquette, guidelines or policies. You are the one who felt that your wording is so important that you had to WP:Edit war it into a guideline without WP:Consensus. More than once you were pointed to what you were supposed to do, and you didn't do that. Do I get very frustrated by such behavior? Obviously, yes. You are lucky that this is not a policy page with many WP:Administrators watching it. As you've likely seen by now, another editor stepped in and reverted you after me, so that is that for now...unless someone else objects to the wording that you objected to. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• It should be abundantly clear to anyone who uses this site with any regularity that pushing forward a policy change without appropriate discussion only to then cite the modified policy to ignore an underlying consensus in favor of one's own contentious edit is highly improper. I propose that the policy edit be reverted along with any related changes to articles. I have some other ideas as well, but I should hope that would be enough to resolve the matter. DonIago (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Doniago, as noted above, the guideline's text was restored. An editor reverted Ferrierd after I was done reverting him (I certainly was not about to violate WP:3RR). And, Ferrierd, I apologize for my above agitated tone toward you. I got upset because of the repeated reverting and you not seeming to consider anything that I stated, not deciding to at least discuss the matter before reverting again. Edits to policies and guidelines should have WP:Consensus (whether it's consensus by talk page discussion or you having made a WP:BOLD edit that went unchallenged). As shown by the aforementioned archived talk page discussion (the discussion that took place at my talk page), we have worked fine together before. Just like in that case, I know that you were only trying to improve the Titanic (1997 film) article in this case, as well as Wikipedia, and I harbor no hard feelings toward you on this matter. I hope that you harbor none toward me either. If you are still willing to propose changes to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch guideline, I am willing to listen. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I find "make love" presumptuous because it doesn't just mean that two people had sex... it implies that the sex must've been "good". It would be nice if there were a word for intercourse that was artistic but still neutral. Unfortunately, I can't think of one. Connor Behan (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

"Have sex" is the neutral one. "Make (sweet) love" leans to one side of artsy and "fuck" to the other. "Engage in sexual intercourse" might be slightly more neutral, but far too formal. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of "become sexually intimate." could also work, but "sexually intimate" can be more so vague; it covers far more aspects, and many people, for example, wouldn't classify only using one's hands to sexually please a partner as "having had sex" (to them, it's simply foreplay)...but they would classify it as "sexually intimate." Flyer22 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

When I hear "sexually intimate", I think of the smiling old people in Viagra commercials. Not appropriate for the young Rose. Maybe that's just me. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

No, not just me. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "sexually intimate" does not work. Quit trying to tone it down.. This is an encyclopedia, not a story book for little kids. "sexual intercourse" is more neutral and properly formal (formal is good). Technical 13 (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not truly trying to tone it down; others are. I simply offered a suggestion to forward that cause. That stated, like I noted above in my initial post in this section, I prefer "make love" in this case -- for Titanic's Jack and Rose. This is because they are portrayed as deeply in love; James Cameron has been clear that this is a love story and that they fall deeply in love, so it's not presumptuous to me to state "they make love" (not for these two). As for Connor Behan's suggestion that "make love" implies that the sex is good, I never thought of that phrase that way until he brought it up. I suppose it does suggest that, but, if the way that the Jack and Rose sex scene plays out is any indication, the sex certainly was not bad. If we should quit trying to tone it down, we should stick with "have sex"...which isn't necessarily any less neutral (but certainly less technical/mechanical-sounding) than "have sexual intercourse" or "engage in sexual intercourse." Oh, and maybe I've read too many love stories, along with many scholarly works on sexual activity, over my lifetime, but "sexually intimate" can work just fine in some cases; I don't necessarily see this as not being one of those cases, but I agree that it's best not to use it for this plot matter. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I was shocked by the collective reaction to a ONE WORD CHANGE I made to a Wikipedia page that everyone is free to edit. David F (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You inserted a euphemism in place of the existing text, something which there is a policy addressing. Not so shocking at that point. DonIago (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Doniago, keep in mind that Manual of Style/Words to watch is a guideline page, not a policy page, though I obviously feel the same as you do with regard to Ferrierd's actions. Flyer22 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for misspeaking, but the point is that the underlying issue was obviously contentious enough in the past that editors felt compelled to write up something regarding how they felt it could best be handled. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want to use the word sex... I think just plain old intercourse would also be appropriate.... Nickmxp (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

New section: Person or office?

I have boldly added a section:

Person or office?

It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president) and an incumbent (such as Barack Obama); a newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction, for a newspaper "President Obama" and "the President" are one and the same from 2008 to 2016.

• "President Obama nominates new justices of the US Supreme Court" – no, whoever is president at the time does.
• "President George W Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice" – yes, always true.
• "The guest list included Charles, Prince of Wales" – usually OK, unlikely to be confused with Charles I of England, Prince of Wales until 1625.
• "The guest list included Prince Charles" – usually, but not always, clear it's not Prince Charles, Count of Flanders (1903–1983).
• "The guest list included the Prince of Wales" – no, will go out of date.

Review and change or delete as thought best. Pol098 (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the point. We should never btw say "Prince Charles" since prince is his title, grander than but similar to "Mr." He was born a prince but became Prince of Wales when he was thirteen. We may refer to him as the Prince of Wales because that is an office he holds. TFD (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is simple: a reference to "the Prince of Wales" may mean either the person or the title, and is ambiguous, and, in the case of an incumbent, goes out of date. When Charles becomes King, I think customarily the title of Prince of Wales briefly becomes vacant, then William is awarded the title (or maybe he inherits automatically, I'm not sure). So a reference encyclopaedia article which says, for example, that a hospital had been opened by the Prince of Wales, becomes unclear without checking. This is never the case if more explicit information is given. Whether or not "Prince Charles" is appropriate is irrelevant to this general issue (though the text of the guideline should be corrected if this point is wrong). In point of fact "Prince Charles", whether technically correct or not, is often used in real life.

Any other opinions? Pol098 (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Meh. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory" is a contentious label

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.

---

I think 'conspiracy theory' should be added to the list of examples of contentious labels. Any thoughts? Stax68 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably yes, along with: addiction(?), communist, franken-, lunatic, Nazi, rabid (meaning fanatical, not meaning having rabies).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

For conspiracy theory I don't think so. WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI, and WP:FRINGE shows we have to be able to separate fringe ideas, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience from reliable source-derived science and clearly explain them as what reliable sources tell us they are. We shouldn't apply the label if it's not in the source, but we also don't want to promote Astrology as "Alternate science" and give it false legitimacy. I also don't think a gigantic laundry list of examples of the principle would be more helpful. It's not a blacklist of disallowed words, it's to give an idea of what's meant about choosing words carefully. I'm pretty sure that any article that someone tried to add "Nazi" to (where no source said it), would not need to have it mentioned here to be remove as inappropriate. Extra clutter here won't stop any discussions down the line. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

But I'm not suggesting a laundry list; I'm proposing adding a particular phrase which is especially troublesome. Though since the article is about words to watch, surely providing instances is exactly to the point. 'Conspiracy theory' can be distinguished quite clearly from other terms put forward by Solomonfromfinland. Each of those other terms falls into one of two categories: 1. manifest name-calling ('rabid', 'franken-', 'lunatic') or 2. reasonably well-defined descriptive terms which are insulting, if at all, because they designate something unpleasant ('addiction', 'communist', 'Nazi').

The term 'conspiracy theory' falls into neither category. The peculiar defect of this term is to equivocate between abuse and mere description. As your own usage suggests, it is a deprecatory term, implying that its object is unworthy of consideration. In this sense, it expresses a judgement which can't be encapsulated by any definition. At the same time, it has a perfectly ordinary sense given by the constructive meaning of the terms 'conspiracy' + 'theory': a theory which posits a conspiracy. But these two senses of the term are commonly run together, so that one may label something a conspiracy theory because it meets the simple, well-defined and normatively neutral definition, yet by so doing, one may smuggle in the unfounded implication that the theory (claim, belief, hypothesis, possibility) is bizarre, outré, 'paranoid' pseudo-history.

This makes the label very useful to polemicists, propagandists and POV-pushers; e.g. Tony Blair used it to discredit the - true - claim that evidence of 'WMD' in Iraq was being fixed around policy. Think of any conspiratorial event of the last 50 years or so, and you'll almost certainly find that those denying it attempted to dismiss it as a 'CT' - often with great success until the evidence became utterly overwhelming (at which point the line of defence tends to switch to attempted justification, or dismissal as 'old news' (e.g. the recent NSA revelations).

The section states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." This applies to 'CT' just as much as to the other examples; in fact more so because in most cases the term is applied not to the subject matter itself, but to certain opinions about the subject matter. Its use is thus inevitably prejudicial (even if in fact accurate).

This last point also applies, of course, to 'pseudoscience' and 'fringe theories', and ideally it should not be necessary to use those either. (The section already suggests that 'pseudo-' is generally likely to be a contentious label.) I'm not so concerned about those myself because the judgement they imply is 1. made openly and 2. a fairly objective matter with clear criteria. I therefore don't argue;; for their inclusion in the list of words to watch.

Even in those cases, though, it would be better to stick to the subject matter and point out the reasons why the viewpoint counts as pseudoscience/is widely rejected by experts. This idea occurs in the section itself: "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight." Precisely the same applies with 'conspiracy theory' in place of 'controversial'. If one thinks it's justifiable and important to call something a 'conspiracy theory', then one should not skip over this important point with a single phrase, but instead share with the reader the reasons why the view counts as a 'conspiracy theory' (by whatever criteria one is applying).

Note too, that the section exhorts the reader to avoid giving fringe theories undue weight - it doesn't suggest introducing fringe theories only to denounce them as being 'fringe theories'. WP:FRINGE does state "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." None of these categories, however, covers so-called 'conspiracy theories'.WP:FRINGE/PS gives guidance on how to identify a theory as pseudoscience. I think it is instructive to try formulating similar general guidance on identifying so-called 'conspiracy theories'. I don't think it can be done.

To address the other two guidelines you mention: WP:GEVAL only concerns omitting fringe views, not including and labelling them.

WP:PSCI is interesting - it deals with pseudoscience, and then states that "This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked." I think there are problems with that but I needn't go into those. The key point is that in preference to the colloquial 'conspiracy theories', a precise and much more verbose expression is used. Applying this to the relevant part of what goes before: 'The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such", we then derive the unobjectionable "forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence should be clearly described as such". The article not only avoids telling people to call things 'conspiracy theories', but goes to some trouble to do so.

(Apologs for delay in response.) Stax68 (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Further to Elaqueate's comments: "It's not a blacklist of disallowed words, it's to give an idea of what's meant about choosing words carefully." - false dichotomy. It is neither a 'banned' list nor a selection of merely illustrative examples. Instead it's a list of specific, er, 'words to watch'; I'd say it places the onus of justification on those using the specified terms (if challenged).

"Extra clutter here won't stop any discussions down the line." I think this is inaccurate, and misconceives the point of the whole article. The MoS is not just a primer for editors; it also provides 'soft' rules which can be referred to as an aid to dispute resolution. This kind of guidance is sorely needed, especially in the area of recent and contemporary history, which is both highly contested and (not unrelatedly) the topic area in (or about) which the term 'conspiracy theory' is applied (no-one describes theses about Imperial Rome or the Borgias as 'conspiracy theories'). If editor burn-out due to trying to deal with 'civil POV-pushers' is to be reduced (and it needs to be if WP is ever to earn a reputation for reliability in this kind of hotly contested area) then this kind of recurring issue needs to be decided, where possible, at the level of WP guidelines and policy, and not left to be re-litigated every time it comes up, with the more committed and intransigent party generally winning out and leaving bona fide, disinterested editors discouraged and disillusioned.

Elaqueate continues: "I'm pretty sure that any article that someone tried to add "Nazi" to (where no source said it), would not need to have it mentioned here to be remove as inappropriate." - but the fact that a source said it is not always sufficient to merit inclusion; indeed, I'd suggest that in cases where someone is keen to apply a contested label, they should report its application by a source, or the grounds for applying it, rather than simply applying it in the editorial voice and adding a citation; especially if the citation in question functions only to justify the use of the contested label. (Full disclosure: I have a specific example in mind here, but the issue is a general one, in which I have a long-standing interest, and it seems prudent to keep the discussion at a general level.)Stax68 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

1. It is just a selection of illustrative examples, thousands of words could be added as "possible trouble". We can't start adding all of them without the page looking ridiculous. It isn't a list of all words to watch.

2. Elaqueate continues: "I'm pretty sure that any article that someone tried to add "Nazi" to (where no source said it) and your response but the fact that a source said it is not always sufficient to merit inclusion;. This is a clear misreading on your part about what words I used. Regardless, the point is we don't have to have "Nazi" on the list for people to know it's a word to be watched in an article.

3. WP:FRINGE is clear that what are commonly called "conspiracy theories" are included when it speaks of "fringe theories". Fringe theories should be documented as such.

4. Are you being unintentionally ironic when you label people polemicists, propagandists and POV-pushers?

5. Your response is a little unwieldy, you might want to remember this isn't a forum about what a conspiracy theory is, and you might want to review essays such as Wikipedia:Wall of text and Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read in the interests of actual discussion.

6. Full disclosure: I have a specific example in mind here, but.... This isn't actually full disclosure. If you have a specific issue in a specific article, it's not usually a good idea to seek a change to the MoS to back up your interpretation there. Again, if you think the phrase needs in-text attribution on a page, the MoS currently points in that direction with its current wording. If it has to do with your struggles here then I'd suggest dealing with it there first. I don't think that changing the examples given in the MoS is going to affect that discussion in any significant way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

1. But my point is this is an important and non-obvious word to watch (as are most of the others), so it's worth including.

2. I did misunderstand, but in a different way. I thought Nazi was on the list (as 'racist' is) - my point was that the inappropriateness of a contentious label is not dependent on its being unsourced: that is one of the points of putting words on the list. Had I stopped to think about the speific example, I'd have pointed out that it's not agood candidate for the list (as, BTW, 'racist' needn't be, IMO) precisely because it's not itself a value-laden term: it's a pretty straightforward descriptive term which happens to signify something very nasty (an 'uncontentious label', even). Thus, it is generally likely to be acceptable if reliably sourced. Contentious - value-laden - terms may well not be, especially since they may be used in a value-free sense in the source, but acquire a more evaluative connotation in the context of the article itself.

3. a. That article focuses almost exclusively on pseudo-science - yet this is compatible with "pseudo-" being deemed a contentious label.)

...b. It's reasonably clear that the one use of the term 'conspiracy theories' is restricted to 'ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view' - I, as you would expect, would have made that qualification clearer. The problem I'm concerned with is the prejudicial labelling of 'conspiracy theories' that do not seem to be pseudo-history (such as Wansee, Reichstag fire, minimal JFK conspiracy hypotheses, pervasive NSA monitoring, Iraq WMD deception, Tonkin Gulf, Gladio, Get Castro, etc.)

5. Yes; duly noted, thanks.

6. No, I was going to start invoking WP:SYNTH but pretty quickly decided that I was investing too much in the argument and it wasn't worth the hassle. See below. FWIW, I would probably agree that changing the examples given in the MoS isn't going to affect that discussion in any significant way. OK I'll shut up for a bit now.

Stax68 (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

RfC: Should "Conspiracy Theory" be listed as a contentious label?

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.

---

.... here is the entire RfC discussion... See above; further or alternatively, should content be added similar to that dealing with 'controversal': "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight."?

Perhaps something like: "Similarly, avoid describing a viewpoint as a "conspiracy theory", as this term tends to have a subjective and potentially prejudicial aspect as well as a more neutral meaning. If reliable sources establish that the view is a fringe view or otherwise defective, say so explicitly and better still explain its defects directly." Stax68 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• No This is different from "controversial", though its usage can be. That's a vague term, this isn't. I'd expect readers to only use it when describing something that meets our definition of conspiracy theory. That is, it can't just be a "kooky" or "fringe" idea, though that distiguishes it from plain conspiracy. There are plenty of kooky ideas floating around the Internet, and many might be expected linked on a conspiracy theorist's website, but only because they're both hot among a certain audience. That aliens control our media in itself isn't a conspiracy theory, because no aliens have denied (or confirmed) it. However, saying aliens and rich Earthlings are in cahoots would be, since rich Earthlings have given their (usually) conflicting side of the story.

In short, things that can be described (and sourced) accurately and concisely with a Wikilink should be. Those that can't probably aren't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

But what is that definition, really? A definition needs to fit with actual usage, and note that although the WP entry states that "A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses three or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation", it immediately qualifies this by pointing out that " In recent decades the term has acquired a derogatory meaning, and distinction should be made between the derisive use of the term and reference to actual, proven conspiracies."

This tends to confirm that, as I've suggested above, the term is somewhat ambiguous - as you state, it means both 'kooky' and 'concerned with a conspiracy'. But if one is discussing a conspiracy or a hypothesis about one, then the 'conspiracy-aboutness' will generally already be pellucidly evident, so there's no need to add the label 'conspiracy theory' in that neutral, descriptive sense; only if one wants to import the kookiness aspect would one then insist on retaining the 'CT' label. Note that all the items on that list probably have entries in WP which provide a descriptive 'definition', too, yet they clearly are considered contentious labels (potenially contentious labels would be more acurate, but the text makes that clear enough)..Stax68 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• No. "Controversial" is both vague and euphemistic, and indeed can easily be used to grant a fringe viewpoint due weight. There's nothing "similar" about the use of "conspiracy theory", a pretty precise word that we have an explanatory article about. It isn't a contentious label. Bishonen | talk 02:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC).

In the section above, I've tried (probably rather badly) to explain why what appears a precisely defined term is in fact as value-laden and subjective as 'controversial' - and in fact more pernicious for its appearance of objectivity. The second section of the WP article you mention, "Acquired derogatory meaning", itself states:

"Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events.[14] The term is often used to automatically dismiss claims that the critic deems ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational.[15] The term often implies that the proposed explanation of events is perceived as violating Occam's razor or the principle of Falsifiability.[citation needed] A conspiracy theory that is proven to be correct, such as the notion that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.[16][17]"

The next section, "Term of ridicule" is relevant too. I agree 'conspiracy theory' is not euphemistic; it's the opposite (whatever that is). It's not used to give undue weight to fringe opinions, but to deny due weight to non-fringe views by implying that they are akin to pseudoscience, without having to establish that. To deny due weight to one viewpoint is to give undue weight to competing claims. Stax68 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• No - Although the term conspiracy theory may be used as an epithet, it is appropriate to describe irrationally held beliefs. It should only be used if there is consensus in rs that the term applies. TFD (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• No - some subjects are uncontroversially and uncontentiously conspiracy theories. There's no reason to suggest those are "controversial". In other instances it might not be as cut-and-dry and describing something as "controversial" might be appropriate. Implementing a blanket rule doesn't work. Stalwart111 09:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• No. As I've said, the examples given on this MoS page are not supposed to be a comprehensive list of all words to watch. Fringe theories should be documented as what sources describe them as. The MoS describes the principle, it's not a venue for adjudicating the use of all possibly problematic phrases. That should happen based on case-by-case use, usually on the talk page of where the phrase is being used. It looks like the editor is trying to get a default judgement on their dispute Talk:Six-Day_War#.22Conspiracy_Theories.22. They may or may not be right about the due weight in the use there (it might make sense for more non-involved editors to review it), but "fixing" the MoS is probably not a productive way to settle a situation marked by edit-warring and acrimony. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see how you might think that (so I'm not particularly offended) but I can only assure you that I'm not going to all this trouble as a ruse to get a fairly obscure section amended. I'd certainly welcome another editor having a look at that section and its reference to 'Arab Conspiracy Theories' (if it's still there), but I'm nowhere near committed enough to resume that particular Sisyphean task, even if something like my proposal were to achieve consensus (a slim prospect on current showing, but I can dream).

BTW, I think a closer look at what transpired in that case would show that I didn't engage in any acrimony, and I don't think I should really be charged with edit warring (not as an aggressor, anyway, but I expect they all say that.) I'm an inexperienced editor, and wasn't familiar with what an edit war is, exactly. I've read a lot more on WP policies as a result of that rather dismaying encounter. The connection between that dispute and this request is not direct. It's more a case of a common cause: I am generally interested in and opposed to the pervasive polemical use of this term in all contexts; I came across what I took to be a particularly glaring example of the term being introduced into an article solely as a prejudicial label, and tried to change it.

Regarding 'instruction creep', that's all very well but I'm not asking to cover every eventuality; just one that I think needs addressing because the POV-pushing potential of this term is less obvious than that of many others. There must be plenty of other similarly frustrating disputes going on, discouraging many earnest, judicious and fair-minded editors, and consequently many other defective WP entries, in which the term is used to deny due weight to perfectly reasonable and widely-held views. Alongside that, enless bickering and repetitive discussion, and presumably in some cases an arbitration process of some kind, which takes up peoples' time and is inevitably going to be influenced by the arbitrator's opinion on the 'conspiracy theory' in question, and by how familiar they are with the ambiguous and value-laden nature of the label.

Providing a bit of gentle guidance here would help to clarify and often resolve such disputes - if someone is using 'conspiracy theory' to mean 'allegation of conspiracy' or 'suspicions about collusion', etc. they should not object to using a precise descriptive phrase; if they mean to explicitly signal 'delusion', 'unfalsifiable belief system', etc., they shouldn't mind saying so. Having a modest statement flagging this 'phrase to watch' would assist in clarifying this to bona fide editors. The result - greater consistency, less editor burnout, better WP articles, less time spent by admins on adjudicating petty misunderstandings and wildly over-inflated disputes, more focus on genuinely hard cases, increased harmony, world peace, and free pizza.

I therefore humbly ask you to reconsider - my suggestion for the wording and even the specific content is entirely provisional and up for discussion. My aim is certainly not to ban the phrase; only to flag up the fact that there is an issue here, and that the term is capable of being used in a prejudicial way. Stax68 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Suggest slight changes to Peacock terms

I am not sure that the current wording of PEACOCK is clear enough in respect to such terms and attribution. Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

I would rewrite as follows (explanation below): Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable unverifiable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. Peacock terms and peacock like language used to describe subjects, concepts or other facts in an article attributed to reliable secondary sources are permissible. (Bold for added text)

"secondary" added per Nickmxp below --Mike Cline (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The rationale here is simple, if a peacock term or peacock like language is cited to a reliable source that uses that very language or terms, then it should be allowed in the article. Too often editors just remove what they think is peacock language, cite this MOS and seem unconcerned as to whether sources actually support the language. The first sentence talks about “without attribution” but the “with attribution” aspect of this is lost. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest adding reliable "secondary" sources.... Nickmxp (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with loaded language in quotes. But when it's not, we're supposed to paraphrase the spin out of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My rationale behind the secondary source suggestion was due to numerous amount of opinion articles on everything if the term came from a secondary source it would give a better siense of notability for that opinion... I could be wrong but that was the reasoning.NickMxp 21:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs)

We (in theory) shouldn't have much opinion at all in an encyclopedia. In Reception/Criticism/Controversy sections, sure, but elsewhere it should simply be erased, not sourced. People magazine is a (largely) independent source which calls 100 people "beautiful" every year. That doesn't mean we should add the word to every lead, but we could cite the fact of the ranking in an Awards section, attributed to People. Problems arise with your proposal when those same 100 people are also featured on another list of worst-dressed or such, where they are called dumpy, lumpy, frumpy or just plain gross. Who is truly correct? Nobody. Just opinions. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think confusing what we are talking about here with "opinion" is in error. Unless there is empirical data to support some fact, most content reflects someone's (individually or collectively) opinion. I review and reference a lot of scientific papers and books related to articles I work on. They are riddled with opinions and conclusions made by the authors. We include such content as fact and cite them accordingly with reliable sources and no one objects. In many cases, they are extremely POV and biased. Yet when the same types of reliable sources uses one of our "peacock" words we dismiss it as pure POV. My personal pet peeve is the term "World Class". It is well defined in dictionaries [17] yet when the term is used in reliable sources to describe something, we find it easy to dismiss as POV or opinion completely disregarding what the sources say, sources that are authored by experts who know what they are talking about. That's not right. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think opinions are sometimes notable... like being on the best/worst dressed list... But I think it should be only worth noting if someone noted someone elses opinion... like if I wrote an opinion piece saying someone was the worst dressed at the oscars.. it shouldn't be noted... but If CNN noted the opinion of my article (in relation to the topic at hand of course)... then i think it's okay... so maybe changing it to "Reliable secondary sources in relation to the topic at hand are permissable, but never use them in the lead" would be a better approach..Nickmxp (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional terms for inclusion in list of example Peacocks

• Amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.1.89 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hate groups

I think we should add a guideline section of when to refer to groups as "Hate groups"... I'm pretty new to wikipedia but I've already seen this label used twice to push a point of view... once in the GQ controversy section of the Duck Dynasty article... citing that phil recieved support from three anti gay hate groups.. and once in the lead in on the stop the islamization of america article... there is even a great deal of discussion going on in the talk section of how to characterize the groups characterization the petitioners as anti gay... I consider the tid bit to be a bit of a point of view push because it referenced no article except for a list of anti gay hate groups.. and of course those who disagreed with his remarks also labeled them as anti gay.. but that's beside the point.. I think that SPLC labels are needed in some instances about a subject but only as a tid bit.. like in the body of main article it would be appropriate to note the group was labeled as a hate group.... but I think we need to stay away from using the label everytime the group comes up... I wouldn't consider it to be a word to avoid but surely there seems to be a need for a section in the guidelines on how to apply such labels properly and relevantly.... the argument seems to be that since the splc lists them as hate groups then it's appropriate to also list them as hate groups... but to use that rationale one could write an article about stem cell research and list one of it's critics as an anti-gay hate group... which would just seem silly... Nickmxp (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I say "hate group" is fine, if it's called that in the source used to back whatever objective claim is made. Combining the factual source with a second list of groups labelled hate groups (by anyone) to make a new point is WP:SYNTHESIS. Not using any sources is even worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In the Duck Dynasty instance, best to just list the three groups by name. That footnote to the rationale looks deceptively like a reference, in the body. Can't fix it myself, apparently there were page-locking fights there. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Stop Islamization of America one is a bit more fair, as it's directly about the group, and the designation is clearly attributed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

the SOIA page is a little bit coy about labeling.. which is why I though it was a good example, as I agree that the part at the end stating it's been labeled a hate group... I don't think the very first sentence calling it an anti Islam anti Muslim organization (the type of hate group it has been labeled) is very neutral... it would be like having the first sentence of the family research council state that the family research council is an anti gay organization founded in 1862... (or what ever year it was founded in ) and then at the end of the description saying it was called a hate by the SPLC.. the duck dynasty page got locked over a conflict over this very subject... Nickmxp (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hadn't even looked at the first sentence. Now that I do, yeah, that's a bit shady. Also defies WP:LEADCITE. Whenever I see a buttload of citations next to anything, it rings my "somebody's trying to prove a point" bell, and it looks more dubious than it would have with none.

And when I see the words "Islam" and "United States", I think 7th most controversial topic meets 13th. Those are unlucky numbers, so I'm afraid I can only offer moral support. I'm a scarred veteran of Wikipedia's 4th worst warzone, but at least that was fun. These religious and political battles are all basically the same, and never end. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason I see the SOIA thing as a point of view shift is simply because that first sentence couldn't be used to describe their mirror organization stop the Islamazation of Europe because the SPLC doesn't label groups outside of the us even though they have essentially the same objectives... Nickmxp (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely prefer their lead. Nice and factual. No citation clutter. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Denmark and Norway's SIO articles are also quite alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I believe a guideline for when and how to use labels applied by third parties should be included... it could stop alot of edit war headaches... (personally I'm now staying out of the editing part concerning these labels although I do make my objections known... I tried to condense the GQ section... rookie mistake... lol) Although the mis application of labels can be covered using other guidelines, it seems to me that when other guidelines are pointed out it fuels an already tense debate by both sides discerning the applicability of such guidelines to that situation... It would seem there is a need to have a go-to section for clarity.Nickmxp (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It should have the same requirement for other labels in WP:LABEL. Which, unless used widely in multiple reliable sources, should be avoided. Same as "cult." --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen people try to explain the wp label only to be met with stuff like the SPLC is a highly reliable source.. after all the lead in sentence on the SIOA has a list of sources backing up it's label up but it doesn't read neutrally... it reads as a well sourced point of view... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs) 00:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The requirement is "widely recognized." One group is not enough. --DHeyward (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

True but most hate groups are widely recognized as such due to the labeling of one group.. a list of hate groups is widely recognized.. I think in terms of general guidelines it would be more neutral to open an article about a group with how that group labels themselves.. and then stating the labels of others.. and to apply the term hate group only in frame of the people who reported on the issue if the labeling was widely reported.. example with the gq section.. if multiple news stations reported an anti gay hate group was supporting Phil.. then it would be reasonable to arrest that Phil was being supported by an anti gay hate group.. but if multiple sources state only the groups name then only the groups name should be reported.. and if you got multiple sources using the name and only one or two using the label.. the name should be applied as it the group was most noted by name. It seems the labeling is being used in this instance to promote motive behind the support that Phil received that was not generally noted by sources as the rationale for support... because generally what I've seen I the term hate group is being used to imply motive as fact... even if it contradicts other motives and the label if used improperly can give license to the opinionated to state their beliefs as fact and their opponents beliefs as questionable all under the authority. Of the word hate group.. Nickmxp (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Nickmxp:I believe labels that even hint at being contentious should not be used. Contentious labels, particularly value-laden labels serve no purpose other than to further agendas and POVs. It could be construed as WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:SYNTHESIS depending on what links are used in the template. For example, editors need a better understanding of the effects of value-laden labels such as Islamophobia, and the important differences in the words Islam/Islamic and Islamism/Islamist extremism. I recently posted the following to a threaded discussion on an RFC: Does the use of the Islamophobia template in this article violate wikipedias policy on NPOV?---> I feel this is extremely important (emphasis my own) - WP guidelines "Value-laden labels" state: Emotive arguments and loaded language are particularly persuasive because they exploit the human weakness for acting immediately based upon an emotional response, without such further considered judgment. Due to such potential for emotional complication, it is generally advised to avoid loaded language in argument or speech when fairness and impartiality is one of the goals. Anthony Weston, for example, admonishes students and writers: "In general, avoid language whose only function is to sway the emotions". The Islamophobia template does just that through the use of "Islam" and "phobia". Together, the words sway emotions, and indirectly promote a cause which in this case inadvertently happens to be Islamism. Organizations that investigate and collect data for the purpose of exposing Islamist extremism are not phobic, should not be labeled phobic, and should not be connected to contentious labeling in a phobia series. The Islamophobia template links to articles about genocide, and Qu'ran burnings which are unrelated. In fact, it may even be considered WP:Synthesis. It is neither the purpose of WP nor the job of editors to link unrelated articles they "assume" may be of interest to readers, especially when such linking is done through value-laden labeling.

Newsweek published a very informative article distinguishing the difference between Islamic and Islamist. It is titled Islamic or Islamist? Pluralist and secular Muslims are certainly able to discern the difference as evidenced in multiple reliable sources. In fact there is an excellent article about Islamism in WP. With no intention of offending anyone, it appears to me that the Islamophobia template may have originated from ignorance about the differences between Islam, and Islamism/Islamist extremism. WP is spreading that ignorance by the continued use of the Islamophobia template. It is of the utmost importance for WP editors to understand the differences.Atsme ☯ talk 13:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Adventurer"

Re. the lede of Chris Terrill, does it violate WP:PEACOCK to call him an "adventurer"? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If no sources call him that, and it's not in the main body in any way, then yes. If sources call him that or an equivalent term, then no. That lead needs work no matter what. It should also summarize any significant or notable specific work and career experiences. The main body text needs some rewriting to avoid peacock phraseology. However, this isn't really a noticeboard for other articles, so you should work on it at that article's talk page.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I brought it up here since my main question regards whether or not that substantive counts as a Peacock term. (By contrast, e.g. "lawyer" presumably wouldn't, even if unattributed.) I linked to the article just so people could see the context I had seen the word in. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 13:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

In that context I think it's a little unencyclopedic and imprecise (like listing someone as a "romantic", even when it's arguably true and not being used in a promotional or peacock manner). The fix in this case would be to remove "adventurer" and state more about what the subject is notable about in the lead. I don't think the word is necessarily "promotional" in all cases but I don't think it's useful there. The article does have many other instances of overly promotional and editorializing language, so I think you're right to look at it, e.g. brought together his two passions (the military and the theatre) in a remarkable way. There are also some possibly BLP-problematic issues where we quote him bad-mouthing and being bad-mouthed by his ex-fiancee, which seems a bit against WP:NOTGOSSIP. Hope this helps.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Request edit in Unsupported attributions section

The second phrase: I subjectively think "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis." could be improved by writing instead "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet without substantial basis.". This view is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE. But it's worth reading (in my subjective opinion).189.138.250.29 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been meaning to address Codename Lisa's change to the beginning of that section, and this is because her change is bit redundant to the second sentence, the sentence the IP cited above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I kind of prefer Lisa's edit, as it is somewhat easier to understand. It's kind of redundant, yes. Also, I'd kind of prefer "Weasel words are statements..." over the current "Weasel words are words...". >.< This needs more attention. Hopefully this other reply will do the trick. 189.138.245.69 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As you might have seen, Lisa implemented your request. As for the rest of what you want changed, if no one watching this page objects soon, I suggest you be WP:Bold and make the changes yourself. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)