Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

See also related discussions and archives:

• Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel words
• Wikipedia talk:Avoid peacock terms
• Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms
• Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid

Lack of comparandum

I sometimes come across WP articles saying that something is "better" without specifying what it is better than. For example:

• "The two core advantages of n-gram models..." in n-gram -- advantages compared to what?
• Limited_liability_company#Advantages -- some of the individual subsections clarify the comparandum, others don't
• Message-oriented_middleware#Advantages -- no comparandum at all. The comparanda I can think of are having application software provide its own message handling -- or relying only on synchronous communication.

Do others think it would be worthwhile to mention this case in the MOS? This section seems like the best place, though "words to watch" doesn't quite cover it. I'd think a template could be useful too. Thoughts? --Macrakis (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

In each case I think there is an implied "... compared to alternatives ...", eg (in your examples) other models, other company structures, other communication protocols. In some cases (not necessarily those cited above) clarification may be required where the "other" is not obvious, but I don't think we'd necessarily have better articles if we suggested in MOS that the comparandum should always be stated explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I honestly do not know in any of the above three cases what they're talking about, and would actually find it useful -- not just as a matter of form, but substantively -- to have the comparanda mentioned. Of course, the above three cases could simply be tagged as {{citation needed}}, but it goes beyond that. A comparison without a comparandum is vacuous and unfalsifiable, because surely just about anything is better than something. In that way, it really is quite similar to phrases like "It is said that..."{{who}} (maybe the author's roommate said it -- in which case we don't care). --Macrakis (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Passed away

Apologies if this conversation has been had before. May I query "passed away" being listed as a euphemism? For example, in my Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary the third definition of "pass", after move and depart, is die. almost-instinct 14:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your reasoning here. Are you claiming that dictionaries don't document euphemistic senses of words? That would be a pretty sorry excuse for a dictionary...! --Macrakis (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Die is given as one of the principal meanings of "pass". "Kick the bucket" on the other hand is not in the dictionary at all. I've a serious query here. Why is "pass away" a euphemism? almost-instinct 15:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with "pass away" is that it is ambiguous. As you mentioned the third definition of pass (in Webster) is "die", so the reader might think we mean the first or second definitions. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary "pass away" can also mean "relinquish, surrender, (rights etc.)". But if we say "die" is not likely to be misinterpreted. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point: we don't want ambiguity. However, to use the example that I noticed: Anne Sharp lived with her daughter in West Linton, Peeblesshire. She passed away on August 25, 2011. There's nothing ambiguous here; but because of our rule against "passed away" this has now been changed to "die". My wondering why "passed away" is listed as a euphemism remains. Are we putting it on a level with "slipped away", "breathed her last", "bought the farm" and so on? (Btw, die may be the third definition, but its the third of fifty meanings given by Websters for the verb form alone) almost-instinct 10:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

So according to Websters first/second definition for "passed", Anne Sharp moved away from her daughter on August 25, 2011 (and now lives somewhere else). This is a perfectly legitimate reading of your example, using your dictionary's definition - but it has a completely different meaning (to "die"). It is an excellent example of why the term "passed away" is ambiguous. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Kick the bucket" is defined in the OED as "to die", as is "to pass away", "to pass", "to shuffle off", "to meet one's Maker", "to croak", "to expire", "to go to Heaven", etc. etc. Just because the sense is documented doesn't mean it is not a euphemism (though I admit that some of the above are labelled as "figurative" or "slang"). It appears that in some circles in the US, it is taboo to say that someone has "died". Those who believe in an afterlife seem to prefer to say that the person has "passed" into the afterlife; obviously that is not WP:NPOV. There are plenty of reliable sources documenting the euphemistic nature of "passed away" etc., e.g. Keith Allan, Kate Burridge, Forbidden words: taboo and the censoring of language snippet, John Algeo, Thomas Pyles, The Origins and Development of the English Language snippet, Louise Pound, "American Euphemisms for Dying, Death, and Burial: An Anthology" American Speech 11:3 (October 1936) JSTOR 10.2307/452239. --Macrakis (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And it's not Wikipedia's job to satisfy the fringe views of dwellers "in some circles in the US" (or anywhere). Stick to the clearest, unarguable words please. HiLo48 (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Pass away" is a euphemism in the sense that it is a non-neutral formulation that people choose when they are unhappy about someone's death, or pretend to be so, and therefore stress that the person died in relatively peaceful manner. Ambiguity is clearly a red herring. It's almost never ambiguous when used in the sense of dying, although it doesn't always fit. Ambiguity is definitely not a problem, but the lack of neutrality is. If anyone "passes away" for us, then we must draw the line somewhere. I guess Mother Teresa would qualify for "passing away" and Adolf Hitler would not. But how about Richard Nixon? Joseph McCarthy? Augosto Pinochet? Stalin? For each of these, if they are anywhere near the border line, some editors will claim that they must be treated like this or that other person. Hans Adler 21:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that an English language learner would find the phrase ambiguous or confusing. I doubt that native speakers would, though. I still believe that it's a euphemism. Its use is motivated by a desire to find a soft way to say something that is (presumably) unpleasant to the reader. That's pretty much the definition of a euphemism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to Macrakis for supply references that it is a euphemism. Given the lie of the Wikipedia landscape, that pretty much ends the conversation for me. Personally (and irrelevently) I don't use it as a euphemism, but just as part range of words/phrases to mean death. As Hans says, one wouldn't use it for A. Hitler's violent end. I like having options. Anyway, pip pip, almost-instinct 08:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use "passed away" for "died" just because it is a euphemism. It is still unambiguously clear. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I still assert that "passed away" in ambiguous, per the example in my post of 2011-12-10, 20:28 (UTC+8). Mitch Ames (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) With some due respect, your example is utter nonsense. Nowadays "passed away" alone always means "died". And as for Merriam Webster dictionary: It give the meaning of "cheerful person" for the word "gay"! Do I need to elaborate how out-of-date this meaning is? Fleet Command (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Applying dictionary definitions in an arbitrary way is not something people do when reading a text. The simple fact that other meanings of a word exist - and alternative meanings do exist for almost all words, just open a dictionary - does not make the usage of words ambiguous. Nobody is going to confuse "The ominous clouds passed away without having unloaded their rainy contents" with "Churchill passed away after a short sick-bed". It is just not going to happen. Debresser (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There's something being left unsaid here. To write "died" takes four keystrokes, while "passed away" requires requires eleven. I think it's up to those promoting the use of the latter term to justify its use when we have a simpler, unarguably unambiguous word to use. Is "passed away" somehow nicer? Encyclopaedias don't do nice. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is that Wikipedia should use the shorter word?! Somehow I don't remember WP:SHORT or WP:LAZY being about this... Debresser (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No. My argument is somewhat more complex than that, but not much more. In fact, it was more a question than an argument. I really thought most editors would be able to read and comprehend it. Care to answer it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me say something that has been left unsaid so far. Wikipedia policies and guidelines should reflect consensus. And I see a definite lack of consensus in this specific case. Debresser (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have therefore asked for input from the village pump. Debresser (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So just because you couldn't deal with my post and want to go forum shopping, we all have to repeat ourselves over there now, eh? HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong completely. 1. I asked people there to comment here. 2. This is called "asking for input", and is completely legitimate. Your accusation of forumshopping is, in fact, quite offensive. Debresser (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are very careless with words. You misrepresented what I said, either deliberately or through lack of attention, didn't apologise, and now demand on my Talk page that I apologise to you. No. Sorry. Won't happen. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Let the discussion be the discussion. Debresser (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I doubt that all English speakers would understand 'passed away'. I'm convinced they would all understand 'died'. I would always replace passed away with died. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that as well as being a euphemism, "passed away" is also an idiom, and WP:IDIOM quite reasonably advises us: "Clichés and idioms are generally to be avoided in favor of direct, literal expressions." Mitch Ames (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And I would add, on a related point, that "passed away"--like most euphemisms--is a verbose replacement for a perfectly good, perfectly clear, perfectly neutral, and terse word. Need it be said that verbose writing is poor writing? DocKino (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

First, "pass away" is phrasal verb, not an idiom; hence WP:IDIOM does not apply. Second, English speakers perfectly understand the meaning of "pass away" since all of them read it in elementary school. Third, "pass away" is the polite and formal form of "die"; do I even need to mention that Wikipedia:Civility is one of the non-negotiable pillars of Wikipedia? Or is it not obvious that to be civil does not only mean avoiding swear words? Last but not least, no, verbose writing is not automatically poor writing; on the contrary, it is often necessary to write more to contribute to the accuracy, comprehensibility, quality and style. For instance, in Wikipedia, we never use the verb "f***" in the text of a good article, but rather, we use "to have an affair". Fleet Command (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please reread our WP:Civility policy, because you evidently do not understand it. It does not guide the composition of our encyclopedic content; rather, it "is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact." Much of the rest of your comment is specious, as well: Some phrasal verbs are most certainly idioms. "Pass away" is in no way more "formal" than "die". And your attempt to draw an analogy between "die" and "f***" is outrageous. DocKino (talk) 11:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Passed away is used, be it as a euphemism, in more formal contexts. That is a fact. And I personally do see the passed away <-> f*** analogy. And the point of the WP:CIVIL argument was that if we need to be civil amongst ourselves, then why not show our readers the same courtesy? Debresser (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect about "formal contexts." There is no context more formal than a medical examiner's report, and I assure you, those use "to die", not "to pass away." More importantly...

Our obligation to our readers is to inform them. We avoid needlessly offending them by avoiding obscenities such as "f***" except where they clearly serve the mission to inform. We do not treat our readers as if they are incapable of handling straightforward concepts and words such as "death". That sort of attitude is simply out of place for an encyclopedia writer. There is nothing in the world "uncivil" about using plain language to describe plain facts—in fact, that's what we're about here. DocKino (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this discussion and the parallel one at the village pump show that consensus is not broad enough to have this in the guideline (which must reflect a broad consensus). Therefore I move this example be removed from there. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And I move it stays. You still haven't discussed my point that you so appallingly misrepresented up above. (Nor apologised for for that misrepresentation.) If you think I'm being confrontational here, perhaps I am, with the goal of getting people to actually Discuss this matter, reading carefully and acknowledging the points made by others. It's about improving the quality of Discussion here. HiLo48 (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree it should stay. I also don't agree that "all of them read it in elementary school" is any any way accurate. I don't know if that's true in America, but I do know that not all English speakers learn English in an American elementary school. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It absolutely should stay. In addition to being a euphemism, it's folksy, informal, and somewhat patronizing. Nobody is offended by saying somebody "died". Can't believe anyone would make an issue of this.—Chowbok ☠ 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that this guideline should still oppose the phrase passed away, especially (IMO) for the sake of English language learners. This is a guideline, not an absolute rule: if you've got a good reason to ignore it, then you should.

I also seriously disagree with Debresser's claim that the VPP discussion shows no consensus. I count six editors there who oppose this phrase, and just one (Bermicourt) who supported it (with the caveat that it "shouldn't be overused", which is a pretty weak level of support). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Resting place

Many biographical infoboxes have |resting_place= parameter, so I removed it as an example to avoid, from this guideline. I been reverted, with the edit summary "there is no confusion"; yet there is clearly evidence of such on the talk page for {{infobox person}}}. There are many other examples we can use, so we should avoid this ambiguous case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So-and-so believes

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

Collateral damage and ethnic cleansing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does RS superceed WP:WEASEL?

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

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

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

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