Talk:Loaded language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

The use of 'madrassa' as an example, and especially criticizing specific individuals, is highly political and a gross violation of NPOV. I'm sure there are ways of explaining the topic "loaded language" without using such a hot button issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.118.194 (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

From Talk:Loaded words[edit]

These examples were in the earlier versions of the article and I can't disagree with them as examples, but I just don't know what to do with them. Rossami 23:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Another example of popular use of loaded language is in relation to politeness.

I came looking for a longer definition than a single sentence on loaded words. Is that the best that can be done? There's lots about loaded questions in the article, but the base name is about language. It definitely feels lacking Nastajus (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"fair and balanced"

From WP:VFD referring to the article "Loaded words" which has been merged and redirected here[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loaded words

Female circumcision?[edit]

The article claims that the term female circumcision is a "loaded term" used by proponents of the practice. Is that true? I have never heard this term used in a positive way. It of course lacks the punch of FGM, but it by no means conjures up happy images to me. VeryVerily 01:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FGM/MGM/HGM are neologisms originally coined to provoke thought. The terms did not exist in any literature prior to the late 20th century when they were invented. As I understand it, the term FGC is 'female genital cutting' was designed to appeal to the proponents a little more than FGM. Literature on circumcision of males and females dates back thousands of years, with direct references by American doctors involved in circumcision of females just a few decades ago. I do not know what images are conjured up by any of these terms except disturbing ones. The proliferation of acronyms (RIC for routine infant circumcision, etc.) are probably all euphemisms, but they are worth mentioning to indicate who, what, when, etc. But I would think NPOV would say that Wikipedia should somewhere list all such acronyms currently in use, loaded or not, arcane or not, simply for completeness. DanP 23:32, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am reorganizing the sentence reads 'Clitoridectomies are called female circumcision by people who approve of them and female genital mutilation by people who do not.' Both terms are used by groups phasing out various practices. Also, the sentence in the articles is technically inaccurate by legal definitions prohibiting certain practices, since:

  • Female circumcision and genital piercings are both classified as female genital mutilation in many jurisdictions
  • Female genital mutilation is most often not referenced when refering to adults, say electing some procedure for whatever reason, regardless whether the speaker of the term approves of the practice (except perhaps in legislation covered by the US state of Georgia)
  • This is all categorized under genital modification and mutilation, which lists piercings separately. DanP 02:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentalist?[edit]

"...yet some (usually those with a liberal bent) use it to describe anyone who believes in moral standards set forth by a higher power."

Huh? What value does this parenthetical add to the article, that it doesn't immediately subtract by its nature as a partisan non sequitur?

Also, as far as I can tell, the propaganda entry linked in the sentence immediately following the list ("These terms seem to arise most often in politics where they serve the purpose of propaganda.") shows that using loaded language, in and of itself, doesn't constitute propaganda. So there's that.--electric counterpoint 23:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Merger with framing[edit]

Recently I suggest4wt wt wtr hwtrh ted to merge framing (psychology) and framing (communication theory); I noticed now that this article is also quite similar in scope. Discussion is at Talk:framing (communication theory). Joriki 06:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There's a difference between linguistic and media communication. But I think this page should be more specific. Consider leaving me a message if there's any further discussion on this subject as I am not going to watch this one. -- Steve Hart 16:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the tag since there is no concensus for the move. Bridgeplayer 19:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Abortion entry[edit]

Removed this text from the entry on pro-life and pro-choice in the list:

Pro-life groups emphasize a civilized society with morals and beliefs defends the sacrosanct nature of human life. But the same society rather not prefer to regulate what people (women in particular)can do to decide on these matters, and pro-choice groups advocate the "right" for abortions.

It seems kind of...loaded. It seems to imply that pro-choicers stand in opposition to a "civilized society with morals and beliefs" and "[defending] the sacrosanct nature of human life", and putting "right" in quotes implies slight irony or sarcasm. --Awesome 05:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC) yes, its loaded and backwards, (have you ever heard of a pro-choice bombing?) 69.140.35.147 (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Power words is an utter failure[edit]

This does not describe anything there are no examples, this definition is confusing and looks like it was written by a 5th grader. Klichka (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Power Words has unlimited potential for success: This open-ended article accepts and exemplifies the abstract nature of the concept and allows the reader to explore possibilities on their own. The definition demonstrates the implicit ambiguities accurately and yet maintains a grade-school readability! Dodger (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Relief vs. unreasonable[edit]

I do not agree with the formulation:

For example, the phrase tax relief refers literally to deductions that a person
might claim in order to reduce the amount of tax they must pay to their
government. However, use of the emotive word relief implies that the tax was an
unreasonable burden to begin with.

For one thing, the word "relief" does not imply an unreasonable burden, just one that affects the tax payer negatively (depending on the reader, just "negatively" or "very negatively"). Further, my immediate association to tax relief is not deductions in general, but deductions where some kind of disproportional imposition (in the eyes of the law-makers) is present. (Beware, however, that I am not from the US: Both terminology and tax rules may vary geographically.) I suggest that a better example is found. 88.77.178.181 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Digital piracy vs stealing[edit]

A lot of parties having commercial interest in the subject are using the term stealing when referring to digital piracy, I am quite sure that is loaded language since the definition of stealing involves taking an object that the owner will not have afterwards. I suggest this to be added to the article but my English skills are not native so it would be nice if someone else does it. Mtfr (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Irony[edit]

Has anyone else noted that the term "Loaded Language" has a negative connotation of manipulation and the term "Power Words" carries a positive connotation of being a useful tool? Perhaps someone can come up with an eloquent way to add this point to the article itself. Dodger (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Examples[edit]

The cheese example appears to have been put there because of the inserting editor's editorial decision that this is a good fit; not because it was covered for loaded language. I was able to locate a scan of this at University of Wisconsin 's library <url>here<url>. The dispute was over the product in question not fulfilling the legal definition of cheese in the State of Wisconsin and over the alternate name "pasteurized cheese". It was argued that pasteurization was not completely effective, so the name was not descriptive of the actual product. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Lots of Original Research[edit]

As it is, this article is full of original research. Most of the analysis is original, with no reference to external sources. The examples are largely original, and their interpretations are original. Much of it is pretty POV too - the article is full of "examples" of loaded language used in a political context. Of course pointing this out is not a neutral statement - stating that language is loaded is an accusation - itself a political statement, and hence POV. I am tagging the article and also removing some of the most flagrant examples of original interpretation and unverified information - in particular the paragraph on the Falklands war makes many assertions without any source, so I'll remove that.--146.90.245.55 (talk) 17:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)