Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Clarity

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 115#Consolidation: Example for the brief history of this page. The page is not transcluded anywhere and is not part of the Manual of Style. The claims below to the contrary have been striken but kept visible.

This is a specific sub-document to the primary Manual of Style. There should be nothing here which is unsupported by the MOS itself.

This page is transcluded into the Manual of Style page. Please discuss changes to is as you would any other change to the MOS. Extra markup appears in the source for this page, due to it needing to be transcluded. In order to understand the reasons for the extra markup, please see the template help page.

Clarity

Writing should be clear and concise. Articles are intended to explain topics, not to dazzle readers with editors' learning or vocabulary. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, Neologisms, peacock terminology, and weasel words.

Jargon

"WP:Jargon" redirects here. For a glossary of terms commonly used on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Glossary.

Words and phrases used as jargon by any profession or group should usually be avoided or explained. Like slang, jargon develops as a kind of shorthand among members of a group. Some articles may never become accessible to a wide readership, but most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook. On the other hand, an article that defines every term, or every symbol, may be so cluttered that no one can read it.

It is often helpful to wikilink terms not obvious to most readers; sometimes links to Wiktionary may serve the reader as well as links to Wikipedia articles. Pay particular attention to terms for which the technical meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning. Some mathematical symbols might be considered unnecessary jargon, and so editors should write them out in words, or explain their meaning and pronunciation (see the Manual of Style: mathematics).

Per Self-references to avoid, do not assume that the readers know anything about Wikipedia. Wikipedian jargon should appear only rarely in articles, should appear only where directly relevant to the subject of the article, and should always be explained.

Neologisms

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create a neologism in English. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well—we do not do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. (See Reliable sources for neologisms below for more on supporting the use of neologisms.)

Created terms that add common prefixes or suffixes (such as non– or –ism) to existing words can add clarity, and this may be acceptable in some cases. If not done carefully, however, this practice can result in new terms that are misleading, ambiguous, offensive, or that lend undue weight to a particular point of view. (For instance, adding –ism to a word can sometimes be offensive, implying a belief system or political movement. It may also lead readers to believe there is an established school of thought on a topic where there is not.) Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them. Editors should generally use established words instead of neologisms, unless the neologism decreases the complexity or increases the clarity of the sentence.

Articles on neologisms

In some cases a concept has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable, and a fairly newly coined term may be the simplest and most natural way to refer to the concept. In this case that newly coined term may be the best title for the article, provided the use of the term is verifiable.

However, some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, and this is sometimes but not always the case. Some of the reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate are:

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate.
• Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via proposed deletion or articles for deletion). Articles on neologisms that have not yet caught on widely are commonly deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.

As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead.

Reliable sources for neologisms

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

Articles wrongly titled as neologisms

Main page: Wikipedia's policy on Article titles

In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

Peacock terms

This amazing peacock is amazing because he just is.

In Wikipedia articles, forgo unsourced or unexplained peacock terms that merely promote the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information. Examples include describing people as "important", "main", or "among the greatest" in their field, without explaining why. When using these terms, make sure you have sources to support them, and that the reader understands why the person or subject is so regarded.

For example, instead of William Peckenridge, 1st Duke of Omnium (1602 – May 8, 1671) is the most important man ever to carry that title., use William Peckenridge, 1st Duke of Omnium (1602 – May 8, 1671) was personal counselor to King Charles I, royalist general in the English Civil War, a chemist, poet, and the director of the secret society known as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He expanded his family's possessions to include the proprietorship of the Province of New Hampshire and the hereditary Lord High Bailiffship of Guernsey and Sark.. Similarly, instead of Brazil has a vigorous economy., use According to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Brazil has the ninth-largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP).. The first examples simply tells the reader that the subject is important. The second examples show the reader how the subject is important, without directly saying so. Show, don't tell by asserting facts, not opinions, and substantiating facts about opinions.

Do not hide the important facts

This does not mean one should underplay the legitimate importance of a topic. It is appropriate to write "The Pacific Ocean is Earth's largest ocean" and "World War II involved the mobilization of over 100 million military personnel, making it the most widespread war in history." Peacock terms can be avoided when dealing with the third-longest river in Rhode Island, but when it comes to the Amazon River, Wikipedia readers should be told just how long it really is. When a person or event is in fact important, the reader must be shown how important, and why.

In some contexts, the fame or reputation of a subject may be an objective and relevant question, better supported by a direct source than by drawing inferences indirectly based on other facts (which would constitute original research or synthesis). A sourced statement that the subject is "famous", "well known", "important", "influential", or the like may be appropriate, particularly to establish a subject's notability in an introductory sentence or paragraph.

Inappropriate subjects

Conversely, if you are trying to dress up something that does not belong in Wikipedia—your non-notable band, Web site, or company's product—think twice about it. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium or home page service. (See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.) Wikipedians are experienced in recognizing inappropriate pages, and if an article is for personal promotion or blatant advertising, it will be speedily deleted or subjected to the articles for deletion or proposed deletion processes.

Don't peacock your facts

Avoid drumming up interest in facts or trivia by tagging them with editorial remarks. For example, it is generally unhelpful to prefix a fact or development with comments like "interestingly", "ironically", "surprisingly", "it should be noted", and the like. Stick to the facts and report them without the commentary; allow the reader to decide what is interesting, ironic, surprising, or noteworthy.

Exception for quotations

Do not impose Wikipedia style guidelines on sources that are cited or quoted. It is proper to say, "Music critic Ann Bond wrote that Mozart was a great composer," or "Smith said, 'Senator Jones's acceptance of this contribution is a major scandal.'" Such indirect or direct quotations may be useful in presenting important perspectives, especially on contentious subjects, or in summarizing a widely held view.

Weasel words

Weasel words are phrases that are evasive, ambiguous, or misleading. On Wikipedia, the term refers to evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution. Weasel words can present an apparent force of authority seemingly supporting statements without allowing the reader to decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable, or they can call into question a statement. If a statement cannot stand without weasel words, it does not express a neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed. If, on the other hand, a statement can stand without such words, their inclusion may undermine its neutrality, and the statement will generally be better off without them.

For example, "Luton, UK is the nicest town in the world", is an example of a biased or uninformative statement. The application of a weasel word or expression can give the illusion of neutrality: "Some people say Luton, UK, is the nicest town in the world."

Although this is an improvement, in that it no longer states the opinion as fact, it remains uninformative, and thus naturally suggests various questions:

• Who says that?
• When do they say it? Now? At the time of writing?
• How many people think it? How many is some?
• What kind of people think it? Where are they?
• What kind of bias might they have?
• Why is this of any significance?

Weasel words do not really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name to an opinion by citing sources which are reliable than it is to assign it to an anonymous or vague-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless "source" which is unverifiable.

Overview

Examples

• "Alleged(ly)..."
• "Some people say..."
• "Contrary to many..."
• "Research has shown..."
• "...is claimed to be..."
• "...is thought to be..."
• "It is believed that..."
• "It is rumoured that..."
• "Some feel that..."
• "Critics/experts say that..."
• "It is claimed..."
• "It has been reported that..."
• "It is generally considered that..."
• "noted" or "observed" when applied to opinions
• Anthropomorphisms such as "Science says ..." or "Medicine believes ..."

The main problem with weasel words is that they interfere with Wikipedia's neutral point of view; but they give rise to other problems too:

• Uninformative. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide accurate and useful information. Weasel words are imprecise, often inaccurate, and usually uninformative.
• Wordy. Weasel words are generally just sentence stuffing; they make sentences longer without carrying any useful information.
• Unnecessary debate. Expressions such as "Some people think such and such" lead to questions, or even arguments, about how many people actually think that. How many people is some people, and who are they?
• Repetition. Overuse of weasel words can lead to very monotonous articles, owing to the constraints they impose on sentence structure—for example: "Some argue... [..] Others respond... [..] Still others point out that [..]" This is poor writing for an encyclopaedia.
• Time sense. There is an "as of" guideline to help with articles that incorrectly use "recently" and "currently". The {{When}} template can be used where an editor wants to bring attention to a vague time reference in an article.

General examples include:

• Use of "clearly" or "obviously". If something does not need to be said, do not say it. If it does, do not apologize for it by using words like "clearly".
• Improper use of "some", "many", "all", "most". As a rule, it is better to avoid ad populum arguments, such as "as most Wikipedians agree..."
• Use of "possibly" or "seemingly". If something cannot be verified then it cannot be included. Unsourced use of "possibly" is pure speculation. If a doubtful statement is sourced, then an attribution for the source should be given. Likewise, unsourced use of "seemingly" or "seems to be" is improper synthesis.

Use of the passive voice

Certain weasel words require a sentence to be in the passive voice—e.g., "It has been said that ...". The passive voice does not, on its own, identify who stands behind the opinions or actions it describes. Expressions such as "it has been said that A is B" and "A is thought to be B" create a convincing-sounding appeal to authority without naming the authority in question.

In addition, although the passive voice is syntactically correct, The Chicago Manual of Style suggests: "As a matter of style, passive voice [...] is typically, though not always, inferior to the active voice [...]", and Strunk and White, in The Elements of Style (1918), recommend that it be used sparingly, calling it "less direct, less bold, and less concise" than the active voice. On the other hand, the AP Stylebook contradicts Strunk & White on this point.

Most critically, editors should not use passive voice constructs to avoid attributing words or actions to the appropriate speaker or subject, or to omit any other important detail from a sentence.

Improving weasel-worded statements

The {{Who?}} tag (), the {{Which?}} tag (), and the {{by whom?}} tag () (all of which include an internal wikilink to this page) can be added directly to the phrase in question, to draw attention to the presence of weasel words. The {{weasel word}} tag () can also be used, although it may be less informative than {{Who?}}, {{Which?}} and {{by whom?}} for readers and editors seeking to improve the text. In extreme cases, the {{weasel}} tag can be added to the top of an article or section.

The key to improving articles containing weasel words is either a) to name a source for the opinion (i.e., attribution), or b) to change opinionated language into concrete facts (i.e., substantiation).

Peacock terms are especially hard to deal with without using weasel words. Consider the sentence "The Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history." It is tempting to rephrase this in a weaselly way—for example, "The Yankees are considered by many to be the greatest baseball team in history." But how can this assertion be qualified? And how many is many? While it may well be true that millions of Yankees fans and hundreds of baseball experts would, if asked, name the Yankees as the best baseball team in history, the statement, as it stands, is too vague to be informative. In the absence of specific figures, it would be better to avoid mentioning this opinion entirely, in favour of presenting the facts:

• "As of 2009, The New York Yankees have won 27 World Series championships—about three times as many as any other team."

This informs the reader that the Yankees have (at the time of writing) had more championships than any other baseball team. The reader is then free to draw his or her own conclusions about the "greatness" of the Yankees, based on the information given. Such a strategy favours objectivity over subjectivity and rationality over bias.

Exceptions

Further information: [[:Embrace weasel words]]

As with any rule of thumb, this guideline presents a rather sweeping generalization: don't use weasel words in Wikipedia articles. This advice should be balanced against other needs for the text, such as the need for brevity and clarity. Some specific exceptions should be noted in particular:

• When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion—for example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun orbited the Earth."
• When the holders of the opinion are too diverse or numerous to qualify—for example, "Some people prefer dogs as pets; others prefer cats."
• When contrasting a minority opinion with a more widely held one—for example, "Although Brahms's work is part of the classical music canon, Benjamin Britten has questioned its value." Brahms's importance is almost, but not quite, an undisputed fact. It's not necessary to source the majority opinion when describing the minority one.

Related guidelines and templates

Jargon

• {{Cleanup-jargon}}
• {{Jargon-statement}}
• Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions
• Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible
• WP:OBVIOUS: State the obvious.

Neologisms

• {{Cleanup-articletitle}}
• {{Neologism}}

Peacock terms

• {{Peacock}}
• {{Peacock term}}
• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
• Wikipedia:Words to avoid
• Wikipedia:Writing better articles
• Wikipedia:Wikipuffery

Weasel words

• Articles with weasel words
• Avoid peacock terms
• Avoid speculation
• Avoid trite expressions, be concise
• Weasel word
• Wikipedia:Embrace weasel words
• Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles
• Wikipedia:Words to avoid