Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid/Archive 2

Cult

I feel as though the pop-culture terminology of "cult" should be addressed, even if it is or might be considered slang. I was considering writing something along the lines of, "In popular culture, the word "cult" refers to a celebrity or a work--usually one with a limited following--which has a driven fanbase." Does that seem to fit or is it too slanted in one way or another?--Epiphone83

You raise a good point. Cult (disambiguation) and Cult following address the word's use in a context of pop culture to some extent. Your definition seems pretty even-handed to me. It's not a page I follow closely, but your observation might make a useful addition to Cult following. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Synonyms for "say"

Something that happens very frequently on Wikipedia, which I think deserves a fuller treatment here or elsewhere, is editors imparting a subtle bias to discussions by using loaded synonyms for the verb "to say." We cover this on the main project page in a somewhat cursory way under the heading "claim", but if the frequency with which this comes up is any indication there's a lot more we can say here. Some of the worst offenders:

• point out: This one almost always seems to be used in a problematic way, usually to elevate one side in a dispute by bestowing extra weight on its arguments. Sometimes it is used to give unproven, unprovable, or subjective statements a gloss of authority: "However, critics of contingent fees point out that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers without giving any benefit to the vast majority of clients." (from Contingent fee) At other times, it is used to introduce statements that may indeed be factual, but which opponents may not consider important or relevant: "However, opponents point out that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from card controllers (such as the police)." (from Identity document) In almost all cases, "say(s) that" is a better alternative when the statement is unproven or subjective, and "argue(s) that" is preferable when the statement is basically factual but its importance may be disputed.
• note: Similar to point out, but more subtle (and therefore perhaps more insidious). "However, some critics note that one can hold up historical gender biases for scrutiny without being gangbanged by 80 men on camera." (from Annabel Chong) My recommendations would be the same as under point out. Similarly: observe (as in "Critics observe...").
• admit: Boy, do I hate this one. Often used to imply that a statement made by a party amounts to a confession of wrongdoing, with no evidence that that was the party's intention: "D'Souza has admitted that he believes his race has worked to his political advantage." (from Dinesh D'Souza) In general, if "said" can be substituted for "admitted," it should. "Admit" in this sense should probably be avoided unless:
  • an individual is directly confessing guilt in a crime;
  • an individual is acknowledging, under immediate duress, believing or doing something he or she would clearly prefer not become publicly known (e.g.: "Upon being shown the newspaper article, Mr. X admitted having used the racial epithet, and said that it was a mistake of his youth for which he was deeply ashamed.") This does not include cases where it is not made clear whether the individual is making the statement freely, of his/her own volition: "In a 1969 Life Magazine interview, Jackson admitted that when he worked as a waiter in a Greenville, South Carolina restaurant, he would spit into the soups and salads of white customers." (from Jesse Jackson)
• insist: Makes the party sound defensive. "Salafis insist that Salafism is not a purely Arabian movement, and regard some clerics and scholars outside Arabia as proto-Salafis or Salafi-influenced." (from Salafi). Similarly: maintain, protest

A lot of these cases are probably the result of well-intentioned editors looking for a way to avoid using the word said, which they may perceive as dull or overused. Beginning writers are often taught that "Said is an invisible word": you may think you're overusing it, because you're the one who has to type it 20 times in a row, but your readers won't even notice it. They will notice, however, if you try to correct the "problem" by inflicting increasingly outlandish synonyms ("exclaimed," "sighed," "hissed," etc.) on them. Perhaps this is good advice for Wikipedia editors in general.

With consensus, I'd like to turn this into a nice set of guidelines for the project page, and would welcome feedback, changes, and/or additions. (I'm not necessarily convinced that this is the right page for them... but that's an argument for another day.) --PHenry 06:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes this is tricky. Consider your D'Souza example: it seems to me relevant to use a word that shows that this is an acknowledgment or concession. "D'Souza has said that he believes his race has worked to his political advantage" could suggest that he proudly embraces this. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps he does. "Says" tends to leave open either possibility, while "admits" largely closes off any positive interpretation. That's why I think "admit" shouldn't be used in non-legal contexts unless it's clear and fairly unambiguous that the party is making the statement under some sort of duress. --PHenry 20:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I like this, although I must respectfully disagree that repetitive use of "said" is not to be avoided. There are plenty of alternate ways of phrasing quotes without repeating the same "'...', said Blah" structure and vocab. A few simple (made-up) examples:

According to Mayor Bimbsly, "[i]t's simply a matter of faith."

There was no way, as Charlie put it, to "take the final fall."

The official reason appeared in a later press release: "There will not be a trial [...] due to poor response from Asia."

"If x is 2", explained the professor in an interview Monday, "it can't possibly be 3."

That sort of thing. Deco 22:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added the section to the page with changes from the suggestions given. I still think "admitted" should be covered, but I've left it out for now. I think the paragraph on "said" being an invisible word more properly belongs in Manual of Style or a similar page, especially since much of it doesn't necessarily relate directly to the rest of the section, but I'm "parking" it here for now so the information is at least out there. Any suggestions or changes are of course welcome. --PHenry 20:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism Examples

I don't know what these examples are doing here as they ought to be defined and described in the Terrorism and Shining Path (SL) articles themselves.

For me to interpret and apply these examples I'd have to know:

1. If SL identifies themselves as terrorists. (i.e. a literal admission)
2. If SL admits to targeting civilians in order to pressure government to adopt or refrain from policy or specific action. (i.e. a functional admission)
3. If SL explicitly denies being terrorists.
4. If SL denies targeting civilians in order to pressure government to adopt or refrain from policy or specific action.
5. If there's a consensus among terrorism experts that SL is terrorist.
6. If there's a consensus among terrorism experts that SL is not terrorist.
7. The examples cite countries which list SL as terrorist, what countries list SL as a political or economic or other type of organization?
8. For those, other than SL itself, who would argue that SL is/is not terrorist -- Who are they? And what about their argument is verifiable and cited?

Jmabel assumes far too much fact and opinion about the SL for the examples given to be useful to a general case. The assertions made in the article about "consensus" and "context" are not sufficiently abstract to be called a "guideline".

The leader of the SL might have written or declared "SL is a terrorist group", which makes it perfectly acceptable to any standard of editing I am familiar with to write without qualification "SL is a terrorist group". patsw 00:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know: do others find the example useful or confusing? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Patsw's questions

That said, let me try to answer your questions:

1. If SL identifies themselves as terrorists. (i.e. a literal admission)
   • To the best of my knowledge, no. If this were the case, I would have no problem with us calling them "terrorist". It is probably the only case where I would do so.
2. If SL admits to targeting civilians in order to pressure government to adopt or refrain from policy or specific action. (i.e. a functional admission)
   • SL rarely makes public statements. I'm not aware of them making such a statement, although it is clearly what they do. However, I wouldn't consider that sufficient to say use the descriptor "terrorist" in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Otherwise, we'd have to say that the recent trade embargo on Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a terrorist action, and I for one would consider that tendentious.
3. If SL explicitly denies being terrorists.
   • To the best of my knowledge, no, they've never bothered to do so.
4. If SL denies targeting civilians in order to pressure government to adopt or refrain from policy or specific action.
   • Very unlikely. Certainly not to my knowledge.
5. If there's a consensus among terrorism experts that SL is terrorist.
   • I don't believe there is even a consensus as to who is a "terrorism expert". Want to try to get consensus on this question in its more general form from the Cuban government and the U.S. government? But I would say that there was a relatively strong consensus among almost everyone that SL is terrorist. Still, I believe the right way to address that is to explicitly cite particular generally known lists of terrrorist organizations, rather than for us to take a stance. SL are a relatively clearcut case, but what I'm afraid of is having to draw a line. For example, imagine it is 1975 and we are writing about the African National Congress. We would want to cite who considers them terrorists, and who specifically excludes them. And I can just see the edit war if we have to make a decision on what to say in Wikipedia's narrative voice.
6. If there's a consensus among terrorism experts that SL is not terrorist.
   • No, not a chance.
7. The examples cite countries which list SL as terrorist, what countries list SL as a political or economic or other type of organization?
   • I am not aware of any. Certainly not "economic"; the only people I know of who consider them a legitimate political organization are overtly revolutionary communists themselves.
8. For those, other than SL itself, who would argue that SL is/is not terrorist -- Who are they? And what about their argument is verifiable and cited?
   • The Revolutionary Communist Party (USA) and its international affiliates. At least at one point, they actually claimed the Senderistas as their Peruvian affiliate, though to the best of my knowledge the claim was never reciprocated. I'd be hard pressed to name another example (though I suspect that some would have said this back in the 1980s).

Hope that addresses your points. My central point is that barring self-identification, I'd be very hesitant to use this word in Wikipedia's narrative voice. I think the word is pretty much inherently POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more POV than calling people "evil." If we can no longer call our enemy "the terrorist bin Laden," we'll also have to stop referring to the White House chief political strategist as "the evil Karl Rove." --Peter McConaughey 21:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you've made my point: these so-called examples are useless for forming a guideline.

To understand and to apply these examples generically to other cases, one has to import many opinions, disputed facts, and points of view regarding SL group to make sense of this. The typical Words to Avoid reader is not going to be familiar with the specifics of SL that illuminate these examples.

Addressing a point made above generically -- if there's a consensus that a group is terrorist and an absence of dispute about that, then the world terrorist is accurate and certainly should not be avoided. patsw 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

We have to draw the line somewhere. All other general encyclopedias and dictionaries draw the line at never using pejorative terms as part of the narrative voice of the article. We can still quote pejorative use by notable sources, but the article itself cannot use them. This is what separates a "trusted source" from one that is generally recognized to be biased. Using pejorative terms will not help indict bin Laden, it will only serve to weaken the entire article. --Peter McConaughey 22:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Patsw, I don't see the difficulty. I answered your questions because you asked them, but I also pointed out that, except for the first, they would have no bearing on whether it was acceptable to call the group terrorist in the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty is that your example (Shining Path) doesn't stand alone, you have to answer several questions about them with disputed answers in order to apply the example. An example works only if it simplifies the the editing decisions. Your example does not.

If there's a consensus that a group is terrorist and an absence of dispute about that, then the world terrorist is accurate and certainly should not be avoided. patsw 05:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the examples for the reasons I have mentioned above: they don't work. Examples have to stand alone. A Wikipedia editor using the New York Yankees or Manchester United as examples of consistent excellence in a sports team only makes sense if one has a prior knowledge of them and a consenus among the editors about them.

The Shining Path statements can not be used as examples because we can't agree on the talk page to make the generalizations that appeared in the article text.

Another reason to exclude a lengthy set of terrorism usage examples is that this article is Words to Avoid and not the terrorism (much less the Shining Path) article.

The sort of issues laid out in the examples were the issues that don't have a general rule to apply, but get examined by editors in a specific article. patsw 04:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia must be amoral

Does the pejorative sense Peter imputes to the word terrorist represent an automatic disqualification from being included in the Wikipedia? Do the actions of the 19 hijackers which killed nearly 3,000 people require a morally neutral presentation, or the terrorists of the Beslan school siege who held 1,200 people, mostly children, hostage also require a morally neutral presentation?

Who are the adherents to the point of view that such violence should not be condemned? These adherents would hold that such violence is morally neutral or perhaps positive. Cited, they would present the other side for balance of the points of view expressed in the article. This is my understanding of neutral point of view, not suppressing a point of view, even if you characterize it as pejorative.

Do you (Jmabel, Peter, ...) really believe that the Wikipedia or any encyclopedia needs to be absolutely amoral in all respects? And, regardless of circumstances, that the word terrorist is a word to be avoided since encyclopedias are amoral? patsw 05:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the recent changes, here are some thoughts that I hope are relevant.

• The idea that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter' does not represent neutrality; it is a viewpoint in its own right.
• Wikipedia works better when editing decisions are made case by case, in context, on individual pages. I do not oppose guidelines for use of potentially difficult words. I do oppose the creation of Wikipedia-wide directives like "do not call an action terrorism in the narrative voice of the article." I observe that this page does not have the official policy banner.
• This page is most useful when it helps editors write in a more professional, neutral, and encyclopedic style. An example of this is Synonyms for "say". I think it is least useful as a court of appeals for those of us who have lost editing disputes elsewhere, whether those disputes involve conspiracy theory or terrorism. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Do the actions of the 19 hijackers which killed nearly 3,000 people require a morally neutral presentation - quite simply, Yes. As one of the few editors who spends a great deal of time researching the hijackers, and going through old police, media and other reports simply to dreg up what's been said of them (much of it proven untrue, to be honest), it's very important that the articles provide a morally neutral presenatation. The people who google Satam al-Suqami's name, aren't doing it to read how much JediBilbo1138 hates him, or thinks he must be roasting in hell, is a sandnigger, or even a more subtle "This terrorist is to blame for provoking the Iraq war". Neutrality is of the utmost importance, because what's published on Wikipedia, is repeated almost verbatim in thousands of schoolrooms across the world each day by students who consider us a 'great resource to avoid weeks of studying' for their projects. Sherurcij 14:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not amoral. It's not the omniscient editors who condemns terrorism, rather it is adherents of this point of view who do, and the role of the editors is to describe the point of view, list the adherents to this point of view (and the list of whom condemns Al Qaeda is quite long), and cite the point of view. So, the answer is No -- a morally neutral presentation is not required. It is the result when all points of view appear. It is polymoral.

The delete key is not the Wikipedia's means to achieve neutrality. It is achieved by adding material conforming to the article. patsw 05:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter McConaughey's changes

The recent changes to the page are wrong on many levels: "the narrative voice must never draw conclusions asserting something that the reader could find offensive or controversial;" "Our job is to make the information contained within an article believable;" "We are not here to convince the reader of anything, or to assume disputed "truths.""

I won't negatively characterize the editor's work, or interpolate snarky replies to his asertions about my job as an editor; But this is so far from what I understand this page, and Wikipedia, to be that I don't think it's possible for me to edit it. I don't even know where we would begin a discussion. Maybe someone else can, but rather than see the whole page rewritten to a point of view that I do not share, I see no choice but to revert to an earlier version. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Peter, I have to agree with Tom here. Posting your draft of a major rewrite of a controversial page like this, with no consensus, is not a good step. Remember, this is a collaborative encyclopedia.

• On pages other than this one, I've had (entirely factual) revisions shot down solely on the ground that they covered too much territory at once, even though the editors agreed with everything I was writing.

• It's not just that the points you are trying to introduce are controversial, it's that they ignore all the work that's gone before. Perhaps you could post this on the talk page first and get people's insights? Other editors will respond better to incremental edits than to sudden, massive, reversals. BYT 17:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I support a complete reversion of the recent changes. Articles do not and should not have narrative voices. What they do is present facts (or at least what is regarded as not disputed) and describe each point of view held by some number of adherents for the disputes (where that numerical threshold is determined on an article by article basis).

Having a list of "words to avoid" refers to coloring the meaning of words in matters not in dispute (such as adding a so-called). I have called this introducing an editor's point of view by stealth.

However, where the various points of view attributed to adherents are being described all kinds of words therein which Peter McConaughey would characterize as pejorative are used to accurately describe the point of view. patsw 18:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that's three of us. I'm reverting this. If others believe this recent round of changes to be too much too soon, I'd appreciate some help in restoring to the earlier version.BYT 14:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I should probably explain that I got these ideas from the way other highly respected resources are edited. I could research it and provide references to what Webster and the editors of Britannica and the Oxford English Dictionary had to say on the subject if that's required. --Peter McConaughey 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Reader's beliefs

Perhaps you could start with the following sentence and explain what you find wrong with it: "The cited information may disagree with the reader's beliefs, but the narrative voice must never draw conclusions asserting something that the reader could find offensive or controversial." --Peter McConaughey 17:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain exactly what that sentence means? I'm not sure I'm parsing it the way you intended. Carbonite | Talk 17:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a definition of the "narrative voice" is required. I'm not saying anything different than has already been said in NPOV and other Wikipedia policies: we can reference things that are POV, but the article can't state them as fact. --Peter McConaughey 17:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Our job as editors

"Our job is to make the information contained within an article believable."

This sentence may need to be expanded to clarify. In order to have any motivation to look up a word in a particular encyclopedia, you need to trust the encyclopedia. You don't have to trust the sources that are cited, but you need to trust the "narrative voice" citing them. The article itself can't say that the cited author is correct if there is any chance that the reader will disagree. Otherwise, the reader will no longer trust the encyclopedia, thereby destroying all of the other articles contained within that might have been written from a perfectly acceptable neutral point of view. --Peter McConaughey 17:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are saying something different from what has already been said in WP:NPOV. You're saying 'Don't call an action terrorism.' I support 'write from a neutral point of view.' I don't support using a list of discouraged words to get there. I think disagrements about neutrality should be resolved by the editors, in context, on the article's talk page.

The NPOV tutorial says,

Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself

We get neutrality not be eliminating words, but by adding them. Of course the tutorial is no more official policy than this page. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this article is sort of a "Neutrality for Dummies." I didn't create it. I was just trying to clarify. There was a whole project on the use of the word "terrorism" a few years ago. I don't have time to find it right now, but we pretty much decided to avoid using that term outside of a cited quote. It only causes problems and isn't needed to get the point across. Please edit anything I wrote, but I would prefer if you didn't delete it outright. I think something is needed to give a sense of the big picture (for those who don't like dummies books). I'll see you when I get back from Aspen. --Peter McConaughey 18:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Alleged

I originally came here interested in the use of the word "alleged" which I think is a useful alternative for some of the other terms to avoid. While it's POV to say that Some allege George Bush is a Nazi, that falls under weasel terms, I'd say that George Bush alleged that Iraq played a role in the Sept 11 attacks is NPOV. Thoughts? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}

Certainly agree with the broad distinction you're drawing here. Note that in the first case, who's doing the "alleging" is unclear, while in the second, it's specified. However, you would need to cite a quote clarifying without ambiguity, not that Bush was talking vaguely about "connections" or some such, but that he had maintained that there was in fact an active role by the Iraqi government in the 9/11 attacks. I believe that will be difficult to track down, though it seems to me Cheney may have been a little more direct in phrasing this, er, lie. BYT 17:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's in there, with examples exactly as you outline. Words "supposed(ly)", "purported(ly)" etc follow the same rule. FT2 05:27, 10 December 2005

(UTC)

The example using "allegedly claims" is poor because it is redundant. An allegation is a claim. A claim may be an allegation.

"Microsoft allegedly claims it will not abuse encryption keys", should be either: (1) "Microsoft claims it will not abuse encryption keys" (i.e. asserting as factual that Microsoft is making the claim), or (2) "X alleged Microsoft claims it will not use encryption keys" (i.e. expressing doubt that Microsoft is making such a claim) patsw 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Page rework

Go gently. I think this is a better way to have the page, in organisational terms. I've tried to also sharpen up the examples and text to be more useful as a reference, without introducing controversial changes to any stated view.

For example, what is important about both cult and myth is not that one is a common POV word and the other has technical meanings. It's that both have multiple meanings and therefore can be ambiguous or misleading when used, if not used carefully. So I have grouped them together under "Words with controversial or multiple meanings".

It takes into account many comments made on this talk page, and its main features are:

• Groups words slightly differently
• Standardizing - putting the actual words in each section header so they are easily found
• Including clearly marked "unacceptable / acceptable" examples with explanation, as a direct reference source for users, as well as the discussions.
• Is strictly in line with policy AFAIK

Please if in doubt, discuss here briefly first. A fair bit of thought and work went into it. I think that the structure and standardization of format is improved, and that's important. The actual wording can and probably always should be improved.

FT2 05:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What this page is not

This page is not a guide to help editors write more neutrally. The recent edits are making the page all about neutrality of presentation. We already have lots of pages about that, some of which contradict material added here.

This page is not official Wikipedia policy.

Finally, this page is not a court of appeals for editors who are dissatisfied with the consensus on another page. In the past some have come here hoping to add things they could then use to support their position on another page. I would not care to see that happen again. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Double negative edit

Quick note regarding the "double negative" edit on "terrorism". The edit reads: "There is not a consensus that terrorist or terrorism may never be used to describe a person or act".

I have thought hard, and deleted this. My reasons are as follows:

1. There *is* a clear consensus that the term "terrorist" is pejorative and an opinion usually applied by one side and denied by the other. This is made clear by consensus on both terrorism ("many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc") and definition of terrorism ("often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton, and unjustified... Because of the above pejorative connotations...")
2. There is a clear view that terms implying pejoratives or viewpoints, are not neutral and should be aoided as labels (WP:NPOV)
3. Other probably-pejorative terms are by and large avoided in other articles.
4. The Al-Qaeda article avoids using Wikipedia's voice to label Al-Qaeda "a terrorist organisation" (a body considered by many people and governments to be confirmed "terrorist").
5. It is clear that many other sources such as the media (outside the USA) attempt to avoid labelling organisations as "terrorist" for similar reasons.
6. The time it is okay to label a person as terrorist, is when its in the words of a cited source and attributed to that source (as opposed to in Wikipedia's voice). But that is already covered and fully made clear in the article.
7. All words on this page carry the caveat that they aren't "never to be used" - that's made clear in the header and intro sections. So the need to make clear it isn't saying "never" is already taken care of as well.
8. Because of the above, this double-negative is a statement that goes too far. Yes there is no consensus that it may "never" be used. But it look likely that it should probably "almost never" be used (other than as a citation in some named voice). The reason for this is that it "almost always" implies some judgement or POV.

FT2 00:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Words to consider adding

Another word

How do you all feel about "interestingly"? Joyous | Talk 03:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• yep, I'd be happy to see that added if others agree. Also oddly, strangely, inexplicably, unacceptably, and such words expressing incredulity or other editorial responses to the text. FT2 05:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have noticed that "interestingly" also seems to be a way of shouting "Hey! There's a good chance that this is a poorly structured sentence!" especially when it's in the middle, rather than the beginning, of a sentence. Joyous | Talk 15:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Add "conspiracy theory"?

I think "conspiracy theory" should be avoided in a neutral encyclopedia, what do others think? zen master T 05:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the more neutral term "alternative theories" used more often. FT2 05:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So we should add "conspiracy theory" to words and phrases to avoid then? zen master T 06:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. But what about other editors? FT2 07:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, other editors should probably sign off given the historic controversy surrounding the phrase, there is a proposal over at Wikipedia:Title Neutrality. zen master T 07:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

(In the meantime I've added what I think is a non-controversial section, that in part addresses the whole class of such situations: terms that are technically correct in some context, but carry an implication of POV in general use. I have deliberately not used "conspiracy theory" as an example. -- FT2 14:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

How can "conspiracy theory" be technically correct if it has more than one meaning? That seems like a new form of the "some subjects are literally conspiracy theories" disinformation technique. zen master T 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are conspiracy theories. That isn't a disinformation technique, it's an informaiton technique. -Willmcw 23:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say there are "conspiracy theories" do you mean theory or type of fiction? A phrase can't be "technically correct" if it has more than one meaning and you don't distinguish. zen master T 23:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Green" has many meanings, each of which can be correct. Certainly if a subject is fictional than the text should clearly state that fact. -Willmcw 23:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Every place I've seen "conspiracy theory" used has been in a non-fictional context. Instead of subtly classifying someone else's theory or allegation as fiction you have to make a factual, logical, and cited argument that it is. zen master T 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Fictional conspiracy theories, that is those which appear in fiction, should be treated like any other fictional subject. Real conspiracy theories should likewise be treated like any other real topic. -Willmcw 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that constant repetition of this same proposal doesn't make it any more palatable. Re-introducing the exact same arguments every two months is disruptive. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggested wording if agreed by consensus to add this?

This is the article intro on that term (minor edits for brevity):

A conspiracy theory is an account of a social or natural phenomena, according to which some organization or individual has deliberately deceived public opinion in connection with some event. The term is also used by academics to identify a type of folklore with certain regular features. In common usage, the term loosely refers to misconceived, paranoid or disproven rumours, similar in many respects to urban legend. In almost all cases, believers in a particular account vigorously reject the classification of their belief as a conspiracy theory, implying as it does that their beliefs are false. Such classification may be seen as an attempt to use ridicule to evade a serious allegation, leading to controversy over legitimate uses of the term.

This offers at least 3 meanings, and makes clear that the common understanding is a pejorative one and that it is usually rejected as a pejorative label when applied. In this sense it functions linguistically almost identically to "terrorist" or "myth" in some ways in that it is almost inevitably a description from the point of view of "outside the belief". It does not imply neutrality.

If it was added, I'd put it under "words that are controversial or have multiple meanings, something like this:

"A conspiracy theory is a term often used to describe a belief that some official story (usually of some event) is incorrect, usually that some powerful body or individual has used their influence to establish an untrue version of events as "the truth". Thus it has a neutral meaning of "alternate ideas" or "other speculations". In everyday use it carries an implication of falseness and is often seen by proponents or others as a label ridiculing an idea to avoid serious discussion of the issues it raises. A substantial number of people will read "Conspiracy theory" as implying or tending to favor this meaning, even if technically this is inaccurate. The term "alternative theory" or "unofficial theory" or simply "other theories" is likely to be considered more neutral, even if "conspiracy theory" is sometimes technically also a correct and legitimate term.

Before we get too deeply into conspiracy theory, it might be useful to review the archived discussions. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 15:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There were lengthy discussions on this in September, as zen-master is well aware, and the consensus was strongly against its inclusion. In fact, if you review the archive, you'll find that fully half of the archive is devoted to the discussion of this. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's obviously similar to "terrorist" and "sect". Thus I agree that it's good to advice to limit its use in a similar way. Harald88 13:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Strengtheners and weakeners

Oops, major omission I think.

• "X is strongly associated with Y"
• "A have close ties with B"

Whats the technical term for these, because they probably belong in here somewhere? FT2 07:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Dubious

Other words implying doubt, or examples of peacock words implying support? FT2

Proselytism v. Evangelism

Not of widespread interest, I'm sure, but it seems to me that "proselytism" ought to be regarded as a word to avoid, as the Wikipedia article on proselytism states: "In our day, however, the connotations of the word proselytism are almost exclusively negative."--John Campbell 10:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That statement in our article is uncited, and I doubt whether it is accurate. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It does seem to be the whole thrust of the article, though, as it goes on to contrast legitimate evangelization with illicit proselytism. --John Campbell 23:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Proselytism" is accurate when it refers to the negatives of coercion or denying freedom of conscience with respect to religious affiliation. In current usage, "licit proselytism" is an oxymoron. The POV problem is conflating any communication intended to attract new adherents to ones belief system as proselytism. patsw 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Caution: PC ahead

Just a thought, every word can be POV in some context, We want this list to capture common and important ones, that often seem to surface in controversy. Not to drift into political correctness. For that reason I'm not adding much. Just wanted to draw that view to others attention too,... wikipedia is not majorly rules based, long may it stay that way! FT2 15:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Extremely unhappy with recent changes

I'm extremely unhappy with recent changes to this page that seem to amount to a wholesale rewriting of the page with no clear consensus to do so. I am particularly unhappy with what has happened to the section on the word "terrorism". We had, a few days ago, what seemed a clear description of encyclopedic and unencyclopedic use of the term. That has now been replaced with what a remark that someone else in another, non-Wikipedia context avoided the term. So what? The new wording is vague, and could be read as saying that it is OK for the narrative voice of the article to call a group "terrorist" if it can be cited that someone has called them so, which goes against the long-established convention. I am restoring the previous thrust of that section (removing the non-Wikipedia quotation, restoring Wikipedia-related examples). -- Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

what's the matter with "theory"?

The paragraph doesn't state that it shouldn't be used, and it pretends that its only existing use in English is that of scientific theory, making the term "scientific theory" silly. Instead, in common use (and easy to check in dictionaries which should be consulted) it has other meanings too. What's going on here? Harald88 13:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You know ..... I think you're right! I think it was that way before. But maybe it's soemthing to consider if other editors want to read that section carefully. FT2 21:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Somethig is strange: Earth revolves around the Sun. This can be prooven so in this definition it would be not a theory. Or is this a misunderstanding? helohe (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hero cult"

For Che Guevara, the question has come up as to whether "hero cult" is against this guideline. I think it's the right term. Someone has replaced it with "hero reverence". I figured I'd come here for opinions. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Question as always -- what's the varying evidence that there was (or was not) a "hero cult", or that the feeling towards him by some people has (or hasn't) been described that way?

Second question -- even if accurate, couldn't people agree on a wording such as:

"Che Guevara was the subject of much adulation [respect, hero worship] during and after his life, and according to [CITED SOURCE] this took the form of a hero cult // a hero cult had formed around him // the admiration bordered on a hero cult at the time of his death"? (if that's factually accurate).

That kind of wording might help, and is probably factual or verifiable, and would possibly be more encyclopedic too. It's probably better to say that "this took the form of a HC" or "the admiration bordered on a HC at the time of..." than "a HC had formed", the former wordings are more "X says Y".

Hope that helps! FT2 15:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

"Final_thoughts"

There is a section called "Final thoughts" in Faurisson_Affair. IMHO this phrase should be avoided as the purpose of an article is to describe facts, not to express somebody's (whose?) thoughts. Apokrif 04:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"According to the Boston Times, the govenor is purported to have said X"

I think this is a bad example, because the "according" and "purportedly" are either redundent, or not so we should have:

According to the Boston Times, the govenor said X.

or

According to the Boston Times, the govenor is purported by pink monkeys to have said X.

Rich Farmbrough. 21:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Red Army Fraction Not A Terrorist Group?

Any suggestions on how the West-German RAF should be labelled? Here are some of the descriptions used by other sources:

• Encyclopedia Britannica: "radical leftist group" that "engaged in terrorist bombings"
• German Encarta: "left-wing extremist terrorist group", "saw itself as part of international terrorism"
• http://www.wissen.de: "terror group"
• Brockhaus: "left-wing extremist terror group"
• Süddeutsche Zeitung, Aktuelles Lexikon: "terror group"

I mean, I am sympathetic to the notion that the label "terrorist" should be used with discretion, but I also think that it's unencyclopedic not to call a spade a spade. Thanks for your input. Maikel 15:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pick what you find for similar groups like Sendero Luminoso (Peru) or Symbionese Liberation Army (US), don't confuse it with IRA (mainly UK), ETA (mainly Spain), or PLO. Omniplex  05:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Henchman

From our article on the French Directory: "…but its true man of action was … [[[Paul François Jean Nicolas Barras|Barras]]'s] … agent and henchman, the young General Napoleon Bonaparte." "Henchman" seems pretty value-laden to me. I would hesitate in Wikipedia to use it outside of referring to convicted criminals; I just might use it for someone like Lavrenty Beria, whose chief fame is as the head of a particularly brutal secret police apparatus. Anyway, seems to me like a POV-laden word, but it is not discussed here. Probably should be, and I think its use in French Directory is inappropriate. Other opinions? - Jmabel | Talk 00:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a whole field of language - names for associates. Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Linked, associated, affiliated (to/with) covers some of it, but doesn't go into much detail. We don't need a policy to know that a term like "toady" would be inappropriate, for example, because clearly it is a pejorative term. There are a range of similar terms, like "operative" and "asset" that imply nefarious aims. "Henchmen" is a slightly archaic [1] reference to an illicit patronage group or conspiracy member. It's a great word, and may make for flashy writing, but this is just a dull encyclopedia so we need to be careful. Subordinate members of a coup plot might be called "henchmen", I think. It seems to have become an accepted term for Haldeman and Erlichmann, which perhaps show that "avoided words" may still be used when justifiably appropriate (they did conspire to committed crimes on Nixon's behalf.) I don't know whether "henchman" is accurate in the case of Napoleon, but it is up to the editor using it to show that he was a subordinate conspirator with Barras. It shouldn't be used as a synonym for a political supporter. Another danger is that it is getting so archaic that readers may think means more than it does. -Will Beback 11:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Genocide, Massacre

I feel the usage of these words should be treated like the word terrorist/terrorism.

Encyclopedic:

• X is regarded as a massacre by Y Organizations list.
• Countries A, B and C regard X as a Genocide/Massacre [because...]

Not encyclopedic:

• X massacred Y.
• Goverment of X commited genocide against Y...
• X was a massacre/genocide

Also articles should be titled with something else than genocide/massacre. I am sure there are tens of words describing the event without the genocide/massacre pre-conviction. In paralel, we do not have Terrorist organisation of Al-Qaeda for instance.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I expect we would, if that were the most common English name for the organization. Jkelly 22:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats not inline with Wikipedia:Words to avoid. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

For accuracy and credibility, we should use masscare and genocide when that's what we're describing, whether it's the Wounded Knee Massacre, the Rwandan Genocide, or any others. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So who determines what is a genocide and what isnt? it really is the same argument as terrorism. I see hiroshima bomings as genocide and I am entitled to that pov.

If I call Alquida a terrorist organisation I would be breaching Wikipedia:Words to avoid. I can however suggest US considers them to be a Terrorist organisation. It really is a simmilar argument. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wounded Knee Massacre is an excelent example why not to use massacre. During the bombing of Hiroshima, berlin, london, as well as any other millitary action taken in ww2 and afterwards civilians have been 'accidentaly' killed. If we can't call the Invasion of Normandy a massacre we can't call Wounded Knee Massacre a massacre. We can call it the Wounded Knee Skirmish or something along the line. A skirmish did take place and thats not disputed by the article. Moreover the reader can decide how to clasify the incident. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Cool Cat absolutely. Speaking for Eastern Europe, I may say that half the edit wars on Eastern Europe-related subjects are because of arbitrary use of these two words. Other words which spawn revert wars are "annexed" and "liberated". It is always POV which country "annexes" the territory and which country "liberates" it. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly massacres and genocides have occured many times and places. That there are edge cases about which reasonable men disagree does not change that. The place to resolve such a disagreement is in context, building a consensus on the talk page of the article where the term is/isn't used. This page, in spite of its name, is descriptive rather than perscriptive. I do not support adding massacre or genocide to the list of words to be avoided. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't support adding it either. "Genocide" is a word to be careful with, but (for example) when speaking of what happened to the Herero in South-West Africa in the early 20th century, or the Armenians in Turkey during WWI, or the Jews in Germany during WWII, or the Tutsis recently in Rwanda, it is simply the correct word. Similarly, it is appropriate to speak of some past U.S. government policies toward native Americans as "genocidal" (the deliberate distribution of smallpox-laden blankets, for example). On the other hand, it can easily be abused, as in using it to refer to the U.S.'s treatment of African Americans in the last 50 years, or Turkey's treatment the Kurds. Oppressive at times, yes. Genocidal, no.

"Massacre" should also be used carefully, but not banned. For example, the Wah-Mee Massacre in Seattle in 1983 is always called just that; if we were to write about it, that would be the correct name. - Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Left/Right

From the current version: "…the political Left of the United States shares views on certain social issues with the political Right of Canada or the Netherlands…" I suppose this is true in a sense, but generally on issues where the Canadian or Dutch Left and Right are in consensus with one another. Are there examples of issues where the U.S. Left agrees with the Canadian or Dutch Right, but differs from the Canadian or Dutch Left? - Jmabel | Talk 03:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that globally, concerning political terms we should avoid, we can refer to Category:Pejorative political terms. Far-left and far-right are not in this list, and are objective classifications widely used by political scientists and in polls, there is absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to "avoid them". The only rule is to be cautious according to each context, and to Cite sources. But a spade must be called a spade, and the majority of political movements and parties are very easy to class according to this classic political spectrum. The few whom refuse the left/right distinction have historically been found in Fascism (which, although it passed by various stages, is generally classed as far right or "revolutionary right" by Zeev Sternhell), also in Gaullism (although all political analysts class it as a right-wing party), Peronism is also an exception (but same goes, it finally became heavily right-wing if not far-right)... At least in European countries, the rest of the parties easily fit this classic scheme. Tazmaniacs 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty is that while you're correct that most philosophies fit quite snugly into the political spectrum (libertarianism is another that's difficult to pigeonhole), what area on that spectrum is the center varies greatly depending on where you go. Basically, everyone perceives their own society's center as center. To an American, the American Democratic Party is moderate left, but is moderate right to most Europeans, and extreme left to a typical Iranian. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. However, the fact that the left/right division line changes a bit according to places (and times) doesn't make it irrelevant, as some Wikipedians would have it (particularly those who'd rather that a page such as the National Front didn't include the term "far right"). These terms are widely used in political sciences, and parties and politicians must be classed. It is ridiculous not to use them in contexts where they are perfectly relevant (say, in the States, liberal & conservatives might be most often used; but in Europe, left & right are commonly used & understood.) Tazmaniacs 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

But they should always be used as "a group generally considered far-right in France", not just "a far-right group", because there will usually be a pretty large number who disagree with the label's applicability. When you add up the members and sympathizers of all the similar groups in the world, there are a substantial number of people who wouldn't agree with the classification; if you include people who happen not to be alive anymore, the number becomes quite large. So since the term has no objective definition, just qualify it appropriately the first time it's used in an article. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial": vague and useless

See Talk:L. Ron Hubbard#Use of "controversial" Apokrif 17:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If the Church of Scientology can't be (NPOV) described as controversial, then maybe a block-remove of the word from all of Wikipedia is in order? AndroidCat 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the use of controversial with respect to the CoS is appropriate. - Jmabel | Talk

So is "famous", but we don't include that adjective either. At least half the entries in this encyclopedia are controversial, and at least half are famous. For that reasons, neither are useful words. In both cases, it is better for us to show the controversy or fame rather than simply to referring to it. We should be especially careful using "controversial" to describe a person. Their works or actions might have caused controversy, but that doesn't mean the person is controversial. -Will Beback 19:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversial is not an issue, in my book. To describe something as controversial simply says there is controversy about it... multiple views or significant counter-view. It's a useful word, used well. FT2 (Talk) 22:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Not using the word "controversial" would make Wikipedia significantly less useful. -Silence 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How so? -Will Beback 00:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree in general with Will Beback: the words "controversy" and "controversial" are certainly over-used in Wikipedia and it is much more informative to write what the criticism and controversy is about. Andries 10:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

However

"Before <event> <this>. However after <event> <that>."

This is preferred? Err I thought this would be preferred:

"Before <event> <this>. After <event>, however, <that>."

Or at the very least -- and this isn't really satisfactory -- there should always be a comma after "However" when it starts a sentence:

"Before <event> <this>. However, after <event>, <that>."

The reason being, "however" has multiple meanings, and putting the "but" meaning at the head of the sentence forces the reader to scan ahead into the sentence to figure out what meaning is intended, e.g.:

However after seeing the Wikipedia article his head exploded.

However it happened, his head had clearly exploded.

However many heads have exploded since, his was the first.

BAD: However after seeing the Wikipedia article his head exploded.

A LITTLE BETTER: However, after seeing the Wikipedia article, his head exploded.

BEST: After seeing the Wikipedia article, however, his head exploded.

Yeah I know lots of people place "however" (in the "but" meaning) at the head of sentences, but that doesn't mean we have to encourage it. So I changed it. Herostratus 21:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"Islamophobia", "Islamophobic", "Islamophobe"

The neologism "islamophobia" is being frequently used pejoratively to inhibit rightful criticism of Islam and critics are wrongfully being labeled "islamophobe" or their views are referred to as "islamophobic". Much like the term "terrorism" this word is highly charged. There is currently a bit of a drive to make this word a standard word for regular utilization on Wikipedia (see this request for mediation and this category for deletion discussion). In my view in accord with the Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality, this word should not be used when writing articles outside of direct quotes and citations of its use. What are the views of others who frequent this talk page? Netscott 08:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How is this different from "homophobe?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not. (Unless you realize that criticism of Islam makes rational sense, criticism of homosexuality doesn't; criticizing an ideology and criticizing a sexual orientation are entirely different affairs. Bonobos don't follow religions.) -Silence 18:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my irony detector is only partly working today:-) Do you mean to say that "Islamophobia" should not be used because criticism of Islam(ism?) is rational, but "homophobia" may be used because criticism of homosexuality is not rational? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, neither should be used by Wikipedia. I was merely pointing out a distinction between the two, in response to your question "How is this different from 'homophobe'?" The answer is, both are pejorative value-judgments, and thus should only be reported on Wikipedia as quotations or paraphrases from noteworthy sources (much like the pejorative "terrorist"), but that doesn't make the two terms and their contexts identical. For example, being prejudiced against black people is clearly very different from being prejudiced against communists, regardless of whether they're both Bad Things. Also, I did not mean to say "criticism of Islam(ism) is rational, criticism of homosexuality is irrational": that's clearly an overgeneralization. Some criticism of Islam(ism) is rational. -Silence 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)