Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

On Wikipedia, some words and expressions need more care than others.

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with particular care. It is almost always possible to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that suggest Wikipedia subscribes to a particular point of view.

The advice in this guideline should not be applied rigidly. What matters is that articles be consistent with the core content policies—Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability—and that they be well-written.

Words that may introduce bias

Statement characterizations

Ensure that the way Wikipedia characterizes people's statements is neutral in the context. Using loaded synonyms for the verb to say can imply a one-sided point of view by Wikipedia. For example, to write that someone noted, observed or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness or access to evidence when that is unverifiable. To write that a person revealed, pointed out, exposed, or found something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. Statements may indicate a person's sentiments or impressions, but are not equivalent to them—the use of feel as a synonym for say is thus inadvisable.

To write that someone claimed or insisted something can raise a question of the truth of the claim, particularly after a factual statement—for example, "Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs, but in a later statement claimed he is not a racist". Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt—for example, "Supervisors said they had heard about the incident" is better than "Supervisors confessed they had heard about the incident", which suggests that their response was blameworthy.

Stated, wrote, declared, and according to usually ascribe no point of view by Wikipedia.

Puffery

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

• Peacock example:

• Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and the greatest songwriter of all time.

• Just the facts:

• Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation". By the mid-1970s, his songs had already been covered by hundreds of other artists.

Expressions of doubt

Template:Quote box4

Words such as supposed and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate. Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear. So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply "called" is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.

Negative labels

Template:Quote box4 Words that negatively label a group, person, or practice—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—need in-text attribution. Terms such as sect, fundamentalist, and heretic are best avoided unless they are widely used by reliable sources to describe the group or person. In such cases, use in-text attribution.

The terms extremist and terrorist are particularly contentious and should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. Generic words such as militant, insurgent, paramilitary, and partisan may be less provocative. But even with in-text attribution, ask yourself what information is conveyed by adding such descriptions to the article. More objectively descriptive terms such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, or kidnapper are usually preferable.

Labels such as scandalous and affair can promote a contentious point of view. The suffix -gate is often used in journalism to refer to a controversial episode. Use these in articles only when they are widely used to characterize the issue, with in-text attribution if in doubt.

Editorializing

The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate particular interpretative viewpoints, and thus should also be attributed in controversial cases. Clearly, obviously, naturally, and of course not only suggest a point of view, they are often nothing but excess verbiage. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not.

Unsupported attributions

These phrases are frequently used to present the appearance of support for statements while denying the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. In many cases, they simply pad out sentences without conveying any useful information. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.

Euphemisms

The word died is neutral and accurate. Avoid euphemisms such as resting place: dead people aren't resting. Likewise, have sex is neutral; the euphemism make love is presumptuous. Expressions such as collateral damage and ethnic cleansing mask violence in clinical terms. If a person has an affliction, or is afflicted, say just that; living with is a verbose softener.

Norms vary for expressions concerning disabilities and disabled persons. The goal here is to express things as clearly and directly as possible, while not causing offense when it is unnecessary. Do not assume that plain language is inappropriate. The National Federation of the Blind opposes terms such as visually impaired and sightless in favor of the straightforward blind, when that is the fact. Similarly, the group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as people with blindness for the plain phrase blind people.

Clichés

Template:Quote box4 Clichés are generally to be avoided in favor of more directly informative expression. Lion's share is often misunderstood; instead use a term such as all, most, or two-thirds. The tip of the iceberg should be reserved for descriptions of icebergs; the small portion evident conveys the substance without gilding the lily. People in Wikipedia articles do not take the plunge, they simply do things.

Neologisms and new compounds

Neologisms are expressions that have been coined recently. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.

Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non–, anti-, or –like to existing words to create new compounds can aid clarity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a point of view. Adding –ism to a word, for instance, may suggest that a tenuous belief system is well established.

Vulgarities and obscenities

Main page: Wikipedia:Offensive material

Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend. Wikipedia is not censored. Quoted words should appear as in the original source. However, language that would generally be considered vulgar or obscene should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Outside of quotations, vulgar or obscene words should not be used except where they are themselves the topic.

See also

• Wikipedia:Article titles
• Wikisource:The Elements of Style/Misuse

External links

• Lake Superior State University Banished Words List