Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive03

Use of claim

In an old revision of this page, the word claim was treated as follows:

The word "claim" often replaces "say" to make for a very biased sentence. Think of the example:

George Bush claimed that the Iraq government was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

The truth of the sentence can be disputed for ages, but one simple change makes everyone agree:

George Bush said that the Iraq government was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

The current page, lumping it together with some other words, says:

These words can imply doubt, and smear a viewpoint, because they often lack a verifiable source or exact details. Sometimes these words may be necessary to clarify uncited statements or definitions written in absolute terms.

Compare the implications of the two otherwise identical sentences, "Microsoft states it will not abuse encryption keys" and "Microsoft claims it will not abuse encryption keys".

Dubious use:

• "Physicists claim that electricity is made up of so-called electrons"

. . .

Acceptable use:

• "George Bush claimed in this speech that Al-Qaeda were responsible for the 9/11 attacks" (actual citation)

. . .

I don't think that's an acceptable use at all. Look in [url=http://www.tfd.com/claim]the dictionary[/url]: "To state to be true, especially when open to question". That, in other words, suggests that Bush's statement was open to question, which is POV. According to many POVs (the majority POVs, actually, at least in the West), the view is not at all questionable, and in fact anyone who questions it is quite possibly viewed as a loony depending on whom you ask.

I would propose that this section look something like this.

==Claim, so-called, supposed, alleged, purported==

These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing; Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, and in general, there will be someone out there who will view a given statement as highly probable—at the very least the person who said it! Where doubt does exist, it should be mentioned explicitly, along with who's doing the doubting, rather than relying on murky implications.

The word claim can be used to mean "assert, say". In this sense, it carries a very strong connotation of dubiousness: by using it, you suggest that the assertion is suspect. The American Heritage Dictionary notes this connotation explicitly in their definition of the word: "To state to be true, especially when open to question". Of course, there are other definitions of claim as well. These generally don't have the same connotation, and the word can be used freely in those senses. For instance, making a claim in court or claiming a piece of land are valid.

So-called (like "scare quotes", to which similar principles apply) can suggest that a term is invalid. Both the AHD[1] and Webster's[2] give the term two definitions, one indicating that a normal name follows and one indicating that an incorrect name follows. It can be difficult to tell the usages apart; in general, the term may be used for introducing terminology likely to be unfamiliar to the reader (although italics may be preferable), but never for characterizing any specific application of an already-known term.

Supposed and supposedly, like claim, serve the function of casting doubt upon an assertion. Saying something is "supposedly true" makes it seem as though the author believes it uncertain. On the other hand, supposed can sometimes denote intent, permission, or prohibition. In such cases the term will often be neutral, but probably too informal for Wikipedia.

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the doubter is clear.

Dubious use:

• Paranoid schizophrenics typically claim that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them. [Obviously they're generally incorrect, but better to say that explicitly. Try believe.]
• The so-called pro-life movement comprises those who believe abortion should be illegal. [So-called suggests that they are not, in fact, "pro-life". Whether this is true is debatable, so instead make it clear who calls them that—use self-described, or rephrase to "the movement generally known as pro-life . . .".]
• Those who live in the vicinity of Chernobyl supposedly suffer from elevated disease rates. [Remove supposedly and prepend the sentence with something like "According to all independent investigations of the matter . . .".]
• Feather wool is a type of knitting yarn or cotton that is supposed to resemble wool. [Neutral, but informal. Replace with intended or designed.]
• Bush purportedly exclaimed, "The Constitution is just a fucking piece of paper." [Cite a source instead of using purportedly.]

Acceptable use:

• According to Microsoft's claim, Apple inflicted $2 million worth of damages on it by infringing its patents. [Because we're discussing a legal claim, this terminology is not only acceptable but possibly required, since any other term would not be standard jargon and therefore might be imprecise.]
• Protons are not in fact elementary, but are rather composed of smaller particles, so-called quarks. [This introduces a new term, and so is probably okay. Consider italicizing quarks instead.]
• O.J. Simpson allegedly murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994. [In the context of crimes, alleged is understood to mean "alleged by government prosecutors".]

This is a rather large change, so I'd appreciate some feedback. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good, though a bit long. Do you mean it to replace sections 2.1 and 2.5? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is good also. I find the "acceptable use" section particularly enlightening. Deco 02:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't look at section 2.5. That might be possible to work in somehow, but it's distinct in many ways. Perhaps we should have 2.1 be a section about how you should usually use say, and bump everything else down? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For convenience I'm going to move up the section 'Point out, note...' so that it follows the section 'So-called, claim(s), purported(ly)...' Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there was unanimous agreement amonst the few who commented, I've instituted the change. Feel free to revert if you object. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

See problems that have arisen with the "claim" guideline at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Some Thoughts Concerning Education. I think that the wording of the guideline is too stringent and it should rely on the OED. Thanks. Awadewit 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose this addition: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "claim" is "‘Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain, assert’." This usage is particularly common when discussing texts and ideas. For example:

"In Book II [of Essay Concerning Human Understanding] Locke claims that ideas are the materials of knowledge and all ideas come from experience." - John Locke at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Awadewit 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Describing discredited statements

What words should be used to describe statements that have been discredited or debunked?

• "State"? "The defendant stated that he was on the other side of town at the time of the crime, but eyewitness, closed-circuit tv & forensic evidence placed him at the scene of the crime." This would seem to be a violation of WP:UNDUE, in giving undue weight to a discredited statement.
• "Say"? "The defendant said that he was on the other side of town at the time of the crime, but eyewitness, closed-circuit tv & forensic evidence placed him at the scene of the crime." Ditto, though slightly less weighted.
• "Claim"? "The defendant claimed that he was on the other side of town at the time of the crime, but eyewitness, closed-circuit tv & forensic evidence placed him at the scene of the crime." Better, but an apparent violation of WP:WTA.
• "Allege"? "The defendant alleged that he was on the other side of town at the time of the crime, but eyewitness, closed-circuit tv & forensic evidence placed him at the scene of the crime." Similar connotation to "claim".
• Other?

Hrafn42 11:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all talk -- but with consequences.

Try testify or its derivative if the defendant so says under oath in a court of law. Testimony can be true, objective, valid, verifiable, and unbiased. It can likewise be false, deluded, unsubstantiable, perjured, discreditable, and self-serving. The generic word for any statement made under oath in a court of law is testimony, irrespective of who delivers it and its reliability. Such is the generic term in use in law for statements in court.

State is acceptable if the contention, irrespective of its validity, is made on some official statement in the presence of persons deputized to accept such statements, whether signed or oral. If the police officer who collects the verbal communication of a suspect "I was on the other side of town at that time" or that of an eyewitness "The license number on the car speeding away from the crime scene was "California 0 XXX 000" on a document or a recording described in a subsequent legal preceding a "statement", then state is as good a description of the words that a defendant (or eyewitness) offers as a description of events. Statements, like testimony, can be true, objective, valid... discreditable, or self-serving.

Say or tell suggests the absence of consequences for truth or falsehood relevant to a legal proceeding or a lack of formality. Thus

"The alleged robber told a reporter from TV 37 News that he was on the opposite side of town at the time of the robbery"

has no consequences in law because news reports are not ordinarily testimony or evidence.

An exception might be that

The jailhouse snitch stated (to police or jail officials on a statement to be used in a court of law or for further investigation) or testified (under oath in a court of law) that he overheard the defendant say something incriminating.Paul from Michigan 11:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of "example"

This style good really isn't NPOV. It's examples may be the best to put it, but there is no need you use examples that everybody criticizes, such as Microsoft or G. Bush. Iolakana|^(talk) 16:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV only applies to articles. But if you don't like the examples, go ahead and change them. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

'Liberate' and its derivatives

The word "liberate" means "to set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control" [3]. It's usage should be avoided in the cases that do not fit this definition. For instance, it woud be inappropriate to say "the army of country X liberated territory Y from Z", if the political regime established by country X at territory Y is oppressive. It does not matter whether regime Z was oppressive or not.

Another example, "the army of country X liberated country Y from the control of country Z" is inappropriate if the country Y claims or claimed its independence but did not obtain it from X. In this case the country Y was not set free from foreign control, but rather one foreign control was replaced by another one.

Please note that according to the definition the pre-war status of the territory is irrelevant.

The word "liberate" and its derivatives should not be avoided if the context clearly fits the definition: liberation of prisoners, retaking a territory if most reputable scholars do not consider the new regime at this territory oppressive, if the country becomes indpendent, etc. --AndriyK 15:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't seem unreasonable, provided there are good sources to describe the change of control as exchange of occupations rather than liberation. If there is serious difference of opinion over whether liberation occurred (such as the case of Poland) then the word liberation should be avoided because its use is prejudicial to the question. A more neutral word should be substituted. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the flaw is in the word "occupant", Ukraine, like it or not was universally recognised as part of the USSR, before and after the second World War (Unlike the Baltic States, where I personally agree that the word liberation is not suitable). --Kuban Cossack 17:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not about Ukraine or USSR. This is about the countries X, Y and Z.

Let's formulate a general guideline in the most abstract form and then see to which countries it applies.--AndriyK 11:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the word should be avoided in military-political situations regardless of their context. Sure, usable in the most obvious situations (concentration camps, Gulags, prisons and so on), but in all other situations there are much better, much more neutral words that could be used. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but even the 1944 Allied push through France was not "liberation" for Petain nor for the French SS soldiers. Not to mention more obvious cases like Poland, or the areas taken from Poland. I've seen some users have no problem mentioning that the people of some area had been liberated - and then mentioning that all of them were subsequently arrested and deported.

Let's stick to military terms and all will be fine. Halibutt 18:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As per Halibutt's post, imho. Readers don't need to be spoonfed someone's opinion continually. Personally, I find few things quite so annoying and nauseating. Plus, avoiding "liberate" is simple and avoids so many pointless edit squabbles. Deuar 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with AndriyK's, Halibu's, and Deuar's statements.--tufkaa 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AndriyK, Halibutt,and Deuar. To be exact: we should avoid "liberate" wording in military-political situations regardless of context, which is indeed simple. Ukrained 20:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AndriyK: liberate should be avoided if the connotations of the term are controversial, such as when it is not clear that there was an increase in liberty or the new regime is also oppressive. A minor point: the oppressiveness of the previous regime is not irrelevant; when liberty is increased - relative to the previous regime - liberate may be appropriate. Also, like AndriyK, I would still use it in some cases (e.g. the Allied liberation of France). - PatrickFisher 22:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think liberate can be generally avoided provided that it is retained in cases where it is the "most common English name" for an event (I'm thinking of Liberation of Paris, in particular). Kirill Lokshin 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Liberate" should be avoided at least in controversial cases.--Mbuk 21:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

And who will define what is a controversial case? -- Grafikm_fr 22:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Liberate" is not POV in most cases and there is no need to avoid it. In the case of the Soviets and Nazis, I daresay there is no "other side" that wishes to speak up. Rjensen 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If I may, is that just your opinion or is that a policy? -- Grafikm_fr 23:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Not policy yet. We're discussing whether to add some words about inappropriate use of the word "liberation" to this Style guide, which would make it recommended best practice for all editors (though not mandatory). --Tony Sidaway 00:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And who will define what is a controversial case? Controversial case is "if the political regime established by country X at territory Y is oppressive." Or considered as oppressive by respectable schoolars, I would say.--Mbuk 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Besides, there is always a "good-will approach" we could adopt. If there are people to dispute the usage of the L word in certain context, then it is fair to assume that the usage is controversial. And, as a matter of good will approach, we could change it there to some more neutral terms. What do you say? //Halibutt 06:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a fair chance that someone will always dispute a topic in some context. As you said yourself earlier, "Liberation of Paris" was hardly liberation for Petain and his men. What would you say if someone started to dispute that one? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that liberate should always be avoided in political/military contexts. It has a strongly positive connotation, and words with strong connotation should be avoided. Proper nouns (Liberation of Paris) would of course be exempted, as is our policy, and quotes of course could contain the word as well, but used as an actual part of speech, I don't think it's ever acceptable in this context. If prisoners are being freed, use the word free; if a country is being retaken, use the word retake.

I'm aware, however, that there's been a longstanding dispute on this issue. I hope all participants in it have been informed so they can discuss it here? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Version 2

The word "liberate" means "to set free, as from oppression, confinement, or foreign control" [4]. It's usage should be avoided in the cases that do not fit this definition. For instance, it woud be inappropriate to say "the army of country X liberated territory Y from Z", if the political regime established by country X at territory Y is oppressive. It does not matter whether regime Z was oppressive or not.

Another example, "the army of country X liberated country Y from the control of country Z" is inappropriate if the country Y claims or claimed its independence but did not obtain it from X. In this case the country Y was not set free from foreign control, but rather one foreign control was replaced by another one. Therefore this situation does not fit into definition as well.

Please note that according to the definition the pre-war status of the territory is irrelevant.

The word "liberate" and its derivatives should not be avoided if the context clearly fits the definition: liberation of prisoners, for instance. There are no formal reasons to avoid the word "liberate" in the case of (re)taking terrirory in combat operations if reputable scholars do not consider the newly established or reestablished regime at this territory oppressive, if the country becomes indpendent, etc. Still, many editors believe that militaric terms like "(re)take control over", "advance into", "(re)clame", "recover" etc. is better suited in such situations, as it is more encyclopedic and less politically charged, and potentially less controversial.

I tried to take into account different views that appeared in the above discussion and modified the last paragraph. Does it look better now?--AndriyK 11:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

However what happens if there is no country Y? If country X liberated its own territory from country Z? (Which is clearely the scenario that opened the dispute) --Kuban Cossack 12:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is no doubt that the territory is own, i.e. the people there did not claim their independence from country X, then it is the first case: "The army of country X liberated territory Y from Z" would be a bad wording if the political regime established by country X at territory Y is oppressive. There is no formal reasons to avoid the word "liberate" if the regime is not oppressive . Nonetheless many editors consider militaric terminology as s better style even in this case.--AndriyK 14:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. "it woud be inappropriate to say 'the army of country X liberated territory Y from Z', if the political regime established by country X at territory Y is oppressive"—since when is Wikipedia supposed to judge whether a regime is "oppressive"? If you would like to say "supported by fewer than X% of its inhabitants", that at least would be a reliable standard, but it's often much too hard to gauge support, so that's a flawed standard as well. As for "if reputable scholars do not consider the newly established or reestablished regime at this territory oppressive", reputable scholars' POV is not NPOV. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"supported by fewer than X% of its inhabitants" would not work. Oppressive regimes do not allow free elections or independent sociological polls. It is usually difficult to say how many percent of inhabitants support a certain oppressive regime.

The point of my proposal is the following. If there are scolars stating that regime X was/is oppressive this might be a POV not shared by everybody. It is not a sufficient reason to state in the article that the regime was oppressive. But it is a sufficient reason to avoid the word "liberate", because otherwise it may cause controversies, edit wars etc. Are you agree?--AndriyK 10:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the point is even if it was oppressive (again definition of what is oppressive is also helpful, does death penalty in USA or Guantanamo bay prison make it an oppressive regime as well?) I think we need to be rational with exactly what is liberation. So if country x eg. USSR is invaded by country Y eg Nazi Germany, then all of the territory that belonged to the USSR prior to invasion, as it is being recovered is liberated.

No, I don't agree. Emphasis on scholars here is inappropriate. Neo-Nazis doubtless view Nazi occupiers as liberators, and that this is an uncommon view today is mainly because of the predominant Western POVs of our time, which are so violently antiracist as to classify racism as a crime in many countries. I am against racism, but Wikipedia nevertheless shouldn't endorse the systemic biases of our era any more than it should other biases. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1. If territory Y is now an independent country, but its government and people still acknowledge liberation. (e.g. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova) then it is liberation without question.
2. If however territory Y is an independent country but its leaders now directely question the impact of the country Xs actions (e.g. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), then its liberation from country Y, with long term consenquences explained.
3. If territory Yc was an indpenedent country but it opposed country z, then action of country x is liberation from country Z (e.g Serbia, Czech republic). And if the modern government questions long-term impact, then liberation from country z with long-term consenquences explained (e.g Poland, Croatia).
4. If territory is indeed part of country z and/or it was part of country z's allies (sattelites) then, it is indeed occupation (as officially confirmed by Yalta and Potsdam conferences). Examples would be Hungary, Austria and of course Germany itself.

Finally I will not accept double standards for eastern or western thetres of World War 2. --Kuban Cossack 16:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No government has autority over WP. Governmental POV cannot be a guideline for WP editors.

Using the word "occupation" is not duscussed here. Please create a separate section if you would like.

My version does not say anything about West or East. Where do you see double standards?--AndriyK 16:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So then what is in your opinion a guide to NPOV? IMO - take / liberate / free. would the POV scale, the Occupy is not applicable as it is a hard nationalist POV that is not even worth to be taken for consideration in WP. Hence Liberate is in the middle and is NPOV, as mirrored by states, peoples, UN, and most respectable publications (e.g. Britannica). --Kuban Cossack 17:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Read "Ukraine" and "Wold wars". Do you find "liberate" there?--AndriyK 17:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It does say that about Kiev. So true for Kiev = true for Ukraine (east and west) --Kuban Cossack 18:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Current government opinion isn't a good solution. Governments are political, and may want to mouth some fictions to get in a better position with someone. Consider the position of the US on, for instance, Taiwan or the Armenian genocide. I also question whether the opinion of a majority of modern citizens is appropriate to use as any kind of basis; many modern-day Germans no doubt view the Allies as having liberated their country from Hitler, but that wasn't remotely the sentiment at the time, to my knowledge, even accounting for the difficulty of gauging opinion. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As liberation is a term devoted to expansion of freedom, it can't be used to define what happened in territories taken by Soviet Union, where massive executions, repression of national identity and political terror took place. From what I know only in Russia the term doesn't evoke controversy(or even outright rejection of the term as in some worst hit countries), perhaps it should be limited then to territories in its possesion ? There are many other, fairly neutral and descriptive terms that can be used. Its obvious that the term "liberation" in regards to actions of Soviet Union in areas that went under its control, rises serious objections. I may also note that not only in Wikipedians but in governments and populations of those countries. --Molobo 18:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

perhaps it should be limited then to territories in its possesion? That's what I was doing in the first place, yet it still started a huge edit war... Nobody is talking about applying this term to Poland or Germany... <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the definition of the word "liberate" once more. Do you find there any reference to "possesion"?--AndriyK 11:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"A major use of the word is the act of the (forcible) removal of unwanted control of an area, person or people by an outside (sometimes military) force." Control = possession. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is taken from a WP artickle, which can be a usefull source of information, but is not a creadible source.--AndriyK 12:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A general dictionary is not a credible source either, since it contains only the general meaning of the word, not its significance in some particular context. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What does the dictionary of military terms tell us about this word?--AndriyK 13:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Britannica uses the words "Kiev liberation". In this case, so can we, since accusing them of POV-pushing would be slightly excessive. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk first about the definition of the word "liberate". You told us you are not satisfied with the definition found in general dictionaries. Do you know other definitions found in creadible sources?--AndriyK 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, check Talk:Lviv and Talk:Łódź (and its history), where various users suggested to use it for Poland as well. //Halibutt 02:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, since when do I have to be responsible of the point of view of "various users"? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And when did I suggest that? I merely pointed to the fact that this discussion does not only affect a more clear-cut cases like the Russian forces recapturing Russian territory, but also affects the cases where the Red Army entered territory of foreign states. //Halibutt 02:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be wary of "liberate" because (unless its in the literal sense of "set free"), any battle of "Liberation" will be seen as a freeing by one side, and (usually) a loss of freedom by the other. So in general, I wouldn't mind seeing this on the words list. Its exactly that kind of inherent worded viewpoint that this list's designed to address. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the word "liberate" should be avoided in general when refering to a change in territorial control. Liberation is a value-laden term - a liberation is always a good thing. A change in territorial control is often a good thing or a bad thing depending on your POV. This guideline is exactly for words like this. AndrewRT - Talk 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand how anyone under the authority of any government is "liberated" for they are under the authority of others. This is a doublespeak word and should be avoided by unbiased encyclopedias so they can exist as such. The phrase "relatively liberated" is arguable, however.

Garner

My current pet peeve is the word "garner". It seems to crop up in entertainment-related articles particularly, eg. "so and so garnered 19 Oscars throughout their long career". It is becoming the cliche of the decade. It mimics the kind of unreal language you hear on plastic-infotainment TV shows. We're better than that. Where can I make an appeal to people to please stop using it. JackofOz 21:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want people to stop using it, this is the place to suggest it and gauge whether anyone agrees. I don't; I have no objection to the use of the word garner, in moderation. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people assert

I find it ironic that this page contains the phrase "Some people assert that yesterday's cults are today's mainstream religions," as this phrase seems to violate a number of Wikepedia guidlines, including the guidlines on this very page. "Assert" is one of those words that is a synonym for say, which introduces a bias to the statement. And in the Wikipedia article on weasel words, "Some people say . . ." is given as one of the weasel terms to avoid. In fact, it's the very first example. I just thought that was kind of funny.

Propaganda terms

As has been discussed for article titles already - Wikipedia:Naming conventions - propaganda names, especially referring to military conflicts, are to be avoided. E.g. United States invasion of Panama instead of "Operation Just Cause" and Iraq War instead of "Operation Iraqi Freedom", holocaust instead of "Final solution of the Jewish question". This does not hold when there is a need to point to the actual operation rather than a neutral term, e.g. if a conflict is known under a certain name but for different parts of it there are only operational names available and a neutral descriptive is impractical. Añoranza 00:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be fair to point out that (a) the discussion linked above seems to come to the opposite conclusion (specific decisions regarding individual pages notwithstanding) and (b) that this same discussion is already being conducted at the Military history WikiProject at some length. Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The discussion only started today, and the Military history project only has guidelines - saying

"Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the battle took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially causing the article to focus on that side's point of view to the detriment of the other). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name".

This here is official policy and specifically on text in articles, not article titles. Añoranza 01:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be why we're discussing a new guideline that would address text in articles, of course. Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Where will this discussion appear next? Why do the people in the previous discussions have to chase down the new ones all the time? This is getting out of hand, this discussion was handled in two other locations. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 02:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just look above to see why this is the right place to discuss terms in articles, which has not been done before. The link to this discussion was already provided by another user at Wikipedia:Naming Conventions before I went here. Añoranza 17:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Añoranza clearly has an agenda of some sort. Añoranza is shopping this discussion around tens of discussion pages at this moment, trying to find a forum that agrees with him. He wants to subvert language to his causes. He even claims Operation Golden Pheasant is a "propaganda term". What is propaganda-ish about a "Golden Pheasant"? If the operational name is a commonly used name, then there is no reason not to use it. This user has an issue with military terms of the United States and is on some sort of anti-US crusade. Johntex\^talk 17:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Official names of a product, organization, individual, enterprise, etc. are typically the correct names for articles about those products, organizations, individuals, enterprises, etc. Thus, we have People's Republic of China (nothing about it is the "people's"), Roman Catholic Church (which is not "catholic"), State of Israel (when many dispute the validity of its statehood), IntelliSense (plenty of people would be skeptical of their mice's intelligence), etc.

In the case of military operations, however, typically two sides are involved: it's not a matter of one entity making up names for itself or its property. Furthermore, typically the codename is not the most common name used for the operation, so having it be the article name violates the cardinal rule of article naming, and using it instead of more usual terms would be jarring and thus poor style. Thus, in many cases a more descriptive name is superior, for both names and text. I'm not willing to rule out using codenames altogether, though; they might in some cases be the most common term used. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't cover all the cases he is attempting to change. Some of them are about operations that were only a small part of the overall conflict - such as a mission to insert a certain team of operatives. Some of them are not even two-party conflicts, they are just military exercises! Johntex\^talk 04:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, one will redirect to the other, or the other will redirect to the one, of course. As a rule, if something has a formal name, then that formal name is not biased. For example, a school is a school, africa is africa, the boer war is the boer war and a PC is a PC. The creators and "owners" of something usually have the right to choose its name. Where POV comes in is when a name inherently takes a side. But a proper noun is not usually such a thing. Neither "Desert Storm" nor "US invasion of Iraq" are particularly likely to mislead or insult a reader, since these are the formal name, and description, respectively. My $0.02 FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Desert Storm" is significantly less POV than "US invasion of Iraq". A storm does not take sides, and is an apt metaphor for conflict. The phrase "US invasion" portrays the US as an occupying force. The phrase "of Iraq" portrays Iraq as a passive victim. Desert Storm would be a better name. Johntex\^talk 04:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Desert storm (neutral and common term it redirects to: Gulf War) is a term chosen by just one side and favoring that one, thus not neutral. It refers to the powers of nature when actually military action is taking place, it is thus doublespeak. The neutral name chosen for the US invasion of Iraq as established in this encyclopedia is 2003 invasion of Iraq. The respective "Operation Iraqi Freedom", an extreme case of propaganda, redirects to the common name of the conflict, Iraq War, as avoidable operation names generally should. As a sidenote, claiming someone is on some sort of "crusade" does not support a point, it is against the wikipedia principle to assume good faith, and it discredits the one who writes it. Note that the grossly propagandistic term "Operation Peace for Galilee" for the 1982 Lebanon War is not a US operation, nor is UNOSOM II (which currently wrongly redirects to a propaganda term). Furthermore, as I was told, the military history project is just a project, nothing official, and it does not yet cover operation names in articles. This here is official policy, as the title says, articles should heed to this. Añoranza 14:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this users above example shows why they are shopping this around. I have had to explain to this user 5 times now why Operation Restore Hope is more appropriate then redirecting it to UNOSOM II. I will do it yet again. UNOSOM II is a larger UN operation, Operation Restore Hope only focuses on the US operation that is part of the larger operation. Hence why it should not be merged. If anything a UNOSOM II article should be created to stand on its own and no longer need to be redirected to a sub operation of the larger operation. Operation Golden Pheasant has been cited as propaganda by this user as well as Operation Linebacker being cited as POV. The issue is not titles however its about article text. Military officials so not participate in complete battles often and so are recognized by operations they take part in. Same for military equipment. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of thoughts:

1. There's nothing wrong with the editors here and on MILHIST collaborating -- in any event, one would hope that the two pages will agree when the process is complete. Yes, Anoranza should have informed this group about the prior dicussion, but that's in the past.
2. My own thought is that Anoranza's decision that all operation names are "propoganda terms" is not helpful.
3. With that said, I think that generally, a non-operational name is preferable to an operational name if available, for the same reason that MILHIST prefers non-operational names in titles.
4. On the other hand, if a particular operation doesn't have a readily recognizable non-operational name (e.g., Desert Fox, which never received a popular name, or Desert Sabre, which was a sub-part of the 91 Gulf War), the operational name is preferable.
5. Is the MilHist group approaching a consensus? If so, maybe you could post the leading proposals here to get some more thoughts, or just invite the editors here to contribute on MilHist.TheronJ 16:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone here could contribute to the MILHIST discussion, that would be great; there have been a number of different ideas regarding both titles and in-text uses, but not really enough discussion yet to come to a real consensus on which one to go forward with. Kirill Lokshin 16:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Is growing" is a prediction

"the Homeopathy article factually states that "It is growing in popularity..." We might factually state that it has grown from 1986 to 2006. We should not extrapolate that and say it constitutes a trend. "Is growing" should be cited to a reliable source who says so. Thoughts? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Is growing" isn't a prediction. See our article on instantaneous rate of change, a mathematical concept that handily solves this issue. It is logically sound to say that in the neighborhood of the present time, the derivative of homeopathy use is positive where it's defined. This can be roughly summarized as "growing in popularity". Homeopathy may be growing right now even if in ten seconds everyone will give it up and never use it again; that's in ten seconds, not now.

If it said "homeopathy will continue to grow in popularity", that's a prediction. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"where it's defined" - Sure, when you have a known function you can talk about its derivative. Another way of making the criticism I just made would be to say that we are claiming to know something about a function: that its derivative exists at a point, and is positive. We can't say that ourselves; we need to cite a reliable source who says it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Something is a prediction if it posits knowledge of future events. You can know the left-sided derivative of the homeopathy-usage function at the present point without any knowledge of future events, just knowledge of past and present events. Therefore, asserting that homeopathy usage is growing is not a prediction. If it's unsourced, obviously it needs to be sourced, but so does anything. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't know the left hand side; we only know an interval between two times in the past. In some cases that's being generous: really we only know values at discrete times in the past. But maybe I'm missing your point. I agree that it needs to be cited, but what needs to be cited is a reliable source saying, "it is growing." I would say it is not enough to cite figures showing more homeopathy this year than last year. Citing figures would let us say "grew." Citing a source would let us quote it as saying, "is growing." Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, certainly. Probably something along the lines of "homeopathy use has been growing steadily over the past decade" would be fine if you have annual stats only (even if you have only biannual stats, really), but an unqualified "is growing" isn't as useful either way, so it should probably be avoided. I think, however, that it's a bit too specific for this list. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Is growing", the synonymous "is increasing", or the related "is spreading", as do their negatives "shrinking", "vanishing", or "dwindling" with respect to scope or numbers imply predictions of the future, at least in the magnitude of a phenomenon by the meanings of the words with respect to some phenomena. The appropriate use is more aptly "has been (choose word) as of (time)". Thus, "into the first decade of the 21st century, Islam has had an increasing number of adherents and has been spreading into places where it has never been known" is more viable than "One can expect Islam to continue to increase in numbers and spread into new areas".

Ironclad predictions should be used only of something sure to continue growth or go extinct:

• 1. Barring effective recycling and emissions controls, pollution can only increase.

• 2. Species X, now restricted to one male and three infertile females is doomed to extinction.

• 3. The part of the population born between 1901 and 1924, influential as it was at one time in America, can only vanish with time.

• 4. The number of Oldsmobiles (a mark of automobiles no longer being made) can only shrink, unless the marque is revived.

Almost any trend or phenomenon is reversible unless it requires a reversal of an aging process or a defiance of physical law. --Paul from Michigan 10:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cunt

I feel that we should add Cunt as one of the words to avoid. There are better, more encyclopedic words, such as vagina, that could be used. The use of the word Cunt on Wikipedia only serves to degrade the level of our encyclopedia.Jimjones5 21:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It goes without saying that slang is not encyclopedic in tone. What article uses the term, except in quotations or when discussing the term itself? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a simply matter of finding this out. Simply run a wikipedia search. There is a search bar on the left side of the screen, and once on the search page you can choose many different searching options. Editors to Wikipedia are not here to do your own personal homework. If you are interested in finding out which articles mention the word cunt, I suggest you search for it using the search bar on the left side of the screen.Jimjones5 00:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested. I was just wondering why you were interested. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha, that's some funny stuff right there. Tragic romance 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Avoid it where? It has its own article. This is silly. It is part of language history, and is a fact whether offensive, profane or whatever.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Section Terrorist, terrorism

In section Terrorist, terrorism we state some rules about how to use such words in connection with people and groups. Do the same rules hold for actions that can be labbelled as "terrorist"? If it is or if it is not I think the section should discuss explicitly this case too.--Pokipsy76 08:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Any logic applied to referring to groups or individuals as terrorists applies to actions too, I should think. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If it is the case we should say it explicitly in the section Terrorist, terrorism. Otherwise we should say explicitly that the rules do not apply to actions.--Pokipsy76 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be more reluctant to call a particular man a terrorist than to call an action terrorism. For example, I would not say "Senator X was a terrorist" but I would say "The Ku Klux Klan was a terrorist organization" and would certainly say that lynching African-Americans was terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your example was bad in 2 ways: first groups (as Ku Klux Klan) share the same rules of individuals according to the policy, second accusing a senator of terrorism can easily be controversial but there are also case where labelling an actions as "terrorist" can be more controversial than labelling indivisuals. You probably would not say that "Hiroshima bombing was a terrorist attack" but you would probably say that "Bin Laden was a terrosist".--Pokipsy76 08:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I actively look forward to saying bin Laden was a terrorist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I actively look forward to saying Lenin was a terrorist, but I'll do it outside of the encyclopedia. Kokot.kokotisko 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried my best to clean up the list of "for" and "against" arguments. Please check my changes. Kokot.kokotisko 15:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The kokot link goes to an empty page (as of 10/3/07)) The word "terrorist" may possibly be misused, as is the word "Nazi" - which some take to mean "someone who disagress with me", but there are many cases where it is the only possible word to use. The suicide bomber who blows up a crowded nightclub is a terrorist, working for (or with) other terrorists. The very definition of "terrorist" is "someone whose aim is to induce terror" (someone can double-check with Websters &c). Anyone who commits those sort of actions is by definition a terrorist.

It would be better for the Wiki Masters to say that when that word is used (along with many another word), it should be used accurately.

Imposing PC-speech into the Wiki is not a good idea. Imposing civility can be done without insisting that any truth that someone else may find objectionable must be eliminated! MikeZZ 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)MikeZZ

I completely agree with the concept you are stating but I think we must polish the definition to go more sincronized with academic research on the field. Researchers are the ones who more desperatly need a definition since they need to know which actions are included to be able of doing the research. For many years the key concepts have been 1)the action is done by non-govern organizations 2)the targets were non-combatants or were unprevented combatans (e.g. soldiers on leave) and 3)the actions are done to be watched by a third party (public opinion) so not for its tactical value but for sake of propaganda Nowdays it is thouth that a good definition can be "War crimes in situations were is no war". So to be able of using the word without endless discussion we need to sophisticate a little the definition because to say "terrorism is to cause terror" is to go into a swamp because many things cause terror and not all of them are terrorism.--Igor21 15:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are controversy sections bad?

This article says distilling the Pro- and Con- sides into a separate controversy section is bad, since it implies a "hierarchy of fact". But it seems to me that controversy sections can often be very useful-- they can separate univerally-agreed-upon-facts from opinion and make it easier to be sure that both sides of a debate are getting balanced appropriately.

The only commments on that section on the talk pages are old ones that oppose that section. Do people here still strongly believe we shouldn't have controversy sections? and what does "folded into the narrative" even look like?

--Alecmconroy 16:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "pro and con"-type sections can be fine, personally. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I Like "pro and con" sections also, so long as each fact has a citation. It avoids edit wars. Some topics will always have a Rashomon quality to them and need separate voices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember reading a policy page that suggested creating a pro section and a con section to avoid the back and forth of arguments, but I don't remember where that was. Joriki (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Subsection "theory"

The subsection begin in this way:

In science, a theory is an explanation of nature which is consistent with the available scientific evidence and supported by repeatable experiments. Theories predict the outcomes of specific situations.

But

1. Not all scientific theories are supported by *repetible* experiments: what experiments are repeatable to support Big Bang or Evolution theories?
2. Not all theories predicts the outcomes of specific situations: theories can just explain events of the past without making predictions, like Continental drift theory do.

So I suggest to modify this introduction.--Pokipsy76 19:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Be bold. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokipsy:You misunderstand the meaning of the word "experiment", so perhaps other readers will also.

• Experiment also includes such investigations as biologists do in researching the makeup of life in nature. When a biologist investigates the makeup of a particular newly found species, the prediction is that it will fit somewhere in the scheme of evolution, and it almost invariably does. Occasionally there an aberration here and there where there are remaining questions about where it fits, in which case further investigation and experimentation needs to be done. All told, there are relatively very few cases that to date have not been established by genetic and other evidence as to what other species were its ancestors, and what other species were its descendants, if any (because some became extinct or were otherwise "dead ends"). Based on this kind of experimental evidence and other kinds of experimental evidence, evolution is one of the most well confirmed theories ever proposed. Don't forget, evolution describes progressions or origins of individual species, not origin of life as a whole, which is a separate range of inquiry that is more forensic in nature. But every time a new species is found somewhere, which happens constantly (1.5 million to date and still growing), it is an experiment that tests the theory of evolution.
• As to the "big bang", this is, you are correct, a theory that is harder to fit into the standard model of a theory, because it is a theory about origins that, to date at least, does not appear to be replicable. The theory that the universe is expanding is constantly being tested by new observations and measurements and predictions that are fulfilled repeatedly when more powerful and more thorough observations of parts of the universe are made. The big bang, however, can only be pieced together by fitting together pieces of a puzzle using experimental evidence derived from other aspects of physics, astrophysics and astronomy. To date, the pieces of the puzzle continue to fit together, and within the last decade, new experimental evidence arising from subatomic observations at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider in Brookhaven National Laboratory has brought forth further evidence that appears consistent with theoretical calculations about what happens to matter when it is in the process of forming. That would be equivalent to the first few milliseconds of the expansion of the universe when, if other calculations are correct, matter could not exist in its present form. So you are right, the Big Bang is really more of a theoretical speculation than a theory per se. Nonetheless, it is quite different from saying that, for instance "a widely held theory in town is that Joe's Tavern pours smaller drinks after you start to get drunk".
• As to continental drift, like evolution, it is not merely historical, but can still be observed occurring even as we sit here at our computers today.

In sum, I agree further clarification of this section about the word "theory" is appropriate, but I would at the very least be careful about making such sweeping assertions with regard to evolution and continental drift. ... Kenosis 22:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand experiments. Experiments test theories, and a theory concerning the Big Bang does not need to have a Big Bang present, to be testable. See metric expansion of space for examples of experiments which test current theories of the Big Bang. Also see falsifiability for more on the subject. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this topic is grossly out of place, but since you're already talking about it, I'll add my two cents. Big Bang and Evolution are hypotheses, not theories.Tragic romance 05:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll see your two cents, raise you three more and wager that the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are very much theories in the strictest scientific sense of the word. That's five cents that says that FT2 is right. Jimp 07:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Article structures which can imply a view

This section suggests that articles should never have controversy sections in which pro- and con- sides of an issue are discussed. But Wikipedia:Criticism explicitly allows Criticism/Controversy/Reception sections in some cases. Many feature articles have controversy/support/criticism sections, including Igor Stravinsky, Evolution, Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, Metrication, etc.

I'd propose adding language to the "Article structures which can imply a view" section to indicate that while controversy sections should not be used as a tool to marginalize criticism, there are some cases in which controversy sections are useful. --Alecmconroy 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go, because I agree with you. I have also included "words to avoid" per subject area, often an issue within the article title, even though this is on the edge between NPOV and WTA. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Other than leaving the door wide open in the final summarizing sentence, which didn't quite follow anyway, it was fine. I've removed that part as that was not the intent of the original, long-standing passage. Just like worse is better, in this case vague is better. That is unless we want to get into defining exactly which cases are controversy sections useful and which cases they're being used as a tool to marginalize criticism. I'd like to avoid that can of worms. Editors applying a little common sense is better than trying to address all possible scenarios here. FeloniousMonk 02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

But I really do think we should have a sentence that explicity says that "there are some cases in which controversy sections are useful." It might seem like it's just common sense, but in actuality, people have cited this section to me as evidence that the wikipedia consensus is that controversy sections are never, ever useful. If we don't believe that, we should exspend the extra words to make it clear that they can be useful, so long as they don't marginalize criticism. --Alecmconroy 04:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to discourage controversy sections. Surely the wording at the top of the page, that there are no words that are never to be used, can be used in reply to people who wrongly cite this page as absolutley forbidding them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with controversy sections, and more definitely not to the extent that I'd list them as something to avoid. For example, an article may list a subjects history, proponents, activities, and then have acontroversies section to group together all the major controversies in the field. That approach works very well. It's when a controversies section is used to push a viewpoint that we have problems. I wouldn't at all say such sections are a bad idea, just that there are good and bad ways to use them. Examples available if needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that controversy sections and indeed, whole articles on controversies, are sometimes the BEST way to structure our coverage of controversial aspects of a topic. That's not reflected in the current language. --Alecmconroy 20:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that just opens the door for those who oppose the criticism to create POV forks, something that goes very much against the NPOV policy. FeloniousMonk 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So, there's two issues here: (1) what does the current policy actually mean, and (2) what should the policy actually be. Let's ignore the second issue for a moment, just focus on what the current Wikipedia policy on controversy sections actually IS. The way I read the this page's current policy, it means controversy sections are bad and should never be used. Several other people have read the policy and reached the same interpretation. Wikipedia:Criticism seems to have the exact opposite policy, as it explicitly discusses how to write "Response to" sections. So, which is it? Never Useful or Sometimes Useful?

Setting aside my own thoughts on which it should be, it seems that the very least that we should either ADD words to this article to make it consistent with Wikipedia:Criticism, or we should REMOVE words from that article to make it consistent with this article.

--Alecmconroy 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of X

"such articles should always be a neutral evaluation of the critical view, rather than a platform for criticism." - Good point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Scope creep. That was never in the original guideline or any policy and thus does not enjoy consensus, having not been discussed. I've removed it and until the community shows some consensus for this. FeloniousMonk 18:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism, yet again

Would someone please weigh in at Talk:Boricua Popular Army? Flybd5 is insisting that it is simply factual to call the Boricua Popular Army "terrorist", and doesn't seem to get my point about why that is inappropriate to say in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Perhaps he will listen to someone else. - Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Add User:KazakhPol to that, he seems to be on a mission to label any groups opposed to central asian governments, as terrorists in the narrative voice. Aaliyah Stevens 10:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand

I noticed "on the other hand" is not much used in articles. It is used a lot in discussion arguments though. I believe good editors do not use it in general in articles. This is because it is like "however". I am wondering whether this should be added as a word to avoid under the category of "however". I see it can be used also to create false balance. EG.

In the first case as an argument: Hitler killed 3 million Jews. On the other hand, he was a good family man.

Or for false balance/argument: Qi Kung has no scientific support. On the other hand, millions of people say that it makes them live longer.

It seems to be very much avoidable as a phrase anyway. So I suggest it be added to words to avoid. Hylas Chung 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Article titles

The section on article titles seems weak to me. In particular, the examples provided seem tendentious without being particularly good examples. But I don't want to plunge in if I'm alone in this. What do others think? - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The section is not clear and the examples do not help to clarify.--Pokipsy76 06:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of Islamic extremist terrorism is the result of extensive discussion and compromise. For a while it was changing every week, and probably was at one time Islamic extremist violence or Islamist extremist violence. On the theory that hard cases make bad law, I wonder if there is a better example of a tendentious page title? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly relevant is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"It should be noted"

I think "It should be noted" should be added, because that's editorial opinion. Extraordinary Machine 20:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. About the only place where the reader should ever be told to "note" something is in the caption of an image, pointing out the detail (e.g. "note the memento mori in the form of a skull"). - Jmabel | Talk 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If something "should be noted", then it probably should be a footnote. Gimmetrow 16:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it even belongs in captions. State what's in the picture and let them decide what to note for themselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If nothing else, it is just bad writing, in the turgid style of high academic. Get rid of it, along with variations like 'it is important to note,' 'note that,' and so on. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That belongs in Wikipedia:Avoid trite expressions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotation marks other than marking quotes

I think that using quotation marks for the purpose of reservation or criticism is bad form. In wikipedia we have the unique capability to link to entries (and chapters therein) when referring to a specific, less common meaning of a word. Although such use of quotations is a vehicle employed in journalism, I think it's improper in an encyclopedia. I find it especially disturbing when used in the "so - called" sense; if, for example, you don't think that the subject is what he says he is - write "self proclaimed". If you think a certain act wasn't done, say "he claims to have [purchsed the land, for example]", or state that the act is unrecognized (by somebody). Quotations just look like a pseudo- subtle snide judgement. Shilonite 09:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that editorializing of the type "ha ha, look what this silly person thinks" with needless quotation marks is a bad idea. -- nae'blis 15:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New Section On Article Content Policy

I propose a new section, maybe on Village Pump, somthing like the Signpost, but wherever it's relevent, where this section lists word choice for article content. This section, would list, for example: 'Instead of using 'craftsman' or 'craftsmen' in articles, use 'craft worker' or 'craftsperson.'. Another example: 'Do not use the word: 'Indian' to refer to indigenious peoples of the Americas, because 'Indian' most appropriatly refers to a person from or of India.'. This new section would also say help and say that people who come across this section, & people who find errors like listed in said section would correct them. It also has the power to be cited, in discussions, for example: in talk pages, where people blue link, for example 'WP:NPOV' or 'WP:MOS'.100110100 11:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Heads Up

I've read articles, but I don't remeber which ones, which refered to Galicia, but didn't state Iberian Galicia or East European Galicia. Just to let you guys know. Hhhmmmm, maybe it would have been more appropriate to list this in a section, like which that I proposed...............................100110100 11:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian

I know this has been discussed earlier, but I think the discussion was off the mark. Caucasian does not mean white. East indians are caucasian, for example. Perhaps not in common usage, but it is still technically correct. If you want to say white, say white, or european. Rm999 08:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

East indians are not caucasian Kransky 13:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

People from the Caucasus are Caucasian - that's where the term comes from. But I'd say European with a capital E. BTW, Russians call Caucasians (from the Caucasus) "black." So maybe just avoiding the race, color, ethnicity thing is best unless it is absolutely needed. Smallbones 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

East Indians are a mix, but mostly have Caucasian features. From http://www.isteve.com/2002_Who_Exactly_Is_an_Asian_American.htm:

"Although the people of the Indian subcontinent vary widely in skin color, most have Caucasian facial features. Indeed, practically all Indian immigrants are from the Caucasian majority, rather than from India's hard-to-categorize tribal minorities. "

The fact that this can even be debated indicates strongly that racial terms (african american, caucasians should not be interchanged with skin color or nationality terms). 75.85.165.158 07:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Legendary

I would like to add "legendary" to the list of words to avoid. It can mean that the person is very famous; or it can mean that the person is a "myth". You are also suppose to avoid writing that the person is "famous", it should be self evident from the biography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Theory modification

There were a number of misconceptions that had crept into the discussion of the word "theory" on this page. First of all, a "law" is not a "stronger version" of a theory as is often misconceived. A law is a succinct statement of a principle based on a theory. Inasmuch as a theory is correct, a law is correct. Unlike theories, laws do not lend themselves to easy modification. If a theory is disproven, it may be possible to modify it so it still has utility (for example, one can still use epicycles to model the orbital motion of certain objects), but laws are necessarily abandonded once disproven (for example, saying that the planets move according to their spheres in epicyclic fashion is a law of Ptolemaic astronomy which does not apply to the natural world).

Also it is inappropriate to say that theories are ever "proven". Theories are by definition empirical and based on induction. There is always doubt. Mathematical beasts which are proven are not theories.

--ScienceApologist 11:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I support fully the above problem. The issue is that we have TWO different competing definitions of theory:
  • The popular defintion: "A guess to a solution to a problem" usage: "I have a theory about this...." The problem is that the popular defintion of a theory is what scientists call a "hypothesis," which is a different concept entirely. In the common usage, people most often use the word "theory" when they mean "hypothesis".
  • The science-community definition: "An organized system of thought with explanatory powers". For example: Atomic Theory is the entire system of thought that seeks to explain behaviors of matter as "atoms"; numerous laws are inherant to this theory (the Law of Definite Proportions, the Law of Multiple Proportions, etc.). Theories are not incomplete, they are not unproven, they are not in want for anything. They are complex systems of explanation about natural events. When people criticize a Theory by saying "Its only a theory" they are confusing the two definitions. A theory is under constant modification; but to claim that it is unaccepted merely because it is expected to be fluid is also a misunderstanding; science expects that all assertions it takes to be "true", be they theories, laws, principles, axioms, models, or whatever, to be open to scrutiny; if additional evidence comes to light, we change our theories. As long as all evidence points to the current theory, we continue to accept it. --Jayron32 06:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Denial

I propose that words "denial" and "deny" should be avoided or their use should be somehow defined. They are widely used in Wiki despite their obvious nature that falls into "Words which can advance a point of view" cathegory.neurobio 01:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you have in mind here; all of the following seem perfectly appropriate to me:

"The government issued a formal denial."

"He was denied entry at the border."

"The accused denied all charges."

"According to Kubler-Ross, 'denial' is one of the usual steps in the grieving process."

So presumably it is not the words deny/denial as such that are a problem, it is their use in some particular context. Could you indicate examples of the inapproriate use that concerns you? Otherwise, this doesn't have much potential to go anywhere. - Jmabel | Talk 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word "cult"

I do agree with a majority of this section, but a couple things bother me about it. First, that the word "cult" should be avoided at all possible except for reasons X and Y and so on. Yet farther down in the section it states that the word has acceptable usage with concern to religious practices. The use of the word cult as it pertains to to religious practices is the SOLE reason why it's offensive and should be avoided. Along with the first two paragraphs, we should reserve the use of the word "cult" to those groups who truly and blatantly deserve it (ex. Branch-Davidians under Koresh) and/or ones that masquerade as religion (ex. Scientology).

Thing #2 that rubs me sideways is the example in this section "the cult of Demeter at Eleusis". The de-centralized nature of Hellenism can lead people to assume that they were cults (that is, if those people prescribe to what's written on this page and not the view I've written here). In actuality, sect is the appropriate term, regardless of the era in which you are discussing. User:MrFuchs 03OCT06

A "cult" in this last sense isn't a sect at all. This is the narrow, proper, original meaning of "cult": an external religious practice, as distinguished from teachings, writings, and beliefs. To the best of my knowledge, there is no other word for it. - Jmabel | Talk 21:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Your preaching to the choir here. Yes you can make the argument that the venerators of Demeter at Eleusis could be considered a "cult" in the dry dictionary definition. The whole point of this article is WORDS TO AVOID. So with that in mind, we can subsitute the dirty word "cult", for the much cleaner and neutral "sect" without losing any sort of descriptive meaning. On a personal level I think its horrible we have to subsitute words because they've evolved with negative connotations. But then again, the world would be a better place if it ran like it should. User:MrFuchs 8OCT06

I'm confused by what you are saying. Are you suggesting (1) that even in its literal meaning cult should be avoided and that therefore (?) we should say "the sect of Demeter at Eleusis"? That seems to me to be a misuse of the word "sect": it was not, to my knowledge a distinct sect. I suppose we could say something like "the votive practice of worship of Demeter at Eleusis"… - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Because of your confusion on what I said I went back and re-read what I've written several times and I would like to make some amendments. 1) although I stand by my conviction that the word "cult" should be avoided, the word "sect" is an inproper subsitute. 2) as far as other non-Greek religions, I think the word religion itself or faith can be adequate subsitutes as they do not have negative connotations. 3) when referring to the Greek religion or aspects of it, the terms "Demoi" or "Temple" are appropriate, as it is the terms we use ourselves. I hope that I have sufficiently corrected myself and made my stance clearer. If not, please feel free to let me have it, so to speak... User:MrFuchs 12NOV06

I understand why "cult" should be avoided, but I think we're playing with a little too much political correctness here. For example, should we avoid using the word "cult" when discussing Jonestown? Or Heaven's Gate? These groups almost DEFINE the word itself, and if you cannot use it in that context, you might as well eliminate the word from the dictionary. Yes, people considered Christianity as a cult- now it is not, because it is mainstream. So? What's the problem? We need words to be used to describe things, and you cannot possibly divorce language from culture. As I understand Jonestown is more an exception than a rule, I am not saying we should suddenly start using 'cult' all over the place- I just hope people are willing to use the WP:Ignore_All_Rules rule with regard to these "words to be avoided" when necessary. Epthorn 13:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Article names for controversial events

Hi everyone. FYI there is a discussion and proposal in Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict about use of strong words such as "massacre" and "genocide" in article names. Naming guidelines on a few pages, including this one, conflict with each other. Kla'quot 19:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions. Kla'quot 09:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Report"

If it is not appropriate to say that a news agency "reported" something, what verb would be preferred? - Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"A story in the --- newspaper said...."? Steve Dufour 01:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And just who said "report(ed)" shouldn't be used? News agencies do exactly that - report. No inference can be taken from this word. I believe it to be most appropriate when describing the output of news media. The alternative given above -- newspaper said -- is not at all good. It implies that a newspaper speaks. Readers should remember that the list of words to avoid is merely a collection of opinions. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay, terrorism

So the debate is happening again on Talk:al-Qaeda. Feel free to add your 2 cents. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes please come and join in! We need more views on this.-Localzuk^(talk) 13:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

A few other words to consider

What about tragic? I think that presents a non-npov, especially in the context of "a tragic accident". I also think that referring to the dead as "the late" should be added somewhere as well. Everyone will die sometime, and for the most part, it's just clutter, throws off verb tenses and is somewhat npov, as it portrays the deceased in a positive light. And I don't see any mention of saying someone has "passed away", which implies similar instances. 69.209.100.255 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My view? "Tragic" only belongs in discussing literature, not life; I usually remove it on sight. Similarly, I always turn "passed away" to "died". "The late" is trickier: it's sometimes useful in a context where someone would otherwise be presumed to be alive, a relatively recent death at a relatively young age, e.g., "the background vocal was by the late Brad Nowell" or "he was on the staff of the late Paul Wellstone". I probably wouldn't use it, but I probably wouldn't remove it in a case like that. - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"affiliated"

That a company may have been part of the one's affiliated with Enron (to use the example given) is generally a question of fact. Sometimes "subsidiary" can be used, but "afiliated" is in this context a neutral descriptor of a financial relationship.

This is not necessarily true of other uses, where there is no formal relationship: "Communist-affiliated" is an example of where it is intended to imply that a relationship exists, whichmay or may not be correct. If there's no objection, I'll substitute my example.DGG 23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for and against describing an entity as terrorist

Why is this section included? The enclosing section indicates that terrorist and terrorism are words to be avoided, yet this subsection indicates that a lack of consensus exists. Wikipedia inconsistenly describes groups and events as terrorist in the narrative voice. For example IRA, Al-Qaida are not but Oklahoma bombing and 9/11 are. This gives much confusion. Either we agree that Wikipedia editors makes judgements about which events and groups are terrorist or we don't. At the moment, it is confusing. Curtains99 15:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is less objectionable to call an act terrorist than a group (and your choice of examples suggests that others have the same intuition. Both the Oklahoma bombing and the 9/11 attacks seem to pretty clearly reach any threshold for being terrorist acts. I wouldn't have used the word myself in Wikipedia's narrative voice, but I wouldn't fight over it.

Labeling a group terrorist is much trickier, because even a group that openly embraces terror tactics may do a great deal more than that. Consider Hamas. Or the CIA. Both have certainly committed acts of terror, but that doesn't make an openly Hamas-funded hospital or a covertly CIA-funded professional organization into agents of terror. - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I notice that fewer and fewer individuals and groups are being described as terrorist in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Osama bin Laden is described as a 'militant Islamist'. Carlos the Jackal is still a terrorist. Che Guevara is of course a Marxist Revolutionary. The French Resistance is never referred to as terrorist. Martin McGuinness is a 'former head of the Provisional IRA' and not a terrorist.

The perpetrators of 9/11 are referred to as '19 terrorists' but that phrase links to a page called Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks which does not describe them as terrorists.

Do you think this situation is clear? I agree that an act is easier to designate as terrorist than a group or an individual, but I still believe that no act is ever objectively 'terrorist' when there is no agreed definition for the term. I can make arguments for why the two incidents above should not be considered terrorist. In the case of 9/11, I have a verifiable reliable source documenting an opinion held by millions of people that the act did not constitute terrorism. We end up with this kind of page: List of terrorist incidents which is pure POV Curtains99 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the executions of people who were perceived as the enemies of the French Revolution was objectively terrorist, and was proclaimed so by its instigators. Similarly, the "propaganda by deed" of anarchists circa 1900. To say that the 9/11 attacks were not a terrorist, it seems to me that one must subscribe to the theory that they were not perpetrated by Al Qaeda. I'm sure that millions of people believe they were not; millions of people presumably also believe that people have never set foot on the moon, but I would hope we are not expected to take them seriously.

That said, I would be perfectly happy with a rule that says that we should never make unascribed use of the words "terrorism" and "terrorist". - Jmabel | Talk 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

... Yes, that would be in accordance with WP:VER and WP:NOR. ... with a little extra incentive attributable to Guantanamo Bay and other such phenomena. ... Kenosis 05:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't get why they wouldn't be terrorists attacks if they weren't committed by Al Qaeda. Even if they were committed by the CIA they would still be terrorist attacks Nil Einne 06:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"Sadly", "tragically", etc. in descriptions of death

I'd like to add to this guideline that editors should not use words such as "sadly" and "tragically" when referring to deaths. It's very common on Wikipedia and I think wrong for these reasons:

• It's POV. The death of a notable person (Stalin, for instance, or Pol Pot) may have been sad to some people but a joy to others. Who decides if a death is sad?
• It's telling, not showing. Editors shouldn't simply write that a death was sad or tragic; they should set out the information from reliable, verifiable secondary sources and let the reader decide.
• Death is not always sad or tragic. On one of the help desks we were discussing this and somebody quoted (and this is a paraphrase), "Eleanor Roosevelt, who tragically died at age 78...". In this specific case, she had bone cancer and had been kept alive on a respirator against her express orders for months. That might be tragic, but was her death? Is the death of someone at 102 tragic? Is the death of someone who had Alzheimer's for 15 years tragic? Perhaps not as much to the family as a third party would like to think. Again, it's a value judgment.
• It's a horrible, horrible cliche. Good professional obituary writers don't use it; it grates. It's up there with "he died doing what he loved". What, screaming in horror? --Charlene 00:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree Curtains99 01:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree, I've always removed these on sight. Every time I read it the article instantly melts into a pile of sentimental sap in my eyes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Silly cliches should alaways be removed. May be there should be list of Cliches somewhere, classified into Silly, Stupid, Moronic, Senseless, Thoughtless, and, may be, Please, stop trying to write. - Aditya Kabir 12:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph - 2.7 - that includes most of the information I mentioned. Please feel free to edit. --Charlene 08:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's not just deaths but all uses of the above words should be avoided in most instances for POV reasons. The same applies to the opposite. Words like fortunately, thankfully, luckily etc. For example, see this. I did a search and there are also a lot of other similarly mis-uses of POV words. Indeed this seems to happen a lot in American sports articles, see 2006 Buffalo Bills season, 2006 San Diego Chargers season & 2006 New England Patriots season. While these events might be fortunate for the team, they are unlikely to be fortunate for their rivals. Nil Einne 06:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Homophobic

I've seen editors often try to add this word when people disagree with gay rights. The term may work in a given context (e.g., someone who says "fags should die"), but I think in general, this would be a good one to add (much like "cult/sect", which can describe a group, but should generally be off limits). We could suggest other wording like "opposes expanding gay rights", "opposes homosexual marriage", or "believe marriage is sinful"? This might look like a biased request, but it's really not - homophobic is a pejorative and POV term, and should not be used to refer to people and their opinions. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Shall we likewise assert that it is inappropriate to apply the term "racist" regarding support of miscegenation laws and racial segregation? Durova^Charge! 06:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - I apologize if you see this emotionally. Personal views here are not what's important, and I hope you don't think that's what I'm doing. If you, I, or anyone else thinks that disagreeing with homosexuality is homophobic, that's our opinion. But it's still POV, as many people disagree. It would be similarly POV to describe people who disagree with, for example, with religious man Orson Scott Card as Mormon-phobic or Christian-phobic, who think it's "wrong" (e.g., "sinful") to follow their type of religion. Using the term "opposes conservative Islamic values" would be better. This seems to be in line with the NPOV policy - as much as not using the term "terrorist" with Osama bin Laden. Am I clear?-Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:CIVIL, please refrain from speculation as to my emotional state. The question is literal: why should the term homophobic be disallowed in the context of gay marriage if the use of the term racist is appropriate in the context of miscegenation. It's a direct parallel. You seem to be asserting that Wikipedians should form a consensus that gay rights are fundamentally different from racial rights or women's rights or other types of rights. That's a political assertion that would set a bad precedent for ideological policy-pushing. Check out the current battle at white people to see what I mean. Durova^Charge! 06:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this should be made a broad prohibition, because I haven't seen enough cases (any in fact) to know how it's being used. It's definitely a judgement and an analysis, so if it's not attributed, isn't it OR to use it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Within articles it would be, obviously. The OP suggests that this refers more to talk pages. Durova^Charge! 06:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Patstuart that we should avoid the term homophobia within articles as much as possible. The article Homophobia itself (currently protected) says the term is a loaded one, and this would be perfectly in line with the existing guidelines on this page which say to avoid labels given only by external groups. Declaring someone homophobic should need to be given in the context of a specific person claiming so (and properly cited). We presently try to avoid even identifying people's sexuality unless it is relevant to the actions or notability of the individual due to WP:BLP concerns, why would this be any different?

To answer Durova's concern, I believe the proper descriptor for those groups which opposed interracial marraige would be racialist if they claimed to oppose it for reasons other than racial supremacism. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 06:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, thanks. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression there, Derova: I think I misinterpreted your response, and I apologize. But no, I was not talking about talk pages (then I would have brought this point up under WP:CIVIL); the point of talk pages is for people to voice their opinion. I was more going for articles.. Anyway, I am not familiar with the term racialist, though I think that, yes, that would be a better term. Interestingly, guys, you'll that even the article Homosexuality does not contain the term "homophobia", except for a link at the bottom.

For NightGyr, I did some basic searches for "homophobic" on Wikipedia, and found these:

• Westboro (disambiguation) - referring to Westboro Baptist Church a religious hate group based in Topeka, Kansas, United States, mostly known for its homophobic activities. - even if it's true, this is NPOV, and shouldn't be worded such.
• This one seems to contain a good chunk of weasel words.

I'm not saying the term should be outright stricken from the encyclopedia: I'm just saying, it should be a "word to avoid", like cult/sect or terrorist. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Westboro is a bad choice, because they openly admit to being homophobic and use the word themselves. But I know what you mean. --Charlene 08:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Homophobic" means fear. "Phobia" [5] means "fear" or an emotion closely akin to "fear". To accuse someone of fear, such as "you are afraid of wriggle worms so anything you say isn't worth a squiggle" is a way of wriggling out of the conversation. It is a way of reducing the communication instead of a way of bettering the communication. In addition the word has overtones of psychology. It would be WP:CIVIL not accuse an editor, "You are afraid !" and it would be civil to not accuse an editor of homophobia. It is not likely to be productive in most communications. But hey, we can't ban the use of a word. Terryeo 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem at all with the suggestion that homophobic be used in articles only when supported by a line citation. Durova^Charge! 16:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

To say that someone who disagrees with Orson Scott Card could be called "Moron-phobic" or "Christian-phobic" is in no way comparable with homophobic. If you called someone with a visceral hatred of Card "Cardophobic" you might be on the same page, but disagreeing with Card is not the same as hating Mormons or Christians. That's simply ridiculous.

If "homophobic" should be avoided, what other term do you suggest for the fear and hatred with which people treat homosexuality? In the aftermath of the latest homophobe-turns-out-to-be-gay episode, it's probably true that fear is the major driver of anti-gay hate. Regardless, "homophobia" is a well-established term for this commonplace anti-gay hatred. If you consider this a word to avoid, what replacement do you propose for it? I think it's more neutral than the far more accurate "anti-gay hatemongering". Guettarda 00:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

it's still telling, not showing. We don't call David Duke a racist, we just point out the he was the head of a Ku Klux Klan organization, the criticisms of his views, his own description, and enough other information that anyone can see he's a racist for himself. It would be POV and/or OR to flat out state ourselves that he is racist, especially when he has claimed otherwise in the past. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• We should avoid ad hominem reasonings (e.g. "he's homophobic and therefore a liar"). We should not avoid factual statements for PC reasons (e.g. "John Doe has been accused of homophobia [link] here"). (Radiant) 13:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• A few ideas here:
  • Hate the crime and not the criminal: A statement can indicate a homophobic, or racist, or sexist, or whatever bias. We should not call a "person" such, only "actions". To describe an action as giving the appearance of being bigoted is one thing; to call a person specifically a bigot is a personal attack and decidedly uncivil.
  • Semantic arguements against using the term homophobic for some other term are inapproriate. Our society uses the term to mean "Bigoted against homosexuals" in the EXACT SAME way that our society uses the term racist to mean "Bigoted against non-whites" Wikipedia is not the place to change that definition; we merely reflect societal concensus.
  • We should never use a term to describe a person that the person themselves does not use. Self-identification is the principle here. If a person describes themselves as "homophobic" it would be OK to use the term; if the person does not use the term to describe themselves, we should avoid assigning it to them. As Night Gyr notes, we cannot rightly call David Duke racist as he does not self-identify with that term; we can only list the documented facts associated with his life, and let the reader make their own determinations. --Jayron32 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Murder

When is the word 'murder' acceptable in place of 'kill'? Presumably, some Palestinians see the assassination of Hamas leaders by Israel as murder while Israelis see suicide bombers as murderers, yet is murder an NPOV description for either event? 213.202.152.63 00:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

For NPOV, you can say who claims these to be murders. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The word "murder" is almost never necessary except when one is speaking of actual criminal conviction on that charge. - Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This issue is discussed extensively at Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_11#Murder, Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_11#Murder_continued, and Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_11#Should_the_article_refer_to_the_Holocaust_as_murder?. The consensus was to keep the term "murder", which is currently used over twenty times in the article Holocaust. -- Schaefer (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Murder is a legal term that implies that the due process of law has determined that a killing has been classified as a murder. It should ONLY be used in that context. To define any other killings as Murder is decidedly not NPOV. Even the Holocaust killings were ultimately determined to be murder (Re: Nuremburg trials). However, as the suicide bombings and the killings of Hamas leaders do not meet the defition of murder, it should be avoided. --Jayron32 05:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that a person convicted of murder in any jurisdiction may be referred to as a 'murderer' or that his killing should be referred to as 'murder'? For example, if a dictator kills a person but does so within the legal system of his own country, what do we call it? Or if a person kills another in self-defence and is convicted of murder in a jurisdiction that does not allow self-defence as a plea, can we still call him a murderer? My view is that the best thing to do is to say A killed B and to refer to the relevant legal circumstances so that the reader can make up his own mind. Curtains99 12:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

See my above comments on Homophobia. ALWAYS assign value-laden adjectives to ACTIONS and NEVER to PERSONS. Unless the person is a self-identified murderer, you should not use the word to describe them. The standard, always NPOV and noncontroversial, way to handle this is to only use words to describe a person that they have used to describe themselves. So, you can say "John Doe was convicted of murder for the killing of Jane Smith" but never "Murderer John Doe killed Jane Smith" unless we have proof that John Doe regularly and consistently refered to himself as a murderer. If a dictator commints killings, call them killings. We don't have to call them murders. Describe them in an accurate, neutral way, and readers will decide for themselves how to "feel" about the dictator. It is not our business to choose words that will influence how people will "feel". For example, choosing the word "murder" over "killing" is adding more value to the action, and causing readers to react to the word rather than the fact that a life has ended. If it meets the legal requirements of murder, then we can note that (John Doe was convicted of murdering his subjects by an international tribunal) but if it doesn't, then just use the neutral term (John Doe is widely regarded as orchestrating the killing of his political rivals) AND ALWAYS REFERENCE such assertions. Also, a dictator is often several steps removed from direct involvement in the death of those that die under his policies. Thus, we can report that Stalin had his rivals killed, by means of fixed trials and the like, or that government agents committed killings on his behalf. However, we would also never say that Stalin "killed", say, the rural populations that died of starvation under his economic policy. And we would definately never simply say "Stalin killed XXXX" if he did not actually kill them himself. We would say either "Stalin had XXXX killed" (he is not unconnected to the act) for those his political rivals, or "Stalin's policies of XXXX caused the death of countless YYYY people" for those types of policies. We never use the word "murder" for any of these, since murder is a legal term, and none of these deaths, tragic as they may be, are techincally murders. And as always, CITE REFERENCES. --Jayron32 16:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying, Jayron, that, where appropriate, you would favour describing an action as murder in the narrative voice of an article but not calling a person a murderer? Curtains99 17:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion never came to a conclusion, but I have added the sentence "Similarly, "murder" is a legal term, as is "assassination"; they should not be used until a conviction is rendered or an official statement has been made." as descriptive of current practice. Comments welcome, as always. -- nae'blis 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. See Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid#Murder & assassinations. Tazmaniacs 16:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The word "score" should be avoided

It might seem only subtle but the word "score" inappropriately and unfoundedly implies something such as a test has merit which is a conclusion that is often disputed and definitely uncited as in "here is your IQ test score" (note: IQ tests and testing are highly disputed). The word "result" is much more neutral in that context, I am open to other alternatives. Just because someone wrote a "test" doesn't mean its "score" has any absolute meaning. Someone else claims that "score" is the most common way of describing IQ test numbers, but I think that within a neutral encyclopedia a subject should be presented using neutral words, not words cherry picked from within a controversial and disputed subjects' own paradigm. I propose we add "score" to the list of words to avoid generally within Wikipedia. zen apprentice T 21:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

How does score imply the test has merit? If someone says, "I don't think this social skills test is very good, because I scored 82 one day and 37 the next," are they contradicting themselves? Even ardent critics of IQ testing use "score" to describe a test result. From Gould's The Mismeasure of Man: "His average score, the IQ itself, meant nothing, for it was only an amalgam of some very high and very low scores," "Surely we can weigh a brain or score an intelligence test without recording our social preferences," "Terman standardized the scale so that “average” children would score 100 at each age," and so on. Score is standard terminology whether you agree the test is meaningful or not. -- Schaefer (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really certain why you think "score" isn't neutral. If it isn't neutral then "result" is better, but I don't view "score" as being biased so favour its use as it is the standard term. "Here is your IQ score" and "here is your IQ result" appear to me to have identical meanings. Raoul 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The result of using a test is a "score", in the same sense that the result of using a ruler is a "length". It's the name of the measurement that you get. I understand that some rulers are inaccurate, but calling what you read off a ruler a "result" rather than a "length" does not fix anything. Perhaps this is better adressed by citing the test "His 2003 HSC score was 400". Paul Murray 02:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge

I don't think Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms should be merged with Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Both this article and Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms should remain as indipendent entries. Interconnected may be, but not merged. Or, would you rather prefer a labyrinthine and hoplessly long Wikipedia:Words to avoid article? Is it not a WP convention to break long articles down to smaller and simpler articles? - Aditya Kabir 16:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. Wikipedia:Words to avoid is already big, and these are each pretty concrete issue distinct from its main thrust. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Another agreement here. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :) --DarthBinky 21:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, no merge. Mumby 19:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree these three articles should not be merged, as they convey different things. Dieter Simon 01:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, seems we're all in agreement here, no merge. Should we remove the tag? delldot | talk 18:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. Aside from the tagger a month ago, no one has expressed support for the idea. ×Meegs 14:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete this guideline

This is an awful policy that is routinely ignored, as it should be. See Allegations of Israeli apartheid, Islamic extremism, and Islamic extremist terrorism which are blatant violations of these "words to avoid." This is supposed to be English Wikipedia, not French Wikipedia. KazakhPol 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Highly appreciated sentiments (I have taken a look at the aforementioned articles and found their very existence in their current form to be painful), but unwise recommendation. Do you think that someone breaking a law turns the law or judicial bodies unworthy? It is the violator who is to be held responsible not the guideline. If we had to delete a guideline that's routinely ignored then, I guess, the first candidate should be the guideline for image copyrights. Please, do not let the vandals, the bigots and zealots decide our policies. It should always be developed by people like you, i.e. people who care about fairness. - Aditya Kabir 12:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a sign that those articles should be improved, not that the guideline should be deleted. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Its words to avoid, not a list of forbidden words. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism exists. Editorial decisions about terror, terrorism, or terrorist are best made in context on each page, using this page as a guideline, and modifying it as needed to reflect practice. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Utterly despicable people, who would have made the world an appreciably better place if they'd simply died in childhood, exist, too, but it's not language we use in an encyclopedia article. And that is not a decision best made in the context of each individual page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

We should use exactly that language, if virtually all reliable sources use that language. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable

The term "notable" indicates the opinion that something is noteworthy, an inappropriate and unnecessary judgement.

Notable is fine as a term to use within projectspace, but it seems like its use on internal pages has led people to think it's ok to use in articles. We use it internally to refer to specific standards chosen by consensus, but those are still a particular POV--the "wikiconsensus" pov--which we shouldn't endorse with our prose, except by our choices of inclusion. A much better alternative is to specify whatever makes them notable directly, such as media attention, specific accomplishment, or some other aspect. Any comments on adding it to the page? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I would view it as possibly worth mentioning, but there are many examples of legitimate use:

• Mark_Hittner: "He is most notable for officiating in the last three of five Super Bowls"
• Bloomsbury, London: "It is a largely residential area most notable for containing several of London's most famous academic institutions…"
• Zelda Fitzgerald: "Her school career was notable only for her failing grades and her utterly careless attitude…"

The last, in particular, I would hate to see changed. - Jmabel | Talk 02:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• The last is very elegant and isn't using "notable" to describe the subject of the article. The others can be changed to

  "He officiated in the last three of five Super Bowls" and "It is a largely residential area containing several of London's most famous academic institutions …" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 18 December 2006.

The first two are exactly examples of unnecessary use. Someone from Bloomsbury could easily have different ideas about what makes it notable. As for the third, I don't really like it because it's an analytical statement that needs support or is OR. The article has no citations, so the article has no support for what it includes. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable is nothing more than a term of art used to describe something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. It has eluded definition. patsw 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable as term of art includes the objective attributes of only, first, last, best, most, highest, etc. as well as subjective criteria about which different editors can come to different evaluations of inclusion of the subject as an article, or a fact to be included in an article. Irony (see the Zelda Fitzgerald example above) and coincidence are examples of criteria where editors can disagree on the relevance to the subject. patsw 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia Policy

Please note that as provided under the official policy Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is NOT censored. Right now, one of the reasons to avoid a word is because it is derogatory or offensive. This is NOT a reason to avoid using a word under official wikipedia policy, as Wikipedia is not censored. Therefore, this should be removed. There are other reasons we don't use words like nigger routinely. Titanium Dragon 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Not censored isn't the same as using these terms ourselves. We have an article on nigger and fuck but we don't write about "nigger fucking" in prose. None of this page says that words must be universally censored, only that they're inappropriate for us to include in our prose, and one of the reasons for that is derogatory or offensive nature. It's not censorship of ideas, it's taste in language. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of "purported" in conjunction with "psychic medium"

There is disagreement over how "purported" and "alleged" should be used in the article John Edward (history), particularly over these cases (with examples of relevant edits):

• "[purported/alleged] psychic medium" in the Occupation field of his infobox (added, removed), currently empty.
• ". . . best known for performing as a [purported/alleged] psychic medium . . ." in the introductory paragraph (added, removed), currently ". . . best known for performing on his show John Edward Cross Country."
• ". . . before working full time as a [purported] medium." in the third introductory paragraph (removed, added), currently "before entering his current career."

Under WP:WTA and WP:NPOV, should "purported" and "alleged" be avoided in these cases? Clarification would be greatly appreciated. — Elembis 23:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA clearly states that "purported" and "alleged" should only be avoided when the purporter and alleger are not specificied or are otherwise unclear. In this case the one doing the purporting and alleging is John Edwards himself. Therefore it is not against WP:WTA to say that he is a "purported medium". To say that he is a "medium" would be POV and would imply that he actually has psychic powers when there is no concrete evidence that he does.Wikidudeman 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a significant difference between saying one works as a medium and that one is a medium, because the first is an indisputable fact: the man employs himself as a medium. I would say that the purported is unnecessary when saying that he works as a medium, but necessary when saying he is one. --tjstrf talk 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone "works as" something very strongly implies that the person actually is that something. If Edward were to find a way to make people give him money by convincing them he's the Prime Minister of France, could one say in a Wikipedia article about him that he's employed as the Prime Minister of France? -- Schaefer (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In complete agreement with .Wikidudeman and Schaefer in that both Edward is a self proclaimed (sorry about the weasel words) medium, something that cannot be verified by material actuality, and that if someone works as something then the implication is that what they are in fact. Now unless we want to start editing the meaning of medium (which I believe would be wrong) then his claims require qualification, and that qualification should be purported, this should apply in all cases where an individual claims to be something that is questionable, it is not a snipe at Edward personally which would be wrong, but merely a rational qualification of unquantifiable claims. Belbo Casaubon 00:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think saying one works as a purported anything is proper, if for no other reason than the awful grammar. We could always split hairs on meaning and use performs as in place of works as, since it can be taken as implying either. For the record, I don't believe in psychics. --tjstrf talk 01:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a shot at this, too, and I trust nobody will complain if my views have changed any since the dispute began eleven days ago. I also hope that excessive length, detail, rambling or boringness will be taken as a sign of poor writing and debate skill and not as evidence of WikiLawyering. =)

As Dreadlocke has pointed out, "'Performing' can be taken either way, as in 'performing surgery' or 'performing an act'." For example, compare "Clarence Darrow performs as a lawyer" to "Richard Simmons performs as a lawyer"; both are understood easily, I think, because the legitimacy the reader gives the "lawyer" determines the meaning of the phrase. The word has multiple common meanings (unlike "purport") and thus allows multiple interpretations (like "purport"), so in my view it can take the latter's place in making the sentence neutral, making "purported" unnecessary and unpreferable in the phrase "best known for performing as a psychic medium".

Next, when we say someone works as something (doctor, author, actor, auto mechanic, priest, footballer), which is what the "Occupation" field says, we're implying quite strongly that they do or can do something that a fraud can't (practice medicine, write books, play a role, fix vehicles, minister, play football) and, most importantly, that this is verifiable in a widely-accepted way. Not everyone who says they're a doctor deserves to have "Occupation: Doctor" in their infobox. We can check their medical degree; look up their book; read the credits; see if the mechanic is licensed or has been formally trained; see if the minister has been ordained by their church (and perhaps see if the church is recognized by law); watch a football game. These criteria allow us to verifiably distinguish actual doctors from false ones, and without such criteria the title of a profession loses its meaning. (These criteria are also independent of one's personal beliefs about the person's legitimacy; whether or not they really are a doctor, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.")

There are, of course, no standardized tests or licensing boards for psychics. There are no verifiable, largely uncontroversial criteria by which we can currently distinguish the validity of the psychic abilities of John Edward, Miss Cleo (not a medium, I know), The Amazing Randi, and any phony with a neon "Psychic Readings" sign and/or a dimly-lit room (no reflection Edward or Harris intended) — if they were purported doctors, we could. I don't think we can say, verifiably and neutrally, that Edward is a psychic and Miss Cleo or Random Person only purports to be one, so to be fair we must put the same thing in the infobox of each (hypothetical) person and say that each either "works as a psychic" or "works as a purported psychic". The former subverts the common meaning of "works as"; if anyone who says they're a psychic medium deserves "Occupation: Psychic medium" in their infobox, anyone who says they're a doctor deserves "Occupation: Doctor" in theirs. I think that's plainly unfair and non-neutral, and I hope the reason is not that my chain of argument is missing a few links. =) Please pardon the length of this comment; believe me, I tried. — Elembis 08:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that instead of examining the meaning of what is said, we are splitting hairs, if we examine what Edward does in the context of the article, (particularly in the light of Dreadlockes most recent edit where edward is described as a psychic medium (It appears Okay to add the validating POV qualifier Psychic (please check out the meaning of this) to medium, but not the questioning purported qualifier), I am in full agreement with you in that if there is a question over someones claims, or qualifications then their occupation in the infobox should reflect this in all cases (I Guess that is what you mean, sorry if I am wrong) or then we don't have NPOV.

I am surprised that you are happy with an ambiguous word, which leaves things open to interpretaion, ratehr than a non ambiguous word which is a renders psychic medium as verifiable, i.e. psychic medium is not verifiable, but purported psychic medium is, all you need to do is ask the claimant about his abilities, and if they all come from inside his head then he is purporting, if he has bona fide certification from a recognised credible institution then doubt should be reduced.

The important thing here is that Edward has not been called a liar, he has not be libelled, his unverifiable claims have merely been qualified. Belbo Casaubon 10:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the term "psychic medium is not verifiable", that is said very clearly in the article, but it cannot be used in every circumstance because it would violate NPOV - the views of those that believe in Edward's abilities need to be represented - and they are not currently being adequately represented. This cannot be a purely skeptical article, NPOV doesn't allow for that. Dreadlocke ☥

Calling him a "purported psychic" is technically accurate but still undesirable because it implies he really isn't psychic. We should avoid the issue and say that he's a television performer who claims to have psychic powers. Lots of people claim to be psychic. Edward's notability comes from his having a TV show. -- Schaefer (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I dont agree that purported implies he isnt really a psychic, however, your statement that he is a television presenter who claims to have psychic abilities is true. the point here is that purport is not a perjorative term, but a statement of truth. In that Edward claims to be a psychic, but this is not verifiable, therefor its is purported , alleged , or any other qualifier that tempers his claims with rationalism.Belbo Casaubon 13:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Purported definitely implies he isn't a psychic, look at the definition for it: [6], which clearly says "often specious appearance", "specious" meaning "having deceptive attraction or allure" and "having a false look of truth or genuineness". It's definitely a pejorative term - there can be no doubt about that. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In the term "Psychic Medium", "psychic" is not a POV qualifier, it is a type of medium. There are different types of mental mediums and physical mediums, so there's nothing POV about it. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The skeptic's position is that there has been no evidence yet supporting the idea that there are any mediums. Careless use of the term when applied to an individual, seems to endorse the view that there are mediums. — BillC ^talk 17:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what this discussion is all about. According to NPOV, we do need to represent the viewpoint of those that believe in mediums - the entire article cannot only represent the skeptical viewpoint. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right in that the article cannot represent only the sceptical viewpoint , Psychic implies bona fide supernatural powers, however Mr Edward has can not be proved to have psychic powers therefore cannot be described as being a unqualified psychic medium, I also unfortunately disagree that purportedly in entirely perjorative the Collins English Dictionary gives the meaning as "To claim to be or to do something", instead of purport we could use supposed.Belbo Casaubon 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It may not be "entirely" pejorative, but it's sufficently considered a pejorative and therefore a word to avoid - and should not be used in the Edward Article, unless it was said by a notable critic in a reliable source and can be added to the Criticism section. This is especially true in a WP:BLP, which requres a high level of sensitivity. "Supposed" is just as bad. Using 'claimed' or 'purported' is usually avoidable by using more 'detail', this also gives the user more to base an opinion on and improves the article. Reading an article using the word 'claimed' in every line, reads more like a legal document than an encyclopaedia entry. That's what the detail in later sections is all about. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should go over the differences between a gudeline and a rule again, it is clear that John Edward claims to be a psychic medium, this claim is not verifiable, to make it verifiable it requires qualification. I do believe that comments like using claimed in every line is a little hysterical, and it is certainly not what I propose, I merely propose that it is more verifiable to describe Mr Edward as a purported/supposed/claimed/self-proclaimed psychic medium than as a psychic medium, as for adding more detail, what would be the point of that, you are simply adding more to a flawed article, Mr Edward has made claims about his abilities, I see no problem with including this (as it is an accurate verifiable fact) rather than describing him as a psychic medium, a statement which cannot be verified. I relly can't see the problem with the use of these words, I understand from your edit history and user page that you have an interest in the paranormal (which is fine) however that shoud not preclude you from objectivity, I also have an interest in the paranormal, and am not a sceptic merely a pragmatist.Belbo Casaubon 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to say he "is a psychic medium", I'm proposing to say that he "acts" or "performs as a psychic medium", there's a big difference between the two. Also, a guideline is very significant and represents a wide consensus amongst experienced editors - it's not something that can be lightly ignored. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the guideline, maybe you are, please read it again and find the paragraph:

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear.

It is clear in this case that it is John Edward who is the alleger.

In this case the experienced editors have reached a consensus which states

Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not

They have also stated

there is no neutrality problem with using them

There is no ambiuguity in these statements .. you are opting to use ambiguous words such asact and perform as qualifiers as opposed to the non neutral, non ambiguous purported/alleged.

I believe you are misunderstanding the attempt to make the article NPOV and i believe using act and perform is Weaselish. Belbo Casaubon 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've read those parts of WTA, but I disagree that purported and it's like should be used in the Edward article, their usage is pejorative and does not match my interpretation of what WTA states. The main thrust of WTA is to avoid using words that add bias or appear to give an opinion, which is exactly what "purported" does in the case of the Edward article, (which is clear from the Websters online definition's use of "specious appearance").

This is not the same as using "acts" or "performs" as they are not on the list of words to avoid, and they are both informative and describe what he is doing on the show: performing. There's nothing ambiguous about that, but it also does not make a statement either way about the reality of his presumed abilities. There's nothing "weaselish" about using "performing" or "acts" - because it is exactly what he is doing on the show.

You need to focus on finding alternatives to utilizing these words to be avoided, and properly edit the article with detail and not continue trying to force the use of WTA. I believe I have found an acceptable alternative by saying that Edward is "performing" as a psychic medium, and that these WTA do not need to be used. Period. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe it would be fair to simply not include him as having any occupation or if we do list an occupation list it as "performer", Not "psychic performer" just "performer". We should also edit the article so that anytime it mentions his supposed psychic ability it makes it clear that he isn't necessarily a psychic. Since we can't reach a compromise. And BTW Elembis. James Randi doesn't claim he is a psychic. James Randi is a "psychic debunker" a "skeptic" who often pretends he is a psychic to show how easily any person can do what they do using cold reading techniques.Wikidudeman 23:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I knew about Randi, but you're right, he's a bad example. — Elembis 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I really hope we can agree on a verifiable, neutral description of what Edward is; if we can't, it looks like the consensus will be "performs" in the article and a blank Occupation field (or one which reads "Performer" if no one objects). I still support "purport", but I understand that some people consider its use pejorative, so I'll propose something else: what about "profess"?

Webster's says the word means "... (2a) to declare or admit openly or freely; affirm (2b) to declare in words or appearances only; pretend, claim (3) to confess one's faith in or allegiance to (4a) to practice or claim to be versed in (a calling or profession) ...". Look up the linked terms and you'll see that, like "perform", the word has positive, neutral and negative common meanings, is not pejorative, and is not mentioned on WP:WTA or WP:WEASEL (which is not to say that it's automatically the right word). "Professed psychic medium" doesn't sound at all pejorative to me (it even sounds a little illustrious); at the same time, it doesn't sound like an automatic confirmation. I think it's perfect. — Elembis 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is not bad at all.Belbo Casaubon 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be continued on the Edward talk page. This page is for specifically discussing the article "Words to avoid", not the Edward article or its contents. This discussion is well beyond that scope. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientific theories and laws

Rather than statig that a scientific law is "Scientific principles that are succinctly stated", it might be better to say that a scentific law is a statement that is universally observed to hold true. Thus "laws" are about observations, and "theories" are our explanations of those observations. Thus, the kinetic theory of heat explains (accounts for) the laws of thermodynamics. Paul Murray 19:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the concept of laws in science is quite disputed, if not an anachronism belonging to past science. Tazmaniacs 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

I deleted a closing statement that was in contradiction with the wording on WP:NPOV. The proposal at Wikipedia:Criticism, has not been accepted by the community despite being a proposal for many months.. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bigot

Neutral or not?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad example of "claim" in this guideline

There is nothing wrong with suggesting dubiousness when such dubiousness cannot be disputed by any reasonable person; the paranoid schizophrenics are an example of that. This example should be changed to something where the dubiousness would be much more problematic, e.g., "Some religious believers claim that it is impossible to lead a moral life without believing in a deity."--Eloquence* 11:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The word "claims" is a loaded term that introduces bias. It is better to add detailed content to the article so the readers can decide for themselves whether the "claim" is dubious or not. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not how NPOV works. It's not "make a claim and let the reader sort it out for themselves", it's "phrase it in such a way that there can be no reasonable dispute about it". Which is the case when implying, for instance, that the claims of paranoid schizophrenics are dubious.--Eloquence* 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That is clearly not what I said. I said "add detail to the article so the reader can decide for themselves what is dubious" it is not the job of Wikipedia or it's editors to decide what is dubious for them, but to present all significant views fairly and without bias. What NPOV actually says is:

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source."

The word "claim" automatically introduces bias, which is against NPOV. NPOV concerns are met by providing the various key views on both sides of an issue, something which generally cannot be addressed by a single word, sentence or possibly even an entire paragraph. As I said above, it is better to add detailed content to the article than it is to use a loaded word that itself brings bias. NPOV means that the overall article must provide a neutral point of view, not that each word or sentence must provide for all the various views.

As WP:WTA states, "claim" is a word which can advance a point of view and should be avoided. I find this especially true in the introductory paragraph of an article. Dreadlocke ☥ 00:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To state or imply something which is not seriously disputed is not bias, anymore than saying that paranoid schizophrenia is a disorder would be. It is an undisputed factual statement.--Eloquence*

Oh, I completely disagree with that, a Wikipedia article should never “imply” anything, it should clearly state from reliable sources what the various and significant sides of an issue are. We should never imply, we should instead “state” – as you suggest - by using detailed content, not loaded words.

If we do allow biased words, such as “claim”, then who makes that value judgment? Wikipedia editors? That would violate WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If the value judgment is from reliable sources, then detailed content from those sources can be added to the article instead of merely using a loaded, biased word. Wikipedia articles do not benefit from our using loaded, biased words such as those on the WTA page.

It is very clear how to handle something that is "not seriously disputed". If an article's subject is in such a category, then it should be a simple matter to add detailed content that clearly describes the subject as being something not seriously disputed, instead of using one of the "words to avoid". Those details in the content would provide the undisputed factual statements you mention - and would be a much preferred state of affairs for an encyclopedia. Using a loaded word to indicate bias or even an "undisputed factual statement" isn't the most encyclopedic manner in which to address a subject. Besides, WTA is used mostly in situations where there is very much dispute, as you are well aware... :)

Wikipedia’s job is to fully inform the reader, adding a loaded word to provide the view that something is not seriously disputed does not fit that task.

For instance, in your example, it would be far better to clearly state why the “claims” of paranoid schizophrenics are dubious. It would be perfectly fine in the body of the article to say something along the lines of “psychologists say that the claims of paranoid schizophrenics are dubious because…xxx and xxx”, but it’s not our job to say so – we should never say “Paranoid schizophrenics typically claim that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them.” In a statement like that, it is proper to replace the word “claim” with “believe”, then explain why that is a dubious belief by adding detailed content that clearly informs the reader why it is dubious. The example that is currently in the WTA article is a perfect example that makes an editor add detail instead of trying to take a shortcut to show the dubiousness of a subject by merely throwing in a WP:WTA. That’s key to an encyclopedia of knowledge – details and content, informing the reader and not just implying

If we do blur the line for these WTA, then it’s a slippery slope and we will have editors making value judgments and being able to actually add a WTA with the express purpose of creating a subtle bias. I don’t think we ought to allow the line to be blurred or the WTA restrictions to be relaxed. Slippery slope. More disputes. Less informative articles. . Dreadlocke ☥ 01:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe "claim" can sometimes be used in an NPOV manner- but it is rare, and I can't think of an example now.

I agree with this: "clearly state from reliable sources what the various and significant sides of an issue are. We should never imply"

The most important thing to remember about the word "claim" is that it is seldom really necessary. Where the NPOV word "say" cannot be substituted, the text can almost always be redone to make such a word unnecessary. Where it is necessary, it should be obvious that it means not that the claim is dubious, but that the truth of it is, without bias, simply unknown. English, as with all language, is extremely nuanced, and this nuance is what we are talking about, not merely technical fact.

Thus, in the example by Eloquence "Some religious believers claim that it is impossible to lead a moral life without believing in a deity", one can simply make it NPOV by changing "claim" to "say." The word "believers" is here NPOV, but only because in the particular context of religion the word "belief" is not strictly contrasted with "knowledge" and not a near equivalent of "opinion," but is rather contrasted with "unbelief" which is negative. So from a context outside the religion, which is the Wikipedia perspective, the word "believer" merely says that the people are inside the system, not outside it.

In DreadLocke's example, "Paranoid schizophrenics typically claim that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them." becomes "Paranoid schizophrenics typically say that some people are tracking their movements in an attempt to harm them."

But replacing the word "claim" with "believe" would also be POV, because of the nuances stated above.

"If we do blur the line for these WTA, then it’s a slippery slope and we will have editors making value judgments and being able to actually add a WTA with the express purpose of creating a subtle bias."

Agreed.Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist, terrorism section

KazakhPol just unilaterally split-off this section into his own version of the guideline, Wikipedia:Designated terrorist organizations. I think it should be redirected for now, as such actions should be done after a consensus is reached, not before. Khoikhoi 01:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems many central asian groups that oppose their governments labelled as terrorists in the narrative voice, and/or usually using questionable interpretations of references. see:

• Hizb ut-Tahrir
• Terrorism_in_Kazakhstan,
• Counter-terrorism in Kazakhstan,
• Cooperation between Kazakhstan and the United States in Counter-terrorism
• Hizb-an-Nusra,
• Jama'at al-Jihad al-Islami,
• Akramiya,
• Islamic_Movement_of_Uzbekistan,
• Islamic_Movement_of_Central_Asia,
• New_Great_Game,
• List_of_attacks_attributed_to_Abu_Nidal
• Ahmed_Rashid
• East_Turkestan_Liberation_Organization
• Ahmed_Rashid

Aaliyah Stevens 11:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Aaliyah Stevens has gone to every page I edit to 'warn' other editors about me. That in itself speaks volumes about his activities. I copied and pasted part of this policy and another policy into a new policy that dealt with the use of the term 'terrorism' and 'terrorist'. It really was not that controversial. KazakhPol 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a she for the 2nd time, and no I haven't Aaliyah Stevens 11:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

are but a few...

The article Islam and antisemitism currently has the sentence "Cowardice, greed, and chicanery are but a few of the characteristics that the Qur'an ascribes to the Jews." Whether that is true or not I would argue that "are but a few" is unencyclopedic because of its attempt to portray a greater magnitude than is cited. How exactly would you describe this issue? It's not really weasel words or peacock terms... Thanks. gren グレン 09:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The article then proceeds to explain what the other characteristics are. Beit Or 12:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Late" in terms of the dead

I'm having some problems with the use of "the late" to signify that someone is dead or that the article's subject dealt with someone who has died. Examples include "the late Ronald Reagan" or "the late Steve Irwin". I don't think it should be used in most cases, as everyone dies sometime, and the fact that someone may be dead is usually not important in the scope of the article. And if they don't know that someone is dead, the name is usually linked, and they can find out that way. I would like something amended in this page to reflect that. Booshakla 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how emphasizing someone's departure from the living would be out of scope for an article where that person is mentioned. And I don't think removing every use of the term from Wikipedia on your part, will help in any way - you've already exceeded the three-revert rule in the PETA article. --Strangnet 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that is relevant. I'm just asking for some feedback, I've made some valid points and there are many other editors that have removed these mentions with similar intentions. I think that it can be relevant to use the term in some occasions, but not most. Booshakla 01:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's some feedback: I've raised your behavior as inappropriate with WP:AN/I. Until they respond, I would appreciate you stop your crusade of removing this expression wherever you find it. You have your reasons not to like it; other have their reasons to like it and NOT agree with you. Trying to force it on the WP community as a whole isn't the best approach, IMHO.--Ramdrake 02:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't see anything particularly wrong with removing "the late" from articles and I think that the term is generally unencyclopedic and entirely unnecessary. I will remind Ramdrake that content disputes should not go to WP:AN/I and that Booshakla's initial bold edits where in good faith and not disruptive. It will also remind Booshakla and others not to violate WP:3RR when dealing with content disputes. --Farix (Talk) 03:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "the term is generally unencyclopedic and entirely unnecessary". For more discussion, read on: We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, or a fan site, or a blog, or a branch office of "Entertainment Tonight". This means that every article stands on its own, and we use links to connect to other people with whom the subject was associated. To use the Nancy Reagan example: anyone who's ever heard of Ronald Reagan either knows he's dead, or can quickly click the link and find out. Those who've never heard of him don't care either way. The point is that Nancy's article is about her, not about her husband. Naturally, it must include reference to Ron because she achieved her greatest degree of notability through him; her article would be much smaller (or perhaps non-existent) if she was only ever a minor actress and never became First Lady. But that doesn't mean we have to refer to Ronald as "the late". Do this for him, and we have to refer to all dead people as "the late" - or establish some sort of cut-off point, and I can guarantee we'll never get agreement about how long after a person's death it becomes no longer appropriate to employ such terminology. Do it for everyone, or no-one: I vote for no-one. (At a stretch, I can see how referring to someone who died last week as "the late" might have some value, but even that would have to be removed within a short time. In any case, RR died almost 3 years ago so ...) JackofOz 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, "the late" isn't encyclopedic - but! - just make sure the article doesn't imply the individual is still alive when they're not! Both can be easily addressed by using: Dates of birth and death. If there's a big push-back on the removal of "the late", then "being bold" becomes "being spam" until the issue is decided on the talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Any decision concerning the use of late would affect most biographical articles. I imagine that a consensus regarding this subject could also mean a change in wikipedia policy. It might be prudent to expand the scope of this discussion, moving this analysis to a more easily viewable and/or high traffic page (This, however, may very well be the right place to post this discussion).

I believe that the use of late (as in reference to the subject) in a biographical article can be inappropriate if not also redundant. That being said, however, I could see the merit in its use when in the context of a reference to another party, (stipulating also the use of said late party supports the subject) as is the case with the Nancy Reagan article.

In any event, changing articles to fit either opinion before a consensus is reached would be counterproductive. Kugelmass 05:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point, since there is a definite dispute about the issue, you are correct. A good place to start the discussion would be on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography page. I've notified them of this discussion as well. Dreadlocke ☥ 05:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a style issue about whether a word should be avoided. So the best place is here at WP:WTA. The WikiProject doesn't have "ownership" of this debate and it is inappropriate to move it there when it is already underway here. --Farix (Talk) 10:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There can be not policy change as there is no policy on the issue to begin with. --Farix (Talk) 10:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A better alternative to saying "the late" is to give the birth and death years in brackets after the name. This gives more information about when the person died. So, for example, talking about a new crocodile protection program, you could say "Crocodile Protector was inspired by the animal conservationist and TV presenter Steve Irwin (1962-2006)" or ""Crocodile Protector was inspired by the animal conservationist and TV presenter Steve Irwin, who died in 2006" or "Crocodile Protector was founded a year after the death of the animal conservationist and TV presenter Steve Irwin (1962-2006)". Carcharoth 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Carcharoth! Looks like great minds think alike...[7]..:) Dreadlocke ☥ 22:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like this could reasonably be worked out case by case. Use it when it works, don't when it doesn't. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That offers no guidance whatsoever. And how does one define when it works and when it doesn't work? --Farix (Talk) 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not something about which we need to offer guidance. It's a minor question of style that editors can work out on the particular page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA is primarily concerned with undue weight and biased words, not sylistic concerns. Moving the discussion to WP:Project Bio would be perfectly acceptable and probably the best thing to do. It really doesn't belong here. And aggressively replacing it (even if it's right), can be viewed as spamming if overall consensus isn't reached. Apparently, this has gone beyond the single-article discussion. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I will chime in both places as I do not know how the internal debate of moving will turn out. I think the suggestion given above of putting the birth and death dates after the first mention of a name in an article would be a better idea then stating "the late", in as many letters we can achieve something much more informative and still maintain an encyclopedic style over editorial style. --NuclearZer0 04:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The dates instead of "the late" is only a slightly better idea. I would maybe put it (only when necessary) on subjects that don't have their own article. You don't need it when you talk about a dead person with an article here, cause you can just click the link to find out. I still think we need to think about keeping the subject in perspective and not get too irrelevant, and also removing clutter, and we want to assume that our readers are intelligent. Booshakla 04:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree, we do not want to assume our readers are stupid, however they may not know if the person is alive. You mention Carter, however if it was not for the recent media blitz over his death, many may not know he was in fact dead. I think if we remove "the late" we may be left with people reading articles and not knowing. For instance if I am reading an article and stumble across person X said Y about Z, I may use that as its cited and I verify the citations etc. However I may not know person X is dead. I didnt read their article cause the quote is of interest, not the person. Replacing "the late" with a date, allows for it to be apparent immediatly without requiring a link to be clicked. I think the issue is, does everyone click a link when they see it, is everyone concerned with the person, perhaps just with a quote, or noted presence at an event or on a list. I think if we can achieve an informative position in 9 letters and change "the late" in the same process it will only help. It also gets rid of that editorial voice I mentioned before. Some people come here looking for quick information, its almost like stating we should not list Carter as president Carter when referenced in other articles, since the person can click the link to find out he was president, the more information in a concise manner seems to be the best bet. --NuclearZer0 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography page but I thought I'd stick it in here as it might be useful. This is my take on the discussion above;

• "the late..." seems to normally be used in English language prose to indicate someone who is recently deceased. Including this phrase in articles means that at somepoint its going to look odd at a later date when someone is no longer recently deceased and so introducing the flaw of presentism.
• The key way to indicate "the late" is by adding their death date to their article entry, or if they are merely referenced in someone else's article add them there (although if they're not notable to warrant an article of their own, does it matter if they're late or present?)
• Another argument is that the phrase is "unencylopaedic" but as WP:NOT and the AfD guidance states, this is never a very good argument as "Wikipedia is not a paper encylopaedia". What I think is meant is that using the "the late..." does not sound like the tone of an encyclopaedia - more like an obituary, or newspaper article.
• Argument from existing usage, I have to say I've rarely noticed the phrase used in Wikipedia, but then maybe I'm not observant enough, but generally I've not seen the phrase used widely.

Madmedea 11:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments for Zer0:

• (1) Are you confusing Jimmy Carter with Gerald Ford, who died 6 weeks ago? Carter is very much alive, to my knowledge.
• (2) "if it was not for the recent media blitz over his death, many may not know he was in fact dead" seems a non-sequitur to me. How else would the outside world get to hear about his death, or anything, if not for the media? JackofOz 04:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A few more comments. Booshakla says "You don't need it when you talk about a dead person with an article here, cause you can just click the link to find out." - if the reader of the article needs to know that the person being mentioned is dead, then you must state that in the article in question. You can never rely on someone going to another article to find this out. Going to another article is for background information only. Each article must be self-contained and be able to be read as a whole, without requiring the reader to constantly look at other pages to find out relevant information. Of course, if the death and/or date is not relevant, then don't mention it at all. It is the context which is important. Another example is mentioning a 20th-century author in the middle of a paragraph about 14th-century literature. The mention would have to make clear that the new name is not another 14th-century author, but is a 20th-century author.

Madmedea said "Another argument is that the phrase is "unencylopaedic" but as WP:NOT and the AfD guidance states, this is never a very good argument as "Wikipedia is not a paper encylopaedia". What I think is meant is that using the "the late..." does not sound like the tone of an encyclopaedia - more like an obituary, or newspaper article." - I agree entirely. The AfD guidance mentions WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia to point out matters of article size and multimedia content and internal linking. It does not refer to 'encyclopedic tone'. That is non-negotiable. The articles still have to have a neutral, and professional tone. Newspaper journalism and editorial style is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Carcharoth 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that it "must" be mentioned. Everyone reads an article differently, and you can't cater to every single need when making an article. There is a guideline here that we should not spoon feed the reader, and putting needless details like that is exactly what you're doing. Booshakla 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

'The Late' can imply respect for the dead person. Thus, people write about 'the late Steve Irwin' but 'Saddam Hussein who was executed recently'. 'The late' is a relative temporal phrase and should be avoided for the same reason that Wikipedia articles should not refer to what happened 'last year'. Finally, 'Steve Irwin, who died in 2006' conveys more information and shows no disrespect or respect to the subject. So recommend avoid this phrase. Curtains99 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But again, the date of death only needs to be mentioned if it is relevant to the article. It can be in a few cases, but not most. Booshakla 08:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Adjevtive and adverbs that convey POV: "merely", "only", "just"

There are lots more POV adjectives and adverbs, of course, but I've seen a lot of them used in this sort of way: "John Doe was fired as coach after just one season". This serves to create the impression that he was not given a chance and that the action was premature. It could be that these words are not on the list because they also can be used, with different denotations, in a way that does not convey POV. If this list is intended only for words that are generally inappropriate, rather than just inappropriate in a certain usage, then disregard. Croctotheface 06:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, I remove those types of words on the spot when I see them. Booshakla 09:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Recently"

Should "recent" and "recently" be added to words to avoid? Quite often editors who are too lazy to/unable to date an event write that it happened "recently", but the text persists in Wikipedia long after the event is "recent". Much better to put "in 2003...", or even "in the early 2000s..." (Or is this more an example of weasel words?) Rocksong 04:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that caused a lot of discussion. Not. But I still think it's important. If there are no objections, I intend to add a section named along the lines "Words whose meaning changes over time", and caution against the misuse of "recent", "recently", "current" and "currently". Rocksong 00:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with it, "recently" doesn't really make sense in an encyclopedia, and it's common to find neglected articles that describe events months or years ago as "recent". --Milo H Minderbinder 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen "three years ago" as well as "recently". The standard, of course, is to make date references absolute and not relative to the editor's time frame. patsw 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I've just discovered Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly. It seems the real problem is the lack of a decent Wikipedia Help Contents! Rocksong 12:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist vs Category Terrorism

I have a question, which may have arisen before. If calling a particular organization or individual as terrorist is inappropriate, then why is there a Category:Terrorism? My particular concern is with ASALA, an organization whose members were charged, convicted and sentenced for numerous bombing attacks killing civilians en masse as well as pointed assassinations. And also with Monte Melkonian, who was a member of ASALA, was convicted of assassinations and attacks, yet called a "freedom fighter" and not in Category:Terrorism. For some reason, my attempt [8] to insert Category:Terrorism on ASALA based on three references to the U.S. State Department classifying the organization as such [9], [10], [11] was countered with an argument that this term should not be used [12] and with reference to this page [13]. Can anyone provide an explanation on the policy and the category? Thanks. Atabek 10:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Scandal" vs "controversy"

I've added a new section at WP:WTA#Scandal, controversy, affair, which I hope is fairly self-explanatory and sensible. I'd appreciate any feedback that other contributors may have. -- ChrisO 20:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Section looks fine. Could we drop "invariably used to" from "Editors should therefore exercise great caution in using the term, as its strong negative connotations are invariably used to imply wrongdoing." ending it instead "...since it implies wrongdoing?" One can always find changes to reduce word count, to the point of quibbling.
Cheers, AndersW (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro-life

Currently there is this sentence, which was introduced 19 June 2006: The so-called pro-life movement comprises those who believe abortion should be illegal. [So-called suggests that they are not, in fact, "pro-life". Whether this is true is debatable, so instead make it clear who calls them that—use self-described, or rephrase to "the movement generally known as pro-life . . .".] However, the general running consensus/compromise on WikiProject Abortion is to respect self-identity and to not add qualifications to the titles of the movements. This way, we avoid people using terms like "pro-death" "anti-choice" "anti-life" and so on. Also, "pro-abortion" is a misnomer because very few people are FOR abortion per see, while "anti-abortion" doesn't accurately describe the movement because euthanasia and stem cell research and other issues are often involved (see Terri Schavio). The working consensus is to use "pro-life" and "pro-choice" to describe the movements and the political position and leave it at that. However, these guidelines seem to suggest that its ok to question the accuracy of these terms in the article space (the pro-choice and pro-life articles talk about term controversy). I however do not feel that this debate through be brought out on every single abortion page that mentions "pro-life" and "pro-choice". I would suggest removing this as an example. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 00:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It is trying to illustrate an example. Rather than changing the policy, which you have done, you should change the example. One could replace it with another abortion example, if you want; the "so-called" partial-birth abortion technique would be a good choice. You could then explain that pro-life advocates use that phrase and pro-choice advocates tend not to; most importantly, doctors do not. Awadewit 01:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: law words and and other misplaced formality issues

I suggest we add a section on avoiding misplaced formality and fancy law words, such as:

• "hitherto"
• "thereunto"
• "notwithstanding"
• excessive use of "whereas"
• "whilst"
• "amongst"
• "in order to" (unless it's a complex situation or the opposite is needed)
• "thereupon"
• "notwithstanding"
• "utilize"
• "prior to"

We should be projecting our content succinctly and plainly, but without restorting to simple english. Our goal is not to write law contracts and Shakesperian plays, or to show off our vocabulary. As User:Tony1 says so well on his User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: "Wikipedia needs to appeal to a wide range of native and non-native speakers, many of whom are time-poor. Writing plain English is a good way to achieve this. Many writers want to write text with an air of authority, and use longer-than-necessary and/or old-fashioned forms in the hope of appearing more formal. In most cases, you'll get your point across more effectively by avoiding the following words and phrases..." — Deckiller 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the general sentiment, though not with your selection of words ("prior to" is perfectly fine, for instance). This might be better as an essay, because it probably won't get widespread support. A lot of people want to write in a stuffy manner; they think it's encyclopedic. See my user page for something similar. — Omegatron 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Most copy-editors oppose FAs when these words are used, so perhaps if Tony puts his guideline into a Wikipedia space essay, it'll get even more attention. — Deckiller 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I too would agree with the general statement but let's not include any list of words or expressions. That which one editor may find fancy or misplacedly formal the next might find plain and quite normal. I will write and say "amongst" and "whilst" without a second thought: nothing fancy or formal about them. Jimp 00:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not Wikipedia:Simple English. Why empoverish English which is a very rich language? I would like, to the contrary, to see more words which can paint a complex reality. Tazmaniacs 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So you think we should only appeal to a group of literary elite? Wikipedia needs to appeal to a wide range of readers and deliver its points crisply and succinctly, without fluff or old school formality. Moreover, I see a huge difference between En articles that don't use misplaced formality and Simple English articles. User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a is a major camp for my belief. — Deckiller 21:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe using words a bit more rare than others is reserving wikipedia to an elite. Quite to the contrary, I think using an accurate language rise-up the education level of people (I include myself in this group). You learn a language, and words, by using them. It is normal to stumble, once in a while, in words you do not know, and this is a good thing. Note, as an aside, that I do not know all of these words, and I'm please to have my language improved by stumbling upon them. Tazmaniacs 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

in his book X, author Y hints at Z

The guideline says nothing about "hints/hinted at". Can I cite an author like that, when I have the exact quote?

And, secondly, I didn't manage to find anything in the citation or ref pages about direct quotes worked into the footnotes. I vaguely remember reading about that. Can anyone tell me how, or if it is a good idea at all? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, can please everybody ignore this? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would avoid "hints at" in article text. If you're providing a direct quote, obviously you have to present exactly what they said. It's not like we can change their text or expect them not to use these words. --Minderbinder 14:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Purported

I think it needs to be made clear the word purported actually carries the connotation of falsehood or lie, and the prohibition against using it should be made stronger.

From the Webster's Online Dictionary:

Webster’s online definition of purported:

to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred) <a book that purports to be an objective analysis>; also : CLAIM <foreign novels which he purports to have translated -- Mary McCarthy>

Webster’s defines specious as:

2 : having deceptive attraction or allure

3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC <specious reasoning>

With these definitions, there can be absolutely no doubt that “purported” is a word loaded with bias and should not be used.

The word "Professed" can be used in cases where there is a need for showing that a person has made a doubtful claim. Dreadstar ☥ 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What about: "Iran gathered a Conference which purported that the Holocaust was not as bad as mainstream historians have demonstrated it was"? Tazmaniacs 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly the point. The single word 'purported' casts doubt on the veracity of the statement, without providing content or attribution. Why use it? Say it's "stated" and then provide detailed content to show that the statement is indeed deceptive or false. Dreadstar † 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Heck, even saying 'professed' casts doubt.

"Iran gathered a Conference which professes that the Holocaust was not as bad as mainstream historians have demonstrated it was"

Better would probably be:

"Iran gathered a Conference which stated that the Holocaust was not as bad as mainstream historians have demonstrated it was"

Then provide detailed and sourced content that shows this statement to be as false as it obviously is to those not subscribing to that view. Dreadstar † 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Famously

I'm constantly coming across sentences in the form of "X famously did Y". I think this word should enter the list of Words to Avoid. A famous event is famous only to those who already know about it. This is an encyclopedia, it's full of "famous" information - but more importantly than that, its main purpose is to provide information to those who don't already know about it. Even telling the uninformed that a particular event is famous - which may well be a fact - is to downplay all the other famous events in the subject's life. JackofOz 22:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

But aren't some things more famous than others within a particular context (such as a biography)? Such as: "George Allen famously referred to one of his opponent's campaign workers as "a macaca," a statement which may have cost him the election." Awadewit 01:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How is that better than "George Allen referred to one of his opponent's campaign workers as "a macaca"? If something received exceptional media attention, it may be appropriate to discuss that, but "famously" seems like vague shorthand. --Minderbinder 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The other objection I have is less easy to quantify (impossible, actually). Is it just me, or is there a hint of "X famously did Y" = "everyone knows that"? I've come to grief in real life when I've said to someone "everyone knows that", and they've got a bit miffed. They thought I was being arrogant, condescending and patronising. Maybe it was not so much what I said but more about the way I said it. Whatever - I fear that some of our readers may have that sort of reaction if we continue to use this word inappropriately. Alienating readers is the last thing I want us to do. JackofOz 08:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but using "famously" also alerts readers that this is something they should know - it is something they should remember. We need to make sure that we do not eliminate all the words that hierarchize - some events or statements or publications are more important than others. The irony of this discussion is that I was just reading Locke: His Philosophical Thought by Jolley and there are numerous sentence with "famously" in them. I asked myself, if a scholar of philosophy can write "famously," can't we, if we do it carefully? Scholars of philosophy tend to be very careful with their use of lanugage. Here are a couple of examples (which are really famous, by the way):

Ex: "In Chapter 5 [of the Second Treatise] Locke famously argues that it is labour and labour alone which confers a property right in a previously unowned thing." (206)

Ex: "Locke famously discusses the case of a man who gathers acorns or apples under a tree and subsequently eats them; in accordance with his principles Locke argues that the first act of gathering, being an instance of labour, conferred a property right to the fruits of the earth." (207) Awadewit 09:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Carefully, aye there's the rub, Awadewit. That suggests "famously" should generally be avoided, except in cases where its careful use is appropriate. None of the words on the current list of words to avoid are totally banned - because "avoid" doesn't mean a total ban, but a recommendation to be judicious. Your argument seems to put "famously" in the same category as the other words in the list.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with telling our readers what they "should" know. I agree that some facts are more important than others - "George Washington was the first US President" is a more important fact than "George Washington wore green underwear", but does that mean we can say "George Washington was famously the first US President"? I hope not. Any person who is very well known will typically have dozens if not hundreds of famous facts about them in their article - which of these famous facts should be selected to be the one to bear the heavy burden of "famously"?  :) JackofOz 05:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, JackofOz, this page seems to get used as a list of words to never use rather than a list of words to avoid (I have personally experienced this at FAC, unfortunately). That is why conditionals should exist on the page. As to your other point, wikipedia is already telling its readers what they should know. We read reliable sources and summarize them - in wikipedia's opinion, our readers should know what the scholarly consensus is on any given topic. That, I might add, is already taking a position on what kinds of knowledge our readers should be exposed to. There are plenty of people who discount scholarly work and the scientific method, principles that wikipedia adheres to. Those views are rarely represented on wikipedia. Let me be clear, I am not endorsing those views, I am just pointing out that wikipedia has already taken a stand on what kinds of knowledge its readers "should" have. Obviously I agree with that stand, or I wouldn't bother to write articles here. :) On a more practical note, if I were writing an article, I would use "famously" when I saw sources doing so or something equivalent. That way it would not be me choosing, but experts on, say, George Washington. Awadewit 06:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still not convinced, though. Since Wikipedia has already taken a stand on what kinds of knowledge its readers "should" have, then all of the information in an article is what they "should" have - otherwise it wouldn't meet our criteria for inclusion. What "famously" generally tries to do is to have a special and exalted kind of "shouldness" (!). But this is not necessary. The most important information is generally in the lead para of most articles, so the very structure we use ensures that readers will read the more important information before they get to the less important. Basically, using "famously" further on down the page is shorthand/code for "This is really important too, but I forgot/haven't got around to putting it higher up the page where it really belongs". But please don't think I'm being a Nazi about this. I'm not saying it should never be used, and I can think of all sorts of exceptions to the case I just outlined. I just think it should be avoided, and richly deserves a place on the List of Words to Avoid. JackofOz 06:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to Godwin's Law. (In jest, of course). Awadewit 07:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Claim

See problems that have arisen with the "claim" guideline at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Some Thoughts Concerning Education. I think that the wording of the guideline is too stringent and it should rely on the OED. Thanks. Awadewit 03:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose this addition: According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "claim" is "‘Often loosely used (esp. in U.S.) for: Contend, maintain, assert’." This usage is particularly common when discussing texts and ideas. For example:

"In Book II [of Essay Concerning Human Understanding] Locke claims that ideas are the materials of knowledge and all ideas come from experience." - John Locke at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Awadewit 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that "claim" has appropriate, non-weasel uses (particularly when the statement is cited to the person claiming it). If I were to say I could lift ten thousand pounds with one hand (but didn't actually demonstrate it), I certainly would expect it to be described as "X claims he can..." --Minderbinder 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am one of the anti-claim crusaders. There are some places where it is good. But almost always a sentence is improved by changing claim to say or state. Steve Dufour 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

But the Locke example I provided above is one of those where it is not an improvement. Locke does not merely "state" that all ideas come from experience - this is one of the major "claims" of his work. The word "claim" can have different meanings and I just wanted to make sure that the policy reflected that fact. An FAC I was involved in got into a bit of a tiff over just this meaning of the word "claim" and I wanted to make sure that it didn't happen to anyone else. Some ideas are large enough to be labeled "claims" and not mere "statements." You might take a look at the entire Locke article I have linked to and see just how many different times the word "claim" comes up there and with how many different meanings. This policy was too restrictive, in my opinion. Awadewit 05:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there are some uses of "claim" that are worthwhile. I don't change every one I come across. Steve Dufour 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at my FAC (linked above) to see why I made this change to the policy. Apparently not everyone is as flexible as yourself. Awadewit 05:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial

This seems to be used a lot as a label without much regard for its meaning or lack of it. What finally drove me here to complain is the article on actress Mimi Rogers. She was in one movie with a Christian theme which was called "controversial" with no details given. A little down the page another movie is mentioned in which she was nude for the whole thing. This one was not called "controversial." Steve Dufour 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial" points to the controversial nature of some people/events/etc. without necessarily entering into details (often found in the relevant articles). You can't take out all English words from Wikipedia. Tazmaniacs 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Ms Rogers the reason the movie was called controversial was not explained. There is no mention of any controversy in its own article The Rapture. No controversy on the talk page either, although I can imagine some people complained that it was exploiting religion for shock value or something like that. Steve Dufour 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of times the word "controversial" is just used as a label. For instance Rush Limbaugh. There is no real controversy. Almost everyone agrees he is a successful conservative radio talk person with a drug problem. On the other hand, people about whom there is real controversy, for instance Napoleon or Martin Luther, are not called "controversial". Steve Dufour 00:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Rush is not called "controversial" in his WP article. Still I think it is a good example. Steve Dufour 00:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Avoid hasty generalizations: you can't not generalize and include in "words to avoid" "controversial" just because it might have been misused once or twice (or three times). If we did not used the word "controversial" in some articles, that would force to explain in a additional paragraph why the cited X is controversial, although this is sometimes peripheric to the article. But when one cites someone supporting fringe views, well, the reader should be given contextual information warning him about his controversial nature. Tazmaniacs 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if everyone agreed that someone's views were fringe then they would not be controversial. I.e. "The world is flat" is not a controversial position any more than "The world is round" is. Steve Dufour 13:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to make controversial an absolute word to avoid. However there are lots of times it is used without seeming to add much to our understanding of the subject that is called that. Steve Dufour 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Claim, so-called, supposed, alleged, purported

These all share the theme of explicitly making it clear that a given statement is not necessarily factual. This connotation introduces unnecessary bias into the writing...

Quite the contary. Take this example:

A United Nations exhibition, entitled "Lessons from Rwanda", about the 1994 Rwanda genocide, has been dismantled and postponed because Turkey raised objections to the Armenian genocide being mentioned.

This sentence imlies that Turkey is objecting to the mention of the Armenian genocide. But Turkey is objecting to the allegation that what happened in Armenia was a genocide. The easiet way to fix that sentence is to say:

A United Nations exhibition, entitled "Lessons from Rwanda", about the 1994 Rwanda genocide, has been dismantled and postponed because Turkey raised objections to the alledged Armenian genocide being mentioned.

With the inclusion of the word alledged, the sentence has a balanced POV, without it is does not carry a NPOV.--Philip Baird Shearer 16:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You could also say "the treatment of the Armenians by the Turkish government" and avoid the issue of the word "genocide" that way. Steve Dufour 05:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The link is to Armenian genocide so someone is always going to edit such sentences to include the phrase Armenian genocide. Of course the whole article can be re-written to have a more balanced POV, but the point is that the sentence at the start of this section is not correct. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not the best example chosen. The Armenian genocide is not alleged, but is a historical fact. I doubt you would find it NPOV to write: "Iran has gathered a Conference on the alleged [sic] Holocaust." I do not. Tazmaniacs 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish government does not agree with you. When reporting the incident Reuters for example is careful not to use the term instead it phrases it like this. "A U.N. exhibit on the 13th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide has been delayed after Turkish objections to a mention of the killing of Armenians in Turkey during World War One, organizers said on Monday."[14]. That Armenians were killed is not the issue the issue is whether it was a genocide and as Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy it ought not state unequivocally that it was a genocide as it implies that the Turkish government is wrong which is not a NPOV. BTW Reuters does not say the "killings in Rwanda" it uses the term "Rwanda genocide" because an international tribunal has found that genocide took place in Rwanda. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In such instances we should be guided by the mainstream historical consensus, not the views of a particular government or group. As far as I know, Turkey is the only government in the world with an official policy of denying the Armenian genocide. But the mainstream consensus is that the genocide did happen. Consider this - if Germany had an official policy of denying the Holocaust, would we refer to "the alleged Holocaust", even though the historical consensus is nearly unanimous that it did happen? The bottom line is that as a mainstream encyclopedia, we're guided by the mainstream consensus, not by the self-interested POV of a particular group or government. -- ChrisO 07:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference, the German government, most of the German population and all German historians agree that the Holocaust was a genocide, so that argument is a straw man because you are not comparing like with like. But all this this is besides the point. There are many instances where the use of allegedly is appropriate, particularly in articles when one is reporting what another has said without quoting them. Other wise it can be taken to mean that Wikipedia supports the position. For example: Turkey alleges that the mass killings of Armenians was not a genocide.

Another example:

The British government has claimed that renewal of the Trident system is fully compatible with the United Kingdom's treaty commitments and international law. However Philippe Sands QC in a paper prepared for the NGO Greenpeace offerd the opinion that "In our view, the ‘vital interests’ of the UK as defined in the Strategic Defence Review are considerably broader than those whose destruction threaten the survival of the state. The use of nuclear weapons to protect such interests is likely to be disproportionate and therefore unlawful under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter."

I do not see that words such as claim and allege should not be used in Wikipedia as they can be used to enhance a neutral point of view. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Murder & assassinations

I've reverted this, as I don't agree that murder & assassinations are exclusively legal terms, and that truth is not only given by legal means, but also historical methods. Tazmaniacs 20:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and fair enough, but my primary point is that we should not engage in original research by calling any given death 'murder'. This came up last year on Rigoberto Alpizar and is currently exploding on the Policy Village Pump with respect to killings by both sides in Northern Ireland. Is there a concise way to include historical methods and exclude POV/original research? -- nae'blis 20:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if somebody thinks about it. But that is why I prefer not to include it as a general policy (although this is a simple Wikipedia Talk) but rather deal with it on a case-by-case basis. We can't remove all words ! I think the general policy here is WP:Verifiability. Tazmaniacs 20:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this NYT article on the use of "massacre" relative to Virginia Tech massacre. Tazmaniacs 20:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Much like the word "massacre" deserves debate, I would like to open a discussion about using "slaughter" to discuss human deaths and/or killings. I had noticed it used on the Holocaust and Auschwitz pages and changed it for being too editorial. Furthermore, Primo Levi is cited in the second paragraph of this section and makes a great point—nobody should be dehumanized. I hope this might work as an example for "massacre" as well; what do we all think—keep it to "kill(ed)," "died" or "murdered?" (the latter, of course, when legally established) --Parhamr 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Other uses of "slaughter:"

• Lake Bodom
• Rosalie Gicanda
• Operation:Knightfall (refers to fiction but still worth a look)
• Sam's Lake (another work of fiction)
• Mili Atoll
• Pompilia Comparini
• Raghunathrao
• Rintfleisch-Pogrom
• Waterloo Creek massacre
• Khara-Khoto
• Bykivnia
• Mass murder
• Indian massacres
• Giuseppe Marchese
• Mingburnu
• Yang Xiuqing
• Herbert Mullin
• 1981 in organized crime
• Serial killer
• Sluzk Affair
• Tekle Haymanot II of Ethiopia
• Einsatzkommando

--Parhamr 22:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Far-left & far-right

See archives

This debate has already been adressed a number of times. Editors seem to agree that left and right are standard names used in politics to describe parties, especially in European context. There is therefore no reason to avoid describing, say, the French National Front as a far-right party, as it is described as such by all mainstream political scientists, is referred as such in the press, sits on the far-right in the French National Assembly and so on. However, precise descriptions are valued to explain this qualification (in the case of National Front, Holocaust denial is one, racism and hate speeches is another). It should be obvious, furthermore, that when refering to a French article, the term "far right" or "far left" refers to the French political context, and that when refering to China, the terms refers to the Chinese context. Tazmaniacs 21:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, this might be done in the body of an article, but the lead of an article needs to be concise and to the point. Besides, I haven't seen many writers argue that the Front National is "far right" because of Le Pen's holocaust remarks. That would be a generalization fallacy. Intangible2.0 07:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

First, the National Front is not the aim of this sentence. Second, you're wrong. FN is far right because of Holocaust denial, racist hate speech (and acts, including murders by billboarders), xenophoby (France to Frenchmen slogan), and many others characteristics of this party (its inheritance from OAS, Vichy, Catholic fundamentalists, its strong links with skinheads - which are included in the party -, etc. etc.) Furthermore, you have yet to prove that the party "strongly rejects" the appelation of far-right. Anyway, if you want to re-include this section, you should re-write it. Finally, if you see the archives discussion, I am not so sure that the majority is on your side. It is doomed to failure to attempt to treat political subjects without using political terms. The only guide here is WP:RS. Tazmaniacs 16:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tazmaniacs on this issue so does the BBC so does Reutres --Philip Baird Shearer 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions regarding "terrorism" lack consistency

The section on terrorism begins with the following statement: "This section is about using the terms in articles. For use of the category:terrorists, see the definition there.". This begs the question - why is it somehow special in that the rest of the section does not apply to it? I think that, whatever the policy is, it should be consistently adhered to, in articles and categories alike. I fail to see the difference between labelling a person "terrorist" in the text of the article and putting him in the respective category (which is visible in the article anyway). -- int19h 17:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a separate "sensitivity" guideline?

I've been combing policy/guideline pages for a basic article about "sensitivity", but there doesn't seem to be one. (Maybe I'm wrong, and somebody can correct me.) By sensitivity, I mean the use of language and characterizations that are not offensive on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, political views, etc. This guideline is a good start in this regard, but the issue goes far beyond just "words to avoid". Language can be insensitive, derogatory, and offensive, even though the words used are all fine and dandy.

The page could discuss various ways of characterizing people, and if there is consensus that a particular expression or characterization is offensive, the guideline could say it should be avoided. For example, maybe there is a consensus that you shouldn't:

• characterize homosexuality as an disorder, or
• describe particular blacks using patronizing terms such as "articulate and clean", or
• characterize Jews, Roma, or Arabs as races, or
• play games with the prefixes "pro-" and "anti-" (as in "pro-abortion", "anti-choice", "pro-family", etc.).

There could be lots of things like this that don't quite fit into this guideline. Any comments? COGDEN 09:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism

This section is way too long and much of it is unnecessary. For example a party to an legitimate armed conflict including the US Army who is quoted as defining terror as "the calculated use of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear" use these methods when engaged in a legitimate armed conflict under military necessity. As the article on Terrorism section ejorative use makes clear this is a pejorative word.

I think the current section needs replacing with one discussing the words Extremest, Terrorist and Freedom fighter. I suggest this is used as an introduction:

Terrorist and extremist are a pejorative terms. They are a words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and who's opinions and actions one wold prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "Extremest", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.

In line with the Wikpedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremest", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an artcle the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article.

--Philip Baird Shearer 14:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that we will never settle the issue of terrorist as a legitimate label. I believe a terrorist is a person who is not an official or agent of a universally recognized state or government, and seeks political change through violence outside their own state/country. I think this is different from a revolutionary who is not an official or agent of a universally recognized state or government, and seeks political change within their own government through violence within their own state/country. Maybe those are too simplistic, I don't know. Hopefully you can see how I'm trying to distinguish between the two.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you logic works because it leads to a nonsense that a PIRA killing in Northern Ireland was not a terrorist act but one is southern Ireland was. For example was the killing of an alleged informer only a terrorist act if carried out south of the border? This would be a particularly strange definition to use for the PIRA, as the IRA consider Ireland to be one country part of which is under foreign occupation! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that the word 'terrorist' should never be used under any circumstances. Maybe we should strike the word from the English language because it might be either inaccurate or hurt someone's feelings.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that, I said that I thought your use definition of terrorism can lead to nonsense. I don't think that the word terrorism should not be used, it can for example be used in quotes,but I don't think Wikipedia should not use it in the narative voice of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Theory

"Do not use theory to mean guess or speculation. Words for guesses or speculations in science and history include "hypothesis" and "conjecture"."

Finally I see this somewhere on Wikipedia :D. I'm so glad, I've corrected that mistake and changed it to either hypothesis or conjecture so often. --Taraborn 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint

Seems to me that the acceptable use example is unacceptable:

"Homeopathy is a pseudoscientific approach to healing"

In fact, earlier in the section we see the following proposed:

"...the Homeopathy article factually states that "It is growing in popularity... but neither its empirical nor its hypothetical foundation meets minimum scientific standards..."

This leads me to believe that the "acceptable use" example is mistakenly designated as such. I'm going to change it. In fact, I think the whole section could use a little cleanup. I hope my changes are agreeable.

btw, I think that particular example is a load of crap, since "pseudoscientific" is defined as not meeting minimum scientific standards. We'd have to identify whose scientific standards we're talking about and who says that homeopathy isn't meeting them to be 100% kosher.--Kangaru99 07:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What is "report" doing here?

Which is better:

• "The Korean Central News Agency reported that North Korea had launched its first satellite into orbit"
• "The Korean Central News Agency that North Korea had launched its first satellite into orbit."

"Report" is a simple and unobjectionable word that performs a vital function, and no convincing case is made for its inclusion on this list. Frankly, I would have thought that it is used thousands of times in Wikipedia, and is appropriate in just about all of them. Dominictimms

No, "report" indicates an objective event which is reported about. One can use the word "said" as an neutral alternative. That's why it's in there. Otherwise, you'd get things like, "The Enquirer reported that the alien landed." This sounds objective. Rather say "The Enquirer (date) said (or "wrote") that the alien landed." This doesn't give any undue credence, but it also doesn't bias against. You report on objective fact, but what you say or write may be false- or true. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Uses of word "Terrorism"

In the article El Al (which is currently nominated for FA), I made some remarks about the use of the word "terrorism" in the article to describe the attacks or highajcking attempts made on the airline. My concerns have been responded to positively by User:Flymeoutofhere who replaced many of the word by "attacks" and "attackers". While there is no more direct description of individuals as terrorists, it is still getting round when using "Jet era and terrorism" as a title for a section describing these attacks, or using the phrase Due to terrorist actions on El Al throughout its history and El Al experienced what would become the first of many instances of terrorism against the airline. As I interpreted the guideline, any instance of the word "terrorism" should be abolished unless it is explicitely mentioned who did such allegations. Should this be applied to the article. You opinions are welcomed. Thank you. CG 08:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(Disclaimer - I have never looked at El Al.) Isn't "Words to avoid" simply a guideline? Sometimes a terrorist is just a terrorist. We sometimes seem to go out of our way to water down the English language. If you and Flymeouttahere are uncomfortable with using the word uncited, cites should be easy to come by, although I think they will instead (further) water down the article in question. --CliffC 11:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm wasn't trying to water down the article, and neither am I uncomfortable with this word. But some uses of "terrorism" were blatant POV, and Flymeouttahere (which supports its inclusion) have positevly responded to my comments. I posted this topic just to get the community opinion and clarifications about the guideline, especially about wether all instances of this word should be removed. CG 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As I previosuly wrote on the terrorism talk page:

If a soldier is constructing a sangar he is a combatant. But what if a civilian contractor is employed to construct the sangar? What about the person who fixes the digger that the civilian or soldier uses to build the sangar? What about the person in a machine shop who make the part that is needed by the person who fixes the digger, that is used by the civilian contractor build a sangar? The trouble with this simple statments of terrorism is that the difference between a combatant and a non-combatant is not clear cut given the amount of civilian support which modern combat requires.

Not all acts labeled terrorism have the same level of opprobrium for a third party observer. Just as in the case of "military necessity", one has to consider "distinction" and "proportionality". As an example there was widespread outrage in the Republic of Ireland over the second of the Warrington bomb attacks (1993) by the IRA, -- The bomb was in a bin close to a McDonald's and people thought that the IRA should have considered that children could be casualties, and not planted it there. The negative reaction to the much larger London Bishopsgate bomb (1993) was much more muted as the IRA argument that it was a legitimate economic target could not be totally discounted -- The damage was so large that it forced the British government to underwrite some of the cost of the damage, something they resisted because it made a political statement that this was war damage not criminal damage. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no simple mechanical rules one can lay down as to what is terrorism but generally it is best to avoid the word as it is a "point of view" and there are generally "better" ways of reporting the event. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea that using the word "terrorism" is necesarily POV is not evident. There is something that must have a name and all the others cannot refer to it. There is a modus operandi (small ilegal secret organizations targeting soft-targets for the sake of doing propaganda of their ideas) that can only be named by the word "terrorism". The fact that this word is misused by some administrations to criminalize its enemies and by some organizations to hide its methods does not mean that we cannot agree in a way of using the word less stringent that not using at all. This policy causes absurd situations in many articles like in 9/11 were we are forced to found bizarre expresions and baroque sintaxis to describe the people leading the planes to WTC. IMHO this policy must be trimmed finding a consensus (either a proper definition or if worse goes to worst a simple list of what is considered "terrorism"). In the article "terrorism" it says that there are 100 definitions to emphasize the dificulties of defining it but this is a sophisme. There are many definitions because the frontiers are blur but there is a core of actions that are always named as terrorism by all the academic experts. So to be in the safe side, we can adopt a policy that ensures that the blur frontiers are not included but it is counterproductive to elmiminate the word. Also IMHO "terrorism" has negative connotations because the actions described by the word are seen as against human kind by everybody. Not using the word is to mask reality since the reader can think that some group is not commiting such actions when in reality is doing so. Since Bush administration is using this word more as an insult than as a description, to say "USA administration consideres that group as terrorist" is water down the facts since the real phrase in some cases should be "this group is involved in actions that cannot be properly qualified in any other way than calling them terrorism". Since terrorism is in all the newspapers daily, it is urgent that we have a proper definition that can be used whithout judging if the group who does is in his right or not. --Igor21 11:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is christal that a person who hijacked a plane is a terrorist. It can be a good idea to avoid the use in the doubtful cases but not using it when is clearly the word to use it is as POV as using it when is not appropiate.--Igor21 18:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Igor21 was F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas a terrorist? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he was not. Terrorism require that the acts commited have a simbolic content and that would be considered crimes of war in case of a war. So he did comply with none of the characteristics.To be honest, I do not see the point of you enigmas. You always look of limit cases and this is OK to state that the fronteers are blur but it is clear that there is a core where there is no doubt. Can we agree in defintion of terrorims as "acts of political violence aimed not to reach factual advantage but to create psicological impressions and that in a context of war would be war crimes"? In fact my favorite one is "War crimes commited in the absence of war" because do not need to interpret the intentions of the authors. Sorry for annoying you but in Spanish wikipedia people is using this doctrine of "words to avoid" as a way to not call terrorists Black September or the Tamil Tigers. I have been reading a lot about terrorism and I have found that there are objective ways to define. The key is to not speak about the nature of the victims or the aim of the authors but about how it would fit in the context of a war.--Igor21 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't understand all that you wrote. All wars are "acts of political violence", actions in wars can be done to effect the moral of the enemy ("psicological impressions") and what is a war crime? In the case of F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas the Germans considered him a war criminal and a terrorist, the British a hero. Take another case Michael Collins or Nelson Mandella terrorists or heros? One of the problems you do not seem to realise is that in civil wars the state tends not to call them wars, instead they talk about policing action, emergency etc. This stops them having to treat their enemy on an equal footing. Of course once the peace comes if it is a negotiated peace then there is usually an act of indemnity like the one at the end of the English Civil War. So suddenly all the war crimes you talk about no longer exist under law. This was the problem that the British had with internment in the 1970s and was at the root of the 1981 Irish hunger strike and the ending of Special Category Status. One can also see the Good Friday Agreement a condition of which was the release of imprisoned paramilitaries as an act of oblivion. If these mass murdering criminals were only criminals why were they released at the end of the troubles some having only spent a few months behind bars? What the British government chose to call members of the IRA was part of the propaganda war, and as such the use of the term terrorist by the British government implied a moral judgment; and when they successfully attach the label to the IRA, then the British government had indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.

I think that you are putting forward similar arguments as were put forward a century ago at the Hague Conventions by the great powers and one that has not been satisfactorily resolved (See the Martens Clause). See also the problems inherent in paragraph 4 of Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions where this problem was still apparent "The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination". --Philip Baird Shearer 10:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Now its me who cannot understand your point. Are you saying that you cannot distinguish at sight a crime of war from and act of war?

With due respect, I think you are confusing two completeley different things : the nature of the acts and the nature of the authors. The authors can be either combatants or non-combatans and the acts can be regular or not (directed to destroy an armed enemy or directed to create "sensations" on civilian population). So this two parameters determine four subsets of political violence. My point (in fact Alex Schmidt's and John Horgan's who are respected investigators on the field) is that political violence can be divided in four subsets attending to the value of these two parameters.

• War : combatants engaging combatants in regular way
• Crimes of war/state terrorism : Combatants engaging civilians or engaging combatants in non-appropiate way
• Terrorism : Non-Combatants engaging civilians or engaging combatants in non-appropiate way
• Irregular warfare : non-combatants engaging combatants in regular way.

The attractive of this is that all violence can be clasified and the discussion about each case is about which is the subset were the particular act must mus be included, so is no more about intentions or legitimacy. This not to say that "war is good" or "crimes of war are better or equal to terrorism". Is just a way to clasify facts to help its study since each of these subsets needs to be adressed separetely since is a different pathology of human societies and to study all together does not help at all.

Thanks for you patience.--Igor21 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not as simple and black and white as you make out who defines if it is a war? Who defines what is a legitimate military target. For example are TV stations that broadcast messages/propaganda that one side disagrees with a legitimate target in a war?

As I pointed out above in civil wars it is often in the state's interest not to recognise it as a war because in so doing they can gain a political advantage. For example the British deliberately called the war in Malaya an "emergency" for political reasons. The British also changed the status of IRA prisoners to that of criminals for political advantage. As I said above if the IRA were just criminals, then why was part of the Good Friday Agreement prisoner release, when some of those men were mass murderers? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Slaughter

There has been debate about the appropriateness and accuracy of using the word 'slaughter' to discuss death/killing/murder of humans. This debate has particularly occurred regarding The Holocaust's article. I wish to include the following for debate, particularly regarding the holocaust but also applying to 'slaughter' across Wikipedia as a whole:

Yad Vashem's publications state:

"I don't think that we, today, should use a term that was used during the Holocaust with quite a different connotation." —Professor Yehuda Bauer, Director of the International Center for Holocaust Studies of Yad Vashem [15]

"The collective blame laid by Israelis on the victims as people who went 'like sheep to the slaughter' was due to ignorance of the circumstances of the Holocaust and the ways in which it took place." —Frumi Shehori [16]

"If Jewish resistance was glorified, the six million Holocaust victims were often anything but. Those who did not resist with arms (or at least flee the Nazi onslaught) were often portrayed in the literature as having gone to their deaths 'like sheep to the slaughter.' " —Dr. Robert Rozett [17]

Therefore it is most proper to not use 'slaughter.' While it is used at times, it is either done as a colloquialism or with specific context referring to sentiment at the time that is not adequately understood in the context of wikipedia—as we understand the word 'slaughter' today. My final recommendation is that if slaughter is used, it only be used in such context to discuss the aforementioned attitudes and not to be used outright as a verb. Either way, addition of a section or article about the 'sheep to slaughter' metaphor might be necessary. Thoughts? —Parhamr 10:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Therefore it is most proper... not to use the "sheep to the slaughter" metaphor. That's all. Period. I think you are taking a totally illogical leap in arguing that the quotations cited above justify a ban on using the term "slaughter" in connection with the Holocaust. Going like sheep is something that can be called into question on factual grounds, and possibly rejected decisively. Slaughter, on the other hand, is a literary, descriptive term with which the literature is replete, possibly for the very good reason that the manner and scope of the killing went so far beyond what can be expressed with lesser words. Be that as it may, I do not think our role should be to censor Wiki or to rewrite history. You may not like the word, but it is what generations of writers—direct observers among them—have chosen as apt. And that applies to many other articles and contexts than that of the Holocaust. Hertz1888 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent response, Hertz1888. Crum375 15:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

…Slaughter, on the other hand, is a literary [not academic], descriptive pejorative and colloquial term. I am absolutely not censoring or rewriting history —Parhamr 20:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A section on "Emotive words" added. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is it, please? I do not see it in the contents of either the project page or the Holocaust article. Hertz1888 13:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_can_convey_or_create_an_emotive_stance —Parhamr 20:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that this new section is needed in its present form. For example the section currently "The annual slaughter of thousands of baby seals" (consider "culling", "killing" or "death of" instead). The problem here is not the word slaughter it is the use of the word "baby" because of the anthropomorphic connotations. If the sentence is rewritten to remove baby: "The annual slaughter of thousands of seal pups " then the problem goes away. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section "Words that can convey or create an emotive stance" because although it may be true the the examples were not good ones and without the two examples this section did not give any advice that was specific enough to warrant a section in this guideline. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Apartheid

Add this one? See Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Apartheid covering whether reference to french Algerians in France, and similar situations worldwide, should be described by a term that has specific connotations and meaning, including separation by means of law. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that editors should be cautioned not to use the word "apartheid" in titles not connected to South Africa. A whole series of long-standing disputes has been caused by an anti-Israel editor creating Allegations of Israeli apartheid, which were followed by many others, including Allegations of French apartheid. We could create an article alleging apartheid in just about every country in the world, because many writers have taken to calling any sustained racial discrimination "apartheid." But it is just an analogy; no other country has had the kind of formal racial-legal structure that South Africa had. Unlike journalists or political activists who use the word "apartheid" as a form of attack (and whose allegations our articles use as source material) we should be more responsible with its use. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If there's a systemic solution, I'm all for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the SlimVirgin and others above. The only apartheid undisputed by scholars was in South Africa. The rest are allegations. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rolls eyes. The Allegations of Israeli Apartheid article has already survived several votes on afd, and several more attempts at backdoor deletion. It doesn't matter for our purposes if the analogy is fair -- what's important is that it's been the subject of extensive debate by notable public figures.

Btw, notwithstanding SlimVirgin's impressionistic reading of history, the "whole series of long-standing disputes" was started well before Allegations of Israeli Apartheid was created. CJCurrie 16:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there has never been a valid AfD for that article, for reasons I have explained on the various AfD pages and the article talk pages. It all started, CJCurrie, when your friend Homey created the article and then, a few days later, nominated it for deletion under one of his many sockpuppet names, knowing that an AfD would probably be defeated because many would view it as premature. That AfD got a majority anyway, but not the supermajority that was then required. (Now nobody knows how many votes are required, so the AfD process is inherently corrupt, but I digress.) A few of the subseqent AfDs were directly corrupted for other reasons, and all of them have been indirectly corrupted by people erroneously stating that this was the fourth, fifth, sixth or whatever AfD. In any event, there is no reason not to continue the discussion of whether this term should be avoided in article titles. 6SJ7 00:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SlimVirgin's statement above; she has done a good job of summarizing the reasons why "apartheid" should be listed as a "word to avoid" in article titles outside the one context in which it was an official government policy, that is, South Africa in its apartheid era. 6SJ7 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OED does not agree with you 6SJ7:

Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European (Coloured or mixed, Bantu, Indian, etc.); applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib.

and a search of Google scholar returns "about 23,800 for apartheid -south-africa". The very first article returned when I did the search was American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass which seems to me to have a title which personifies the OED's second and third clauses "applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.)." --Philip Baird Shearer 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Philip, I don't see what a word's dictionary meaning has to do with whether it is a "word to avoid" on Wikipedia. I think the whole concept of WTA is that certain words have connotations or potential connotations that are best avoided, regardless of whether the words themselves are being used correctly. I notice the OED says that while there may be "apartheid" outside of the former regime in South Africa, it does not identify anyplace where it does exist -- an example that Wikipedia would do well to emulate, at least in article titles. 6SJ7 04:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also support limiting editorial usage of "apartheid" to South African history, especially since the other entries created don't deal with allegations of racial discrimination, only national or socio-economic. Tewfik^Talk 20:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just say something like, "according to XYZ's belief, ABC is an apartheid-like policy"? I mean this issue is similar to "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist". It all depends on the point of view.Vice regent 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik -- do you also support limiting usage of "fascism" to German and Italian history? BYT 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the term "apartheid" is invoked for different purposes, and this gives rise to the controversy:

1. The historical phenomenon and pseudolegal framework apartheid, which is limited to the Republic of South Africa for a given period of time;
2. A rhetorical device to imply "something I denounce as awful"
3. A de facto state of affairs that is more or less similar to the historical phenomenon above

I don't think anyone's debating the notability of #1. And I would hope that #2 in itself does not qualify for Wikipedia. As for number 3, this is where it gets interesting, especially if we are to differentiate it from #2. Analysts, activists, writers, etc., may illustrate trends they're concerned about by essentially saying that these trends are pointing toward something we should all agree is an undesirable state of affairs, in that it is similar to apartheid in one or several ways. They are not, obviously, concerned about proving that the feared state of affairs is exactly like apartheid, only that it is, or might become, similar enough to be worried about. On the other hand, political activists will use that same rationale for partisan purposes. In my mind, the possibility of blurring between #2 and #3 should give anyone reason to use the term carefully, if nothing else. On the other hand, if we are going to include it all, we can't possibly decide which comparisons are more apt than others. --Leifern 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Apartheid are inherhently bad articles. Wikipedia should make it word to avoid in ARTICLE NAMES (outside of south africa subject) period solving all problems. The allegations can be detailed in segregation articles/discrimination articles and so on. But it has to be a generic total change of policy, not per article. Amoruso 17:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The "apartheid" horse left the barn several decades ago. Wikipedia can no more dicatate that the word can only apply to South Africa any more than you can rule that the word "dictator" according to its original definition as the "title of a magistrate in ancient Rome appointed by the Senate to rule the state in times of emergency". There are numerous scholarly works that apply the term apartheid outside of South Africa in concepts such as "social apartheid", "religious apartheid", "gender apartheid" etc and with the OED recognizing that the term has alternate acceptable uses WP is in no place to overrule. A more practical proposal is to avoid the words "allegations of" in titles as they lower the bar for acceptance since any off hand use of the term by a politician or commentator can fit and since it's a rather weasely way to get around neutrality by back-handidly suggesting that a term's use is inappropirate. Lothar of the Hill People 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So, 1993 child molestation allegations against Michael Jackson become 1993 child molestation by Michael Jackson, 2006 allegations of corruption in English football - 2006 corruption in English football, Allegations of mass graves at Chemmani - Mass graves at Chemmani, Allegations about the 2000 Fijian coup d'état - 2000 Fijian coup d'état, Tessa Jowell financial allegations - Tessa Jowell financial what, misconduct? I'm not a big fan of Michael Jackson, but there is a giant step from "child molestation allegations" to "child molestation". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You are right, criminal allegations that have not been proven in court should be referred to as allegations - ie Jacko, Jowell and possibly English football. There does seem to be at least one mass grave in Jaffna so I would disagree with the use of "allegations" there and the Fijian coup article is a conspiracy piece and looks like it's going to be deleted. The term should not be applied in the title of articles referring to political or sociological concepts. You are confusing the term "allegations" as a legal concept with its use as a weasel word when it comes to political disagreements. Lothar of the Hill People 22:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Apartheid is a crime, not merely a "political or sociological concept", so it is you who's confused. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Crime of Apartheid is a fraud, not a real crime at all. The US position is (correctly): "We cannot accept that apartheid can be made a crime against humanity. Crimes against humanity are so grave in nature that they must be meticulously elaborated and strictly constructed under international law." The way in which you misuse the title of a Wikipedia article to make it seem that apartheid is a crime illustrates the reason why it is inadmissable to have an article entitled Israeli Apartheid(nb: currently a redirect).Andyvphil 02:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this would be an excellent word to avoid. It creates far more heat tha light on WP. We would be vastly better off without it--total POV magnet. IronDuke 00:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As Mackensen said on Wikipedia:Request for Arbitration: " For my part, I would think that any article entitled "Allegation of X" has forfeited its claim to neutrality from the outset". Lothar of the Hill People 16:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lothar, a few lines above you wrote: "criminal allegations that have not been proven in court should be referred to as allegations" - and since apartheid is a crime, you've lost your argument. Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#How to make a choice among controversial names: "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons." Enough side-tracking, back to the subject of this thread: we are discussing the term "apartheid": a crime, an offensive epithet and hence a candidate for a word to avoid. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to insist on a technical argument, it's worth noting that no charges of apartheid have been filed against countries other than South Africa at the International Criminal Court. Unless and until such charges are made, we cannot speak of "criminal allegations"; therefore, "Allegations of [...]" is an inappropriate title.

More generally, I'll note that (i) the Israeli apartheid analogy is a sufficiently notable concept, and (ii) virtually all of the arguments made against the term "apartheid" in this discussion have been from editors who've sought to delete Allegations of Israeli apartheid in the past. I hope that no one will confuse their efforts with consensus. CJCurrie 03:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I forget now, CJ, are you poisoning the well or making an ad hominem attack? And, as a follow up question, is there any way at all to get you to stop launching it, whatever it is? IronDuke 03:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• We have clear precedents on WP for public usage of a pejorative poli-sci term trumping the technical "meaning" assigned by scholars to that term.

• There are 2 million+ Google hits for "Israel + apartheid."

• The allegations are there, and anyone who believes them to be non-notable is willfully overlooking their appearance in le Monde, Salon.com, The Washington Post, and, of course a high-profile book by a former president of the United States that sparked global debate.

• This is the point at which all those who have preached solemnly about how "Wikipedia is not censored" have their opportunity to stand up and be counted. Are they in fact embracing the principle of objective coverage of notable usages in the Wikipedia? Or do they have an ideological axe to grind, namely, the establishment of policies favorable to the state of Israel? BYT 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize that Google hits were relevant to determining "words to avoid." Surely that means that "terrorist" will be taken off the list, since it gets 43.5 million hits! In fact, one of the things that I find the most ridiculous about this whole thing is that we can't have an article called "Palestinian terrorism", which unquestionably exists, but we can have one about "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", which aren't even allegations, they are just instances of name-calling. 6SJ7 01:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

6SJ7 is right about one thing: There is such a thing as Palestinian terrorism, just as there is something called American terrorism and Israeli terrorism, Syrian terrorism and Lebanese terrorism. The reason we avoid using the people + terrorism formulation for articles is that it is a tactic employed by people from all over the world - singling one group out for special attention would not be fair. Apartheid is different in this sense. In can be used to describe a global phenomenon as per the concept of Global apartheid, or a social phenomenon as in Social apartheid and when the word apartheid is used to describe policies or practices in specific countries outside South Africa where that literature is extensive and well-documented it should be also be so noted. Tiamat 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No.

The reason why "terrorism" should not be used it that what some people call "terrorists" those who are called "freedom's fighters" by others when both practice "political violence".

Once a problematic is complex and deeply depends on the point of view, it is important to avoid the use of that word that would put forward some PoV in comparison with another.

(The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a good exemple of such a complex matter.)

The word terrorism also is well documented ! And many all scholars talk about "terrorism" and not "violence". But WP respect NPoV and the (usually minority) view that "terrorists" are for some "freedom fighters".

Alithien 09:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Israeli apartheid - Palestinian terrorism analogy

Apartheid is a pejorative term. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "apartheid", "segregation" and "right to auto-defense" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint. :-)

Heresy, heretic, heretical

I had thought this was a no-brainer. However, many articles describe certain teachings as heresies, certain people as heretics, and either as heretical. There are times when it is appropriate to say that author X, group X, institution X, etc. condemns Y as heretical, but it presumably violates WP:NPOV for Wikipedia to condemn Y as heretical. Moreover, many editors regard such descriptions as perfectly NPOV, remove POV and POV-statement tags, etc. Jacob Haller 23:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You will have to censor the Bible itself, since that is where the word is used as well, see Titus 3:10: Greek: "αἱρετικὸν ἄνθρωπον μετὰ μίαν καὶ δευτέραν νουθεσίαν παραιτοῦ", Latin: "hereticum hominem post unam et secundam correptionem devita", King James Version: "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject". JdH 15:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Your response has nothing to do with my concern. It's not about whether religious error exists, it's about whether Wikipedia should try to distinguish between true and false religion, or, instead, should try to present NPOV. For Wikipedia to describe any teachings as heresies, or any people as heretics, is to describe the/their teachings as false religion. Jacob Haller 16:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No-brainer. I brought this up a while ago on Talk:Early_Christianity#Neutrality, and was basically told "well Catholics call them 'heresies', so that's what we're going to use in the article." So our articles are written from a Catholic Point of View now? — Omegatron 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

↑↑↑↑ HAVE WE HAD ENOUGH WITH THE WORDSMITHING?? ♠If Wikipedia decides to go PC, I may go postal. Who's with me??? Jacob, if the Catholics say it, that doesn't mean Wiki says it, it means that the Catholics say it. Get a life!--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 04:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Martyr"

Per WP:MOSISLAM#Martyrs, Muslims who die for their religion can't be described as martyrs. But what of those of other religions? Can they be described as martyrs? Shouldn't there be a policy that regulates the use of the term "martyr" equally in all religions?Vice regent 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, martyr is an exclusively religious term and is inherently biased. One can say "Mormon's consider Joseph Smith a martyr", but one should not talk about the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. Or of any of the various Catholic saints, Jesus, etc, for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.244.251.34 (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

By this logic, "saint" should also be removed, and the appropriate Wikiproject as well. Jacob Haller 17:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the related Wikipedia article, "being a martyr indicates a person who is killed for maintaining his or her religious belief, knowing that this will almost certainly result in imminent death (though without intentionally seeking death)." Observing that one is killed because one maintains one's religious belief is hardly pov. Therefore I see no reason to include the term 'martyr' as a word to avoid. TrustTruth 17:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not going to take a position on this word, but I don't think that that the "dictionary test" is a good standard. For each word we list here as one to avoid, the dicionary definition is probably not something like "a horrible, biased word that should never be used in neutral writing". In each case, the dictionary definition is probably something that, by all appearances, is straightforward and understandable. The problem with most of the words at this guideline is not denotation, which is what a definition gives you, but rather connotation. We could certainly make the judgment that "martyr" carries such a positive connotation that it should be avoided as a rule. Croctotheface 18:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Wikipedia should go after words with positive connotations when it lets words with negative ones slide (see immediately above). Jacob Haller 18:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you that "heresy" should be avoided. As far as saints, I would assume that we regularly say something like "the Catholic Church canonized X as a saint" rather than saying that we consider that person a saint. We can also similarly attribute people's opinions of Y as a martyr or X as a heretic. All of the words on this page can be used in an opinionated way so long as we attribute the opinion and give all related viewpoints appropriate weight. Croctotheface 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Time-related words

Could this page also include a section on time-related words and phrases to avoid, such as "recently", "this year", "last month", etc? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 12:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparent or Evident

This word is very ambiguous and should be added to this list of words to avoid. If a sentence says "North Korea apparently rejected the proposals put forth by China." then it's very ambiguous. What is the purpose of using the word "apparently" in the sentence? If it is sourced by a RS then removing the "apparently" would make the sentence more concise, clear and less ambiguous. I can't think of any situations where the words "apparent" or "apparently" would be acceptable on Wikipedia. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Input? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Apparently" automatically assumes that there is a POV involved. Therefore, what might appear to Westerners as North Korea's rejection, may appear to the Japanese as something different. Therefore the best way to go about is to refer to the POV being discussed. Therefore my suggestion is to replace "apparently" with "it appears to XYZ".Vice regent 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We should add that to the list of words to avoid since it's used so frequently in various articles. Other such words or terms would be "thought to" or "believed to" etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed statements

I removed:

"Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors. Once spun off, "Criticism of ..." articles should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.

It was removed from the end of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article title. It directly contradicts the following section, Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure. It even encourages exactly what that following section warns against with the opening sentence. (Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents".) Vassyana 13:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

appropriate context for "cult"

In recent weeks there has been a great deal of debate at Talk:Heaven's Gate and Talk:Jonestown over whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia to describe those groups as "cults." I had thought that the "Cult, sect" section of WP:WTA was quite clear that it is not. However, there seems to be a strongly held opinion that the intent of this guideline is only to prevent the word from being used in ambiguous cases, and that it's acceptable to use the word when a group is "indisputably" a cult, or that it's okay to do so once you have defined the sociological meaning of the word. My understanding was that the "technical sociological meaning" exception should only apply in a strict sociological context, e.g. describing sociology's understanding of what causes people to engage in cult behavior, and that it absolutely should not be used to describe a particular, contemporary, controversial religious group.

I'd like to hear feedback from WTA editors on their understanding of whether it should be acceptable to use "cult" for religious groups if the group is sufficiently extreme, or if the article first defines the sociological meaning of the word. Tim Pierce 13:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it can and should be avoided; the common use of the word involves bias.

• When people mean "new religious movement," they can say "new religious movement."
• When people mean "system of religious practice," they can use whatever words seem best.
• When people mean "religious movement I disapprove of" they introduce bias.

Jacob Haller 18:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Words to avoid is a guideline. "Terrorist" is a word to avoid, but can be used when 99% of the population agree we're dealing with a terrorist group. "Cult" is the same. Using newspeak won't change anything to it. Tazmaniacs 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that sections like Terms that are technically accurate but carry an implied viewpoint suggest that these words may not be appropriate even if 100% of the population agree. The point is not whether the terms are accurate or true but whether they imply a value judgment on Wikipedia's part. If it was sufficient for 99% of the population to agree that the Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization, or that pedophilia is a sexual perversion, then those sentences would also be permissible, but the WP:WTA guideline specifically indicates that they are not. Tim Pierce 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WTA is a style guideline, not a content policy. It suggests but does not mandate. On occasions when "cult" is the most appropriate word, it should be used. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparked, triggered, provoked, drew, attracted

These terms are used extensively, but they advance a point of view. If I say that a film sparked controversy in Placeland, then it implies that Placeland was like a tinderbox, just waiting to be riled up. Similarly, using 'triggered' to describe human affairs suggests a lack of conscious thought on the part of the triggerees. Provoked is the other way around, hinting that the reaction was justified. In most cases, these words can be replaced with 'caused'. Its OK to use them when their technical meaning is being used.

'Drew/attracted criticism' is another one. It implies that the subject of the criticism naturally attracts it because of their behaviour, like a sponge draws water. It can be replaced with 'has been criticised'. This is still passive voice, so even better would be rearranging the sentence to use the active voice.

I suggest adding these to the guideline. Comments?--Nydas^(Talk) 11:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the 'triggered' argument your advancing, it is often true: eg the assassination in Sarajevo was the trigger for the First World War, but it was not the cause of the First World War because the causes were much more complicated. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying the assassination 'triggered' the First World War implies that it was more or less inevitable. Some historians believe it was, others think that it wasn't. The article manages to avoid 'triggered', though 'immediate cause' might be better. A real example would be 2006 Dalit protests in Maharashtra, which tells us that vandalism of a statue 'triggered off' violent protests.--Nydas^(Talk) 20:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Overcoming cultural bias regarding "Terrorism"

Compare the start of Guildford pub bombings with the start of September 11, 2001 attacks. When someone blows up Americans, its terrorism, when someone blows up Britons its merely a bombing. Al qaeda are "terrorists" whereas the Contras are "armed opponents".

Currently, the main issue is the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks. There are some very beligerant editors (I won't name names, lest I be accused of making personal attacks) insisting that the word terrorist be used in the narrative voice throughout the article, and backing up their claim with an irrelevant reference. Use of the word goes against both WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. These editors refuse to acknowledge these objections, and have even outright stated they will ignore them and continue to edit as they want. [18]

The article is dripping with subjectivity, and needs help desperately. Can anyone mediate? Damburger 20:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to argue against Damburger. I am not an editor of the 9/11 article, however I have taken a strong stance on the talk page for using the words "terrorist" and "terrorism". The 9/11 events were events carried out the the specific intent of killing civilians; this makes them terrorist events, which makes the people who carried out the events terrorists. This is not in dispute, except on Wikipedia and the WP:TERRORIST policy, which is probably incorrect in its current form. Damburger cites Guildford pub bombings as an example? These were bombings, not planes crashing into buildings. Otherwise, 9/11 might be called the "9/11 bombings" like the London bombings. As a neutral editor — someone who hasn't been a contributor to the 9/11 page — I believe it is ridiculous to remove the words terrorist/terrorism, and it seems that the removal of such has been primarily asked for by users who want to push the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I have even argued that if the conspiracy theories are right and the CIA or some US agency did it (unlikely), they are still terrorists. Any way you slice it, this was terrorism because non-military people were killed. Had only the Pentagon (a legitimate military target) been hit, then I may have a different opinion.Timneu22 12:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been an editor of the 9/11 article, mostly for clean up of grammar and reverting vandalism. I've also been involved in the discussion and have posted on the talk page the following links of WP articles that refer to terrorist attacks against other nationalities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Embassy_siege

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khartoum_diplomatic_assassinations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_pub_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Secret_Army_for_the_Liberation_of_Armenia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Crisis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_de_Lib%C3%A9ration_du_Qu%C3%A9bec

There are other articles, this is just a sampling. --PTR 17:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

9/11 was a terrorist act because fits in all the definitions. 1)it targets non-combatants; 2)was done for propaganda purposes and not for aquiring any tactical advantage; and 3)was a war crime without war; to quote just the three used definitions in academic circles. We can discuss if the folks were terrorists (?) but it is ludicrous to argue that was not terrorism. When something only fits in one or two definitions or when there is doubt we can use the "words to avoid" thing but in this case discussion is non-sense.--Igor21 21:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This makes the laughable assumption that there is a universally accepted, 'official' definition of terrorism. There is not. Also, most people who define terrorism apply that definition very subjectively (what was the intent of the US when it bombed Hiroshima? To incite fear) Damburger 17:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I make the laughable (for you) assumption that wikipedia is an encyclopedia so it uses the words properly and not deducing the meanings from the resemblance with other words. You can consult Schmidt, Horgan and/or Hoffman books and lectures for proper definitions of terrorism. To say that terrorism is "to cause terror" is like saying that a bicycle is "what have two cycles". Hiroshima can be a war crime but never can be terrorism. What is laughable (or frightening) for me is how people speaks about such important and dramatic issues with so much lack of rigor. If we do not use established and respected sources we will be forced to accept Freddy Kruger as terrorist.--Igor21 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It is only in your opinion that the use of the word 'terrorism' in that article is not 'proper'. Surely you can tell the difference between your opinions and objective facts? Damburger 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that we must go to respected sources and in this sources there are three definitions of terrorism. When something fills the three there as it happens in 9/11 there is no legitimate doubt of which is the word to apply. I can say that for me a horse is an animal with stripes and keep saying that people who wants to call it zebra are POV. This is the grandeur and the misery of wikipedia.--Igor21 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is legitimate doubt. If there weren't, WP:TERRORIST wouldn't exist in the first place. Your impression that 'terrorist' is a precise scientific term is entirely mistaken. Every nation has its own definition, and every nation defies logic by excluding its own actions and those of its proxies from having this definition applied to them. If the word were, as you assert, utterly fixed in its meaning - there would only be one universally accepted definition. In reality, there are hundreds, so clearly your opinion doesn't reflect reality.

Every side in every war calls the other side terrorist. Wikipedia should rise above this practice in order to be objective and not represent any side at all, and thats what the guideline on the word 'terrorist' is all about. Damburger 19:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I told you the name of three worldwide respected experts and they share the three definitions I said. Politicians and propagandists of wartime are not reliable sources and must not be taken in account in any sense.WP:TERRORIST is a just a way to avoid dicussions with fanatics but its substance is absurd. Words are for naming things and there are things whose only name is terrorism. To not use this name is to mix these things with others with nothing to do. Terrorism is a tactic that is used by some groups. To discuss if they have reasons to do it or not is POV, but to say that they do terrorism is just to call something by its name. Please, at least make the effort of reading these people before continuing the discussion. You will see light. --Igor21 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How can someone be an expert on a subjective term? It defies logic. I don't even know why are you arguing in favour of the inclusion of the word. It doesn't add any extra meaning to a sentence. What the hell are you hoping to convey with the word 'terrorist' that you couldn't convey by simply stating that men hijacked passenger planes and flew them into buildings, or that men boarded buses and trains with backpacks full of explosives and killed commuters? Do you seriously think if the word 'terrorist' is left out the reader might still be on the fence with regard to these people being the bad guys? Damburger 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Damburger, give it up man. The word needs to be used. It's just absurd if it is not. Your edits all over Wikipedia speak to your opinions. Please let the word "terrorist" be used when it is appropriate, like the 9/11 article. Timneu22 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't shut up on command, you know. If you had a leg to stand on, you wouldn't be so desperate to silence me. Damburger 23:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. I'm not trying to "silence you." I simply see no logic whatsoever in calling events "terrorism" but saying the perpetrators aren't "terrorists." This is your argument, and it is just illogical. Timneu22 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How is describing your comments a personal attack? You are not your comments. Don't try and use civility rules to distract from the point.

And speaking of logic, what you did is called a 'straw man' because I never advocated describing the events as terrorism - that to me is a meaningless pejorative as well. Damburger 07:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to figure out what you're trying to prove by saying "terrorism without terrorists". What is your agenda? Timneu22 10:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Read again, because I never said that. Stop trying to put words into my mouth. Damburger 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely infuriating. This isn't what you said, but this is the point you've been trying to push. You say, Yes, it's terrorism. And you say No, we can't use the word "terrorist." Therefore, you're saying "terrorism without terrorists." Timneu22 12:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't try and tell me what I am saying. I acknowledge the fact that they were terrorist attacks, but I also have enough objectivity to realise that's just my opinion - and that Wikipedia isn't here to reflect opinions. This 'terrorism without terrorists' rubbish you keep spurting out is a very weak argument. Damburger 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. You have several comments on several pages that say "this was terrorism" but you're pushing hard to remove terrorist from the articles. Don't tell me I don't know what I'm reading. I'm done with this discussion. Have fun pushing your anti-American theories all over the place. Your edits aren't very subtle. Timneu22 10:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "Reported"

The reporting of some information makes it sound authorative (i.e. endorsed by an authority whose credibility is staked upon the information it lends its name to). But it does not necessarily make the information sound more factual. Kransky 12:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Apostate

This word seems to be used as a negative label to imply that the account of a former member of a religious group is inherently untrustworthy. AndroidCat 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Per Apostasy: " In a technical sense, as used sometimes by sociologists without the pejorative connotations of the word, the term refers to renunciation and criticism of, or opposition to one's former religion." -- int19h 11:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the technical sense, as used sometimes by sociologists, in exactly the same way as the words cult or sect. Like those words, it's also frequently used as a pejorative label. Most of the time (when not quoting a sociologist), it can be replaced with neutral terms like former member AndroidCat 12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we retitle Julian the Apostate? Jacob Haller 17:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Claim"

I'm not sure when "claim" went from "avoid" to "must be considered. I don't think it's important to always avoid it's usage, but I have to take issue with the current version. Right now, it says, "The American Heritage Dictionary notes this connotation: '['claim' means] to state to be true, especially when open to question.'" The terminology here is actually incorrect, as we are dealing with a denotation, not a connotation. The accompanying connotation is that it is sometimes used to mean not that the "claim" could be quesitoned, but rather that it is flat out wrong. In practice, this is the kind of usage I have seem most often for "claim". Much of the time, it is used to express or imply a point of view. Consequently, I believe that the current state of the guideline needs to be changed to reflect that it is possible to use claim inappropriately and that that usage should be avoided. Croctotheface 03:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is perfectly appropriate, particularly when A claims X and B claims Y - the only problems come when we use more positive terms for one side in a debate and more doubtful ones for the others. Jacob Haller 03:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would agree here. In a case where, say, two people witnessed the same thing and have different explanations, it's legit to say that they A claims X and B claims Y. However, much of the time, as I said, it's used in a case like, "C, who received an official reprimand from his superiors for his use of the slur, claims that he is not a racist." That's just one kind of example. My point is not that there is no legitimate usage for "claim", but rather that in practice, its usage here is rarely legitimate. The second element is that, even in cases where it could be used in a neutral way, there are often other alternatives that are just as, if not more, neutral and descriptive. In other words, I don't have a great concern with people assuming that because we point out inappropriate use of the word here, they should always use an alternative. First, I doubt that will happen in a practical sense, and second, even if it does, I don't think we lose much quality.

Also, I'm confused about state of the current section that discusses "claim". The name of this guideline is "words to avoid", not "words whose usage must be considered because they are quite neutral". I don't see why there should be a section basically imploring people to use a word when this guideline is about pointing out words that should be used carefully. Should we have a section on every word that could be used in a neutral way?

In general, I don't think the point of this guideline is to tell people that they should never use this or that word. Rather, it exists to give a series of related recommendations about certain words that have a high potential to carry opinion. Considering that the vast majority of the time I have run across "claim", it has carried a very clear opinion, and considering that the prior section called attention to that while the current section seeks to minimize it, I feel like something is amiss here. I'm going to be bold and make a go at rewriting this section to focus first on discouraging the dubious use (and give a better example that is more likely to come up in the course of writing or editing) and then refer secondly to the neutral usage. This is the method the rest of the page uses. Croctotheface 20:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I also want to note/point out/observe that what you say is the case for every word in that section. If you say, "A notes X; B notes Y", that doesn't really pose a problem either. Croctotheface 21:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is AWESOME

Dictators are not dictators, pedophiles are not perverted, and those who use violence and fear to advance a political ideal are not terrorists!

I learned a lot today, thanks Wikipedia :) --137.92.97.114 04:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Indian Freedom Fighters

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but a footnote should be made on 'freedom fighters' in India (since disputes over this term has happened in several articles). The term can be used in articles, since it is a formal, recognized title by Indian government (is there should also be a separate article linked on this), there are 'freedom fighter' ID-cards, and 'freedom fighters' guesthouses (where retired freedom fighters stay for free), freedom fighter discounts on trains, etc.. --Soman 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Feel"

I was bold and added this to the list of synonyms of "say" to avoid. Jacob Haller 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Claim", "loaded words", neutrality and context

The point that "claim is a loaded word" has been made repeatedly on debates concerning its usage [[e.g. on Talk:Intelligent design). This point is correct only to the extent that all words in the English language are loaded -- they all bring with them baggage in the form of past and alternative usage and other "colour". An example is "state"/"statement" which is heavily loaded with the term's legal usage (that of a statement, under oath, and thus under threat of perjury if false) carrying a colour of truthfulness. Should we likewise include "state"/"statement" in WP:WTA? Of course not. We should use words that are neutral in their contexts, rather than pretending, as the current formulation of WP:WTA does, that there are certain words that are universally neutral, and other words that are universally loaded.

If I may be permitted to outline a brief continuum of the contexts that are at issue (and to use a modicum of legal terminology, as I will be discussing evaluations of truthfulness throughout):

• Uncontested testimony: This is where somebody is saying something and nobody is saying otherwise. In this situation, there is a prima facie (i.e. rebuttable) presumption that the testimony is the truth, and in this context to call it a "statement" is thus neutral.
• Contested/conflicted testimony: This is where two participants offer testimony, of which only one can be true, but where we do not know beyond a reasonable doubt which side is true (though one side may be favoured as having the weight of probability on their side). In this situation I would assert that to call either side's testimony a "statement" (except in the strictest legal sense, if they are offering it under threat of perjury) is inaccurate and non-neutral, as we know at least one of the testimonies to be false. It would therefore be more neutral to characterise both as "assertion". (NB: I explicitly "asserted" this rather than "stated" it as my line of reasoning is itself contested).
• Discredited testimony: This is testimony that has been proven (in the context of wikipedia by a heavy weight of WP:V & WP:RS contrary evidence) beyond reasonable doubt to be false or misguided. In this context, calling it a "statement" is clearly non-neutral, "assertion" is arguably non-neutral and even "claim" may be considered to be mildly flattering. I note that the current guidelines state: "Similarly, do not use "claim" merely as shorthand to communicate that someone's belief or statement is incorrect. If it is incorrect as a matter of fact, be clear about that", but repeating the facts (and underlying sources) as to it being "incorrect" at every mention, across multiple sections or articles would appear to be against the spirit of WP:NPOVFAQ#Making necessary assumptions, as well as being clumsy editorially.

What I am suggesting is a more nuanced and contextual view of neutrality and "loaded words" than currently exists on WP:WTA. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what, as a practical matter, you want from the guideline that's not there. Personally, I hate "to state" and change it to "to say" in cases except things like press releases or statements to the press in that context or testimony under oath. For your third example, I think it's possible to "be clear" about something's incorrectness without repeating facts at every turn. Croctotheface 07:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

New Tags

I've created an in-line Template:Ethnic slur which may prove useful, though other editors have removed every tag; I guess they like using ethnic slurs in their articles. Jacob Haller 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Freedom fighter

In addition to freedom fighter could it please be made clear that this just means words in the freedom fighter vein? I've succesfully convinced a vandal that freedom fighter isn't appropriate in a article but now he says that since this page doesn't menion 'patriot' that makes it OK...--Josquius 12:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Patriot", as is usually its opposite "traitor", is itself loaded language and is likely to be used to describe someone posing as part of some ideological vanguard. One man's patriot is often another's traitor. The White (largely Tsarist) and Red (Bolshevik) sides both considered themselves saviors of Russia and the other side "traitors" to Russia. Those behind the Easter Rebellion are either patriots to Ireland or traitors to the preservation of British rule in Ireland. Or, were Claus von Stauffenberg and Sophie Scholl the definitive traitors for work against the Third Reich that they considered morally reprehensible -- or the definitive heroes of the German nation in a monstrous time?

You are right about the word patriot; even Vidkun Quisling seems to have thought himself the ultimate expression of Norwegian interests and so defined himself. It's almost impossible (and this may be an understatement) to use the word patriot in an NPOV setting unless it is on behalf of some specific cause. Patriot implies that an opposing side exists, and it is not the responsibility of Wikipedia to decide which side is right.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

islamic terrorism example

This is a bad example, as the actual title of the article is disputed. The example should be removed. Yahel Guhan 06:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the section below.Bless sins 15:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism again

The page states: "Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms." The word "terrorism" may indeed and often is used pejoratively. However, terrorism is a tactic of violence against civilians, either ordinary people or specifically targeted government officials. As a phenomenon, terrorism does exist whatever the connotations of the word. In English, this phenomenon is most commonly known as, yes, "terrorism"; for this reason, it is the best of way of naming articles. Unwieldy euphemisms, like "political violence" must not be used as susbstitutes. Beit Or 10:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - the word "terrorism" is thrown around to describe so many shades of behaviour that it has become vague. Threats devoid of violence are called terroristic. It's used as a loaded pejorative for propaganda purposes. I would prefer we use more precise language, and "political violence," is much more precise. Similarly, just because imprecise euphemisms like "collateral damage" have gained popularity to mean civilian casualties deaths doesn't mean we should use them. Publicola 13:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Political violence is sometimes appropiate, but terrorism sometimes is appropiate as well, as in cases where the term "terrorist" is the generally accepted term. Yahel Guhan 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree - the problem is who gets to decide who and what is "terrorism"? In heated issues like Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each side considers the side's actions as "terrorism". Also, please consider the precedent. Zionist terrorism is titled Zionist political violence, the same is the case with Palestinian political violence. Finally, please note that "political violence" includes terrorism (since terrorism is always violent, and used for political purposes). Thus "political violence" is quite factually accurate.Bless sins 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Political violence" is vague. Terrorist is specific. Anything can be accurate if you use terms vague enough. That doesn't make it encyclopediac. In wikipedia we present well espablished facts, and is some fringe denier (like those who claim well established terrorists are not terrorists) chooses to ignore them, we shouldn't give them undue weight. Wikipedia shouldn't compromise its integrity to satisfy a fringe theory. The generally accepted consensus is that most of these "freedom fighters" as you call them, are terrorists. Yahel Guhan 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Then in that case, I suppose you would support renaming Zionist political violence to Zionist terrorism, and Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States to simply American state terrorism? Its unimaginable that any wikipedian of good standing would apply double standards.Bless sins 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Not responding for YG, just stating my personal opinion. In the former example, the answer is "yes", in the latter it is "no". Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of who engages in it. The US government, however, does not engage in terrorism; at least, there is no consensus among experts that it does, only allegations thereof. Beit Or 09:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, this is merely double standards. There are plenty of allegations against the United State government, just as there are allegations against Islamists. Bless sins 10:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No double standards here, but an application of WP:NPOV. If a majority of experts believe such and such group engages in terrorism, Wikipedia must reflect it. Anyway, we are going into too much detail over specific article titles, the issue is a general one. Beit Or 08:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• support per my comments above. Yahel Guhan 18:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Though the term "terrorism" can indeed be misused there is no reason to avoid it entirely when it accurately described certain tactics. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I wish to remind that this is not a vote, but a discussion. Beit Or 09:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Any action which ends in disruption of civil life needs to terminated termed as terrorism. Isn't it? Guruparan18 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you mean "needs to be called 'terrorism'"? Beit Or 07:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, corrected the above comment. :) Guruparan18 09:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Total support. Neither the fact that some people misuse the word nor the fact that its frontiers are rather blur should be an obstacle to use it when appropiate. The only nuance that is acceptable is that the word should be restricted to the specific people who does or collaborate in the actions and not extended to all the related organizations. E.g. Hamas owns hospitals and if we say that is a terrorist organization we can also say that is a health care organization so we must say that Hamas practizes or uses terrorism but strictly is not a terrorist organization as it is not strictly a health care organization. OTOH Ezzeldin Al Qassam is a terrorist organization since this is its only activity. Another important thing is that when states commit actions that are identical to the actions commited by non-state sponsored organizations, this must be called state terrorism and when is an army, it must be called crimes of war. When civilians uprise and use military tactics, they must be called militians or irregulars. To allege the misuse of the word "terrorism" to dismiss its proper use is like forbid to use "donkey" for the same reason. To concentrate in the blur cases to dismiss the use of the word "terrorism" is like keep speaking about ornitorrincus to dismiss the use of word "mammals". Clear taxonomy is inherent to enciclopedism and it requires proper (scientific) use of all available words ignoring vulgar or POV oriented users.--Igor21 10:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• I absolutely agree. We should have articles entitled Islamic terrorism, Zionist terrorism, and Palestinian terrorism. The word terrorism may not encompass all deplorable acts against civilians (or against people in general), but, imperfect as the term is, that's what those concepts are commonly called. The euphemisms sound ridiculous to the point where, by using them, we are in fact still conveying a viewpoint (that the acts of violence described in the articles are not actually terrorism). The controversies over the usage of the term terrorism can be handled in the respective articles. -- tariqabjotu 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. There can be no debate. Terrorim does exist; use of the word is therefore justified. Timneu22 11:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, I think we have concensus here. Arrow740 (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus at all. Peh! Relata refero (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to "vote" on this matter, but I feel compelled to comment here. All words that we might want to use exist, and connected to that, they should all have some explanatory power. However, the mere fact that a word exists (or that it can describe a concept that exists) does not mean that we should use it in the encyclopedia. That would apply to any opinionated word, too. ("There is no denying that awful movies exist, therefore we should describe this movie as awful.") The argument against saying "Person X is a terrorist" is not that the term "terrorist" has no meaning, it's that if we seek to write from a neutral point of view, it's not our job to go through each case and say that A is a terrorist, but B is something different. The cost of not making this judgment is rather small. In cases where everyone here would likely agree that the "terrorist" label is appropriate, we don't really lose anything by simply citing an authoritative source that uses it. Croctotheface 10:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I made a logically bulletproof argument that the use of the word 'terrorism' was subjective and pejorative over at the 9/11 article, but it was rejected by Americans who can't differentiate between their own opinions and subjective facts. I gave up when it became clear there simply weren't enough rational people editing the article to make it ever NPOV. So at the very least I'm trying to minimize the damage by making sure that pro-US groups like the Contras get equal treatment. Given the cultural bias here I'm not hopeful, but that has never stopped me before. Damburger 12:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Beit you wrote "However, terrorism is a tactic of violence against civilians, either ordinary people or specifically targeted government officials." Do you mean Civilians or non-combatants because civilians can be combatants under international law --for example mercenaries are civilians who take a direct part in hostilities as are many spies.

And if only it were that simple. Please read the stated aims of the PIRA Long War

1. A war of attrition against enemy personnel [British Army] based on causing as many deaths as possible so as to create a demand from their [the British] people at home for their withdrawal.
   • was the killing of louis Mountbatten not a terrorist act because he was a member of the British Armed forces (British Admiral of the Fleet do not retire)?
   • Is the killing of unarmed policemen a terrorist act? What about a part-time member of the Royal Irish Regiment#Casualties. Is there a distinction between them on duty and off duty?
   • What about British military bandsmen who in times of war work as medical orderlies?
   • If an army unit is targeted should one consider Military necessity when ties to judge if collateral damage make it a terrorist attack or not. For example the Gilford pub bombings was aimed at killing soldiers. So does that mean it was not a terrorist attack?
   • Was the killing of members of MI5 a terrorist act?
2. A bombing campaign aimed at making the enemy's financial interests in our country unprofitable while at the same time curbing long term investment in our country.
   • Does that mean that any bomb that was planted under this directive was not a terrorist bombing given the constraints of Military necessity? Again how does one judge what is acceptable civilian losses. For example at the Bishopsgate bombing in London a journalist died (because AFAICT he headed towards the bomb to get the story) is that acceptable collateral damage, because as intended by the PIRA it forced the British Government to pay for the damages as the insurance companies refused to pay stating it was war damage not criminal damage, (a big properganda victory to the IRA)? The bomb damage was assessed as costing more than the 10,0000 bombings put together had cost in Northern Ireland (De Baróid, Ciarán (2000). Ballymurphy And The Irish War. Pluto Press. pp. p. 325. ISBN 0-7453-1509-7. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)).
3. To make the Six Counties... ungovernable except by colonial military rule.
   • If one accepts that the British direct rule from Westminster in Northern Ireland was "colonial military rule", then the provisions of Protocol I Article 1.4 come into play.
4. To sustain the war and gain support for its ends by National and International propaganda and publicity campaigns.
5. By defending the war of liberation by punishing criminals, collaborators and informers.
   • Is the shooting of collaborators and informers a terrorist act because they may well be in the pay of MI5? It is said one of the ways that the IRA spotted informers was their usage of ATM machines (the British Government being a bureaucracy used to pay the money into accounts on certain days of the month!)

All in all most of these involve a judgement about what is or is not a terrorist incident and given the systemic bias of this project we are better off not using the term because it does convey a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait until we get a complaint from a terrorist before we make a final decision.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 13:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philip Baird Shearer, I am not going to answer all these enigmas you propose here because I have answered others and you never say anything afterwards. You retreat until the next dicussion starts and then you come back with your litany of enigmas again. IRA was a terrorist organization whose members had the phantasy of being an army. So they disguise their modus operandi in a way that sometimes can be seen as a kind of mokery military action. However they never engaged formally in a combat and they never respected laws of war. If you want to be so precize we can say that "IRA was a militia that combined pure terrorism with some pseudo-military actions like snipering and ambushing on-duty platoons". As I tell you always, the fact that border cases exist has never been a reason to ban an empiric category that has thousands of clear cases. How would you call RAF or Red Brigades activity?? --Igor21 (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

-Igor21: I have checked our postings on this page and as far as I can tell the last time you and I discussed this was in the section #Uses of word "Terrorism" and looking at the text in that section I was the last person to add a comment to that section just 31 minutes after you added the second to last comment. So I think it is a little unfair of you to write "You retreat until the next dicussion starts and then you come back with your litany of enigmas again." particularly as I have not asked you to answer any of the points I am making above. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

This PDF article by the British Army shows the problems with the word "terrorist". Paragraph 105 says "Over 600 soldiers have died or been killed due to terrorist action. In the worst year of 1972, 102 British soldiers died or were killed – the largest number in one year since Korea." Yet in the next paragraph/section 106 (subpara (b)) the report states "The next phase, from the summer of 1971 until the mid-1970s, is best described as a classic insurgency. Both the Official and Provisional wings of the Irish Republican Army (OIRA and PIRA) fought the security forces in more-or-less formed bodies. Both had a structure of companies, battalions and brigades, with a recognisable structure and headquarters staff. Protracted firefights were common. The Army responded with operations at up to brigade and even divisional level. The largest of these was Operation MOTORMAN, which was conducted from 31 July to 1 December 1972. It marked the beginning of the end of the insurgency phase. The OIRA declared a ceasefire in 1972 which it has never broken. The PIRA began a process of transforming itself into a terrorist organisation based on a cell structure." Yet in the previous paragraph it has described the deaths of soldiers during that period as "killed due to terrorist action". The British Army report indicates that there is confusion with the terms even within expert organisations which are very familiar with counter insurgency and terrorism. They are confused because at one level in the report they recognise a difference, but at another they want to "Use of the term [to] persuaded others to adopt [their] moral viewpoint.", and is the reason why I think it better to avoid the use of the term on Wikipedia. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer you question Igor21, I would follow the guideline and not use the term terrorist. In the case of the RAF call them the Royal Air Force although I understand that Gobbles that master of propaganda did call them "terror-bombers" which rather proves the point that:

Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgement; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Philip Baird Shearer,

Three points :

1-To find uncomented answers to some puzzles proposed by you, go to Terrorism talk page.

2-RAF stands for Read Army Fraction [[19]] that was a terrorist german organization. If you read their ideology and modus operandi, you will see how dificult is to describe them without using the word "terrorism". In fact only their closer supporters do it.

3-The phrase "The PIRA began a process of transforming itself into a terrorist organisation based on a cell structure." proves beyond any doubt that there is a typology of actions and organizations that are characterized by this word. If IRA fits or not, it is another discussion.

--Igor21 (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for (1) silly of me I should have know you'd be talking about a completely different talk page. I knew what you meant about RAF in (2) (see Revision as of 08:17, 3 May 2005) -- although most native English speakers I would have thought would not think of the initials RAF when thinking of the Baader-Meinhof Gang -- but I chose to make a point about the RAF and Gobbles use of the word "terror-bombers" which is in my more relevant to the discourse than what I would call something. As to (3) and the British Army calling the IRA a terrorist organisation, the BA fails the Mandy Rice-Davies test "He would, wouldn't he?", what I was doing was highlighting how the BA can get their knickers in a twist over the use of the word terrorist because they want the "Use of the term [to] persuaded others to adopt [their] moral viewpoint.", and is the reason why I think it better to present a neutral point of view and avoid the use of the term on Wikipedia. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist

I notice that the suggested wordings (insurgent, paramilitary, or partisan) sometimes fall short to describe the relevant organization in the articles. Should we also add "militant group" among the bunch, since it's one of the most commonly used wording in such cases? (Such as Al-Queda) Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, "militant" makes right-wingers have an aneurysm. They seem to think that saying "X is a militant group" is equivalent to saying "X is a heroic freedom-fighting group who we, the editors, unreservedly embrace and support". Personally, I think they're being obtuse, but the problem still exists. <eleland/talkedits> 16:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite rankings

I suggest adding words that imply some form of ranking, without substantiating this ranking, to the list of words to avoid. Words like "he was the most important...", "this is the most succesful...", etc. This is mostly because "importance" and "success" are immeasurable subjective terms: when is someone important, and someone else more important? When is someone succesful, and someone else more succesful? What defines success? When is a singer more succesful: with eighteen #1 hits in the US or with 19 #1 hits in the UK? When is a movie more succesful: when it has sold 400 million tickets, or when it has made 3 billion US$? These figures are all hypothetical, obviously, but they illustrate the point I'm trying to make. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Avoid "belief"?

"Similarly, we should not refer to "Christian beliefs" and "Hindu myths"; this implies an obvious value judgement."

What's wrong with referring to them as "Christian beliefs"? Anyone know? I didn't want to change this, if there's something I'm missing here. -Rocket000 (talk) 14:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In this example, the problem is not terminology of "beliefs" or "myths", per se; the problem is the difference in treatment of Christian and Hindu. Comparable beliefs/myths should be referred to comparably. --Lquilter (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Deny and denial

The last discussion of these words occurred over a year ago, so I thought it appropriate to create a new section rather than add to the old one. Concerns here are also somewhat related to various previous discussions of the word claim.

Occasionally a situation arises in which an allegation has not been or can not be definitively disproved, yet no evidence whatsoever has been produced in support of the charge. I find it inappropriate in such cases to use the words deny or denial as a response to these kinds of allegations, because they imply guilt or suggest false balance. Some examples:

1. Allegations that John Q. Public believes in leprechauns have circulated since 2002. Public has since denied the charges.
2. Jane S. Doe said during a February 21 press conference that the American Idol television program is a joint-venture mind control experiment conducted by the CIA and the American Red Cross. The CIA and Red Cross issued denials later that same day.

In case #1, only Mr. Public knows what his beliefs are, and any claim to the contrary is mind-reading. In case #2, Ms. Doe is advancing a wild conspiracy theory. Both allegations may be important to include in their respective articles, so to counter them, articles frequently just include statements of denial like those above, which respectively imply that Public probably does believe in leprechauns, and that the CIA and Red Cross may very well be using a popular television show for mind control — but they've so far been able to cover up the "truth." Another common way to counter is to simply quote a response by the target of the accusation, which still tells readers nothing at all about the likelihood of truthfulness. Hopefully there are better ways to describe a complete lack of evidence for a charge, I just wish I knew what they were. It's usually very hard to find an attributable source who says evidence does not exist. It might also be difficult to find an RS who says simply that the charges are widely regarded to be crackpot theories or baseless attacks, because they may all assume everyone already knows this. Yet, for example, if Mr. Public is a candidate for political office, his opponents, including some Wikipedia editors, may have a vested interest in repeating the charges and insisting upon their merit, and a great many people may choose to believe them. That's all fine and well, of course, except when it leads to Wikipedia articles that fail to tell things as they are. - Tobogganoggin ^talk 23:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)