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

"Even"

Starting a talk page discussion following Peter Gulutzan's revert of my addition of "even" to the "Editorializing" section. I have run into it being used improperly a few times and am always surprised it's not in this list, so I figured I'd be bold and add it. The most recent instance I ran into in the wild was at Rudy Giuliani, in the section about him testing positive for COVID-19:

On December 6, 2020, Trump announced that Giuliani had contracted COVID-19. In the days leading up to the announcement, Giuliani had been to multiple indoor hearings without a mask, and even requested that others remove their masks.

In my view this is very similar to other examples in the list, in that it adds some judgment to the sentence suggesting this was unreasonable or shocking (which it is, in my view, but that's my view and not something I would put in an encyclopedia article without strong sourcing and most likely attribution). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The statement in the Rudy Giulani article "and requested that others remove their masks" is poorly sourced even if "even" is removed, he asked one (1) person "“Would you be comfortable taking your mask off some people can hear you?” apparently. Oxford say says even is "used to emphasize something surprising or extreme" and Merriam-Webster says even is used as an intensive to stress an extreme or highly unlikely condition or instance". Thus what we're really talking about is emphasis and stress, and not that something is "contrary to expectations". I've already used the word in such a sense in my first sentence, and another authority is the guy who sang "even the Jordan river has bodies floatin". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think even is a problem in the given example. If we are to construe judgment from putting even there, are we not to also construe judgment from the inclusion of this event at all? If we are getting that particular about inferring judgment, should editors find another source that explicitly lays out why this is important, or should we expect readers to have a basic understanding of the use of masks to prevent the spread of COVID-19? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with GorillaWarfare; the sentence means the same thing without. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality puffery

Many articles about foods qualify ingredients as "pure", "fresh", or "virgin". Though high-quality ingredients no doubt improve the quality of the food, they are not a defining characteristic. A salad made with cheap olive oil is not as good as a salad made with extra-virgin olive oil, but it is still a salad. These terms are fine for cookbooks, but Wikipedia is not a cookbook, and shouldn't be indulging in this sort of ingredient puffery. Ideas about how to add that to this MOS article? --Macrakis (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Examples of Wikipedia articles misusing pure + fresh + virgin? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"Fresh" is reasonably used to distinguish from canned (e.g. tomatoes) or dried (e.g. herbs) or frozen ingredients, but it is used redundantly in many cases:

Uruguayan cuisine: "Uruguayan food always comes with fresh bread" -- as opposed to stale? (there are cuisines that serve dried bread, but that's not mentioned in this article)

Open sandwich -- "An open sandwich is a slice of fresh bread..." -- does that mean "not stale"? "not toasted"? (which would be incorrect; there's a photo showing an open sandwich on toast in the article!)

Jeff Hertzberg -- "making it convenient for home cooks to bake fresh bread daily" -- I've never heard of anyone baking stale bread. Maybe what is meant here is "to bake bread fresh daily", but that is pleonastic

Éisleker Ham

Hungarian cuisine: "These accompanied with bread and fresh vegetables" -- if this means raw vegetables (crudités), it should say so more explicitly; if it just means good-quality vegetables, it is a peacock term; though it is arguably contrasting with pickles, discussed in the next paragraph

Characterizing olive oil as virgin or extra virgin, in, for example, pesto, occhi di lupo, zuppa toscana, pizza marinara. I'm sure that the result is better if using a better-quality oil (which is why recipes might specify extra-virgin oil), but "virgin" is not a defining characteristic of the dishes. A random search finds, for example, that "Classico" brand pesto specifies just "olive oil" on the label.[1], so it is possible to make pesto (maybe not very good pesto) without using extra-virgin oil.

These are just some quick examples found with Google search. --Macrakis (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

While I was at it, I fixed some egregious cases of peacock "pure", e.g., "made with pure cane sugar". --Macrakis (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with you and these should be fixed. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Change LABEL to match practice

Currently, MOS:LABEL reads Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. As written, there is no option to use a contentious label in Wikivoice (except for "pseudoscience", for which there is a specific cutout). However, in practice, we do use contentious labels in Wikivoice, especially when they are widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject.

Some examples:

• Richard Spencer is described as an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist and white supremacist in the very first sentence of his article. Similarly we describe David Duke as an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, far-right politician, convicted felon, and former grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Don Black (white supremacist) as an American white supremacist, Neo-Nazi, and Klansman, and Stormfront (website) as a pan-European white nationalist, white supremacist, antisemitic, Holocaust denial, and Neo-Nazi Internet forum, and the Web's first major racial hate site.
• In our article on Jonestown, we describe the Peoples Temple as a a San Francisco-based cult under the leadership of Jim Jones. We also describe Jim Jones, in his own article, as a cult leader. Oddly, in the article on the Peoples Temple itself, we avoid describing it as a cult in Wikivoice, instead saying that it is widely regarded by scholars and by popular view as a cult. But since that doesn't attribute the cult designation to any particular source, that doesn't avoid the violation of MOS:LABEL and in fact makes it a violation of MOS:WEASEL.
• David Icke is described as an English conspiracy theorist, in a good article. Similarly Alex Jones is described as an American far-right radio show host and conspiracy theorist.
• Focus on the Family is described as an American fundamentalist Christian organization. Similarly the Family Research Council is described as an American fundamentalist Protestant activist group. ("Fundamentalist" is described in MOS:LABEL as a LABEL.)
• Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is described as a conspiracy theory in the title and as a a far-right antisemitic conspiracy theory in the text. Similarly the Moon landing conspiracy theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and all sorts of other conspiracy theories are described as conspiracy theories in the title of the article. It appears to be unofficial Wikipedia policy to put "conspiracy theory" in the titles of pages about conspiracy theories.

Because the way we actually use contentious labels is different from what MOS:LABEL recommends, we should delete the clause in which case use in-text attribution from MOS:LABEL and just allow people to use contentious labels even in Wikivoice if they are widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. We should reserve in-text attribution for these labels for if they are not used widely by reliable sources but we do have one or two that do use the contentious label. Loki (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on the long discussion at WP:VPP#NPOV-problems on Wikipedia, using value-laden labels in wikivoice is a problem and difficult to correct. While you can find numerous examples, this is a recent (last few years) problem that numerous editors have pointed out and have been trying to address. How to correct is unclear (whether it is a policy or an editing behavior change), but I think its clear that there is some consensus that the current approach of LABEL still holds, that we shouldn't be using these labels in Wikivoice except in extraneous circumstances. --Masem (t) 16:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Masem, you know full well that the consensus you imply does not exist, at least for some of the terms you have tried to remove from wikivoice, since you have argued unsuccessfully for it on numerous occassions. It is absolutely not a violation of WP:LABEL to eg. accurately describe someone as a white supremacist, far-left, or far-right in situations where they are described so academically and there is no serious disagreement about this among the sources; doing so is a simple statement of uncontroversial fact, not a value judgement, and trying to ban such references would clearly violate WP:NOTCENSORED. If you believe you could produce a consensus otherwise you can try to add the words you object to to the list of examples, but I think it's reasonably clear you would not succeed given your repeated failures to press this argument elsewhere and the extensive list of examples showing that your idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:LABEL does not reflect current practice. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a number of editors supported Masem's POV. The hard part was crafting a policy to improve on things. Masem didn't say, "labels can never be used" but the concern was how often and the degree to which articles were relying on telling vs showing and how often an article would start off with a subjective, value laden label instead of an objective description. Springee (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Editors exist that support Masem's interpretation, but (as you concede below) they have consistently failed to change current practice or demonstrate a consensus backing their interpretation, so it's important that Masem not present his interpretation as if it's accepted practice or common reading of WP:LABEL. It clearly is not. (And I'm saying this - and took the time to correct him - because I've noticed that he has a tendency to present his interpretation as straightforward and uncontroversial despite that, to the point of almost WP:DEADHORSE / WP:IDHT levels. It's fine for editors to have an ideosyncratic interpretation of policy; it's not fine to repeatedly act like your interpretation is commonly-accepted when it plainly is not, since that could confuse editors who haven't been following the dispute closely.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

In part because I do not know a precise change to policy or guideline that is needed that would immediately resolve the matter; I've explained several times the matter is also coupled with the issues of how NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM is handled, among other P&G. There is no simple singular P&G change because as they presently read, in whole, take multiple different interpretations based on the past discussion, so this also points to the fact that a simple change of P&G won't "fix" the issue. Its a matter that requires a wider array of voices beyond the relatively closed loop around NPOV/N and BLP/N. And the point is that I'm not alone in my view, though I know it's not a clear majority view or even necessarily a majority - but neither is the view that we present labels as facts to the point we can say that view is site-wide consensus to change this policy. It remains an issue that is extremely difficult to resolve particularly in the current climate of external events and not one to try to push to resolve for a least a few months. Hence my opposition to changing this without seeking that consensus. --Masem (t) 05:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The change that would be needed to make your position tenable would require revising WP:NPOV, which currently requires that we accurately follow the sources. This will always trump WP:LABEL when the two come into conflict. Note that NPOV is not subject to consensus - changing it in a way that would permit us to censor or tone down the sources based on an editor's feelings that their conclusions are in some vague sense "value-laden" is not possible. There is some room in the margins to debate about the exact threshold of sourcing necessary, especially for WP:EXCEPTIONAL things - I don't think anyone disagrees that the threshold needed to call someone a white supremacist in the article voice is very high - but there will always be cases where we are not merely permitted but required to eg. accurately describe someone as a white supremacist in the article voice, and nothing you do or say can change that, fullstop, since the commitment to accurately reflecting the sources is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia, while WP:LABEL is just a style guideline. --Aquillion (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

NPOV already has wording under WP:YESPOV that says we are not slaves nor blind to possible bias with RSes; when statements are about contestable information, we should not present them as facts but as attributed claims. A key point of debate essentially has been whether claims of value-laden labels being applied to a person/entity by multiple RSes should or should not be considered contestable (the difference between WP:OUTRAGE v. WP:SPADE), given that we are supposed to be impartial and dispassionate in tone. And I don't think we have a good resolution on that, nor how to make that change in policy either direction. (But importantly UNDUE does say regardless, the use of a value-laden label or similar opinion/statement by multiple RSes shouldn't be ignored and should be included, just whether in or out of wikivoice is the issue). --Masem (t) 19:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

After thinking about it overnight, I do have one compromise that might allow you to make those claims in wikivoice less common (though I don't think you can ever forbid them entirely for the reasons I outlined.) Currently, if we have a massive number of high-quality sources saying something in the body, and someone adds it to the lead saying "X is widely described by sources as...", someone will usually object unless we have a source outright saying they're generally described that way, saying that this is WP:SYNTH. I don't think this always is a proper objection; the lead is supposed to summarize the body, which includes, in some cases, broadly summarizing the opinions it covers in that way. More importantly, by taking those summaries off the table, editors are forced to choose between "X is a white supremacist" (which accurately reflects those sources), "According to A, X is a white supremacist" for the best source Y (which sharply downplays the sources by failing to properly summarize the unanimity with which they're described), or "According to A, B, C, D..." which is clunky and still has the same problem. If you force editors into that choice - in a situation where there's little doubt, given the sourcing, that the descriptor in question is objectively accurate, at least as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned - then most of them are going to go for the first option. I think that in cases where the coverage is unanimous or near-unanimous, even the compromise summary wording is still a problem, but having it unavailable sharply increases the chance that users will just go for stating it as fact in wikivoice. --Aquillion (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Certainly many editors also disagreed with Masem's position in the discussion linked above. I will quote something I said in that discussion, which I believe raises a couple of the salient points: Perhaps, Masem, you believe that if everyone including the BLP subject understands that subject to inhabit a contentious identity, like being a flat-earth advocate, that WP must nevertheless attribute that characterization because being a flat-earth advocate is taking a controversial position. If so, this seems to me to be a complete misreading of LABEL, which is intended to cover situations where the labels themselves are contested, not ones where everyone can agree that a categorization applies but some are for and others agin' the position categorized (emphasis added).

In other words, we shouldn't assume that a label is contentious just because the identity the label applies to is contentious. If somebody promotes flat-earth theory, and sources agree that that is what they are doing, then they are a "flat-earth promoter". We don't - and shouldn't- unnecessarily attribute labels that are objectively confirmed by the consensus of high-quality reliable sources, particularly where the label's applicability is not itself subject to contention. Where the dispute, rather than the label, is "value-laden" - is the earth flat, are we really ruled by reptoids - it is purest FALSEBALANCE to insist that the relevant labels not be presented in wikivoice. They represent objective (social) facts, even though people also have feelings about them. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Things like "flat earth promoter" however aren't quite "value-laden", as either they have stated they believe in the flat-earth theory. It's not subjective, in contrast to something like what the definition of far-right is, or where "climate change skeptic" stops and becomes "climate change denier". The problem on value-laden labels is the lack of objective bounds for inclusion. There may be some universal agreement to a core definition- a person that regularly regurgitates hatred and violence toward blacks would certainly likely be called a "white supremacist" barring anything else, but then you get edge cases of people that may speak of distrust and concern of blacks but not outright fear or violence that get labeled that because their words appear racist and get pidgeonholed. --Masem (t) 19:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, in all Loki's list of examples at the beginning of the article, the only one I see as subjective in the sense you mean, where it is currently used, is "cult". All of the others - including "white nationalist" - appear to me to be verifiable and are in fact demonstrated in the articles the OP points to. This is why I object to the framing of the question - I think it assumes an erroneous reading of WP:LABEL. (Of course, I have of course seen "LABEL creep" where people try to misapply the principle, as in the frequent objections to noting Carl Benjamin's antifeminism even though the feature of his career that has most frequently been noted by RS and, indeed, is usually given as the major reason for his "popularity".) Newimpartial (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Most of those labels Loki used have a "core" definition that I'd agree is routinely objective, but in application in the media have very diffuse edge definitions that depend where the writer is coming from and the topic they are covering. Further, barring any self-identification, nearly all labels are based on assumptions from reviewing a person or groups' actions and words, which can mischaracterize a person/groups' intent (of course, we also have cases where the external characterization is more reflective of what most of the world considered that person/group compared to the false reality that the person/group might try to present). Fundamentally, the whole point of labels is that there is zero objective measure we can use to assess them, compared to objectively-sound statements like "The sky is blue" or "Trump is the 45h US President". The only way labels can become objective is through self-claims, or with the passage of time and their use from far-removed, dispassionate RSes (eg academic works years after events) and even here, we'd be careful. And like for any other subjective statement, it should be out of wikivoice and attributed, even if the subjective statement is backed by dozens of RSes. --Masem (t) 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What you are saying, particularly the passage of time ... and even then, out of Wikivoice and attributed is not actually what we do on WP (viz. "antisemitism" and the NAZI party) nor is it backed by policy; in fact, it seems to violate WP:NPOV and WP:DUE by requiring attribution for objective facts about which all RS agree.

On the other hand, perhaps we could start by carving out the cases where self-identification and RS characterization coincide as being non-"contentious" and excluded from LABEL. That would at least be a beginning. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

But this still comes down to what is subjective. Just because every major RS agrees on a subjective conclusion does not make it objective as it remains unprovable. It simply is a common subjective conclusion. We do this all the time in the other direction when the subjective aspect is positive - We don't say "Casablanca is one of the greatest films" but "...is considered one of the greatest films", for example. That's why it is important to recognize that NPOV's YESPOV' caution is not just about contentious statements (when we know there's other expressed doubt in RSes) but contestable statements - things that cannot be proven out objectively. Labels, without self-identification or without the dispassionate scholarly analysis that comes over time, are inherently contestable. --Masem (t) 20:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

But that just isn't the way WP operates. It is not "contestible" that flat earth theory is "pseudoscience", that the NAZI party is "antisemitic" or that Focus on the Family is a "Christian fundamentalist" organization. Those are simply objective social facts, and do not rely on the subjects' self-identification or the passage of time in order to be true - and all of these judgments, like those provided by Loki as examples, have already passed any necessary amount of time, anyway: they are all attested to by high-quality (usually academic) RS. They are simply not in the same category as "Casablanca was the best movie ever" or "Stalin was an evil man". Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We can prove scientifically that the earth is not flat, so flat-earth can readily be called pseudoscience in wikivoice. We've had academic study of the Nazi party for decades to be able to attribute "antiseminism" to it in wikivoice. I don't know enoug on Focus on the Family but looking around and on their site as well as how "fundamentalist" is taken, that's subjective label given the vagueness of the meaning of "fundamental Christian" can mean (and which they also deny from what I can see), so we should not be promoting that as an objective statement (but that's barring the lack of finding any academic studies on the group given the group's age. (FWIW, the sources on our page that is used to support this, a link to the FotF site, does not support this claim, and is likely violating OR as making an interpretion of that source to fit the "fundamental Christian" definition). It's when we have a reasonable number of academic sources that appear well after an topic's predominate period in the news and use those assessments to state labels as facts, as those studys have no immediate interest in events long since past. The problem we have is in current articles using the media which are not academic sources and are not writing to be dispassionate about the topic as academics. Just because the media RS may all coalesce around the same label doesn't mean it is factually true because there's no standard of analysis here as you'd have with a scientific process or standard of academic study; it just means it is a popular opinion and one likely to be included per UNDUE. We have to remember that the media represents only a small fraction of voices on the planet, and while we'll consider them expert sources, they are not Word of God here. --Masem (t) 21:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC).

Re: It's when we have a reasonable number of academic sources that appear well after an topic's predominate period in the news and use those assessments to state labels as facts, as those studys have no immediate interest in events long since past (emphasis added) - I understand that you strongly believe all of this, but it isn't backed up by WP policy, particularly the part I bolded. And "Christian fundamentalism" has been an object of (rather good) scholarship for 100 years now, so the idea that the meaning of the term is vague or that its application cannot be demonstrated scientifically - in the relevant sense of humanist scholarship - just demonstrates your profound mistrust and misunderstanding of how the analysis of social and historical reality is actually performed. There are in fact professional standards for the characterization of individuals and organizations in academic work (and, for that matter, in professional journalism) - you just don't agree with the standards in question. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: David Icke, just for one. The lead of his article states He claims that an inter-dimensional race of reptilian beings called the Archons (or Anunnaki) have hijacked the earth, and that a genetically modified human–Archon hybrid race of shape-shifting reptilians known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, the Illuminati, or the "elite", manipulate global events to help keep humans in constant fear, so the Archons can feed off the "negative energy" this creates. I have no doubt that is accurate, given the number of references. What other brief term could possibly describe those views? FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Best avoided" does not mean "must always be avoided." Additionally (and perhaps more importantly) there is reasonable disagreement among editors as to what is "contentious" or "value-laden". When reliable sources universally describe an article's subject as a neo-nazi in a dispassionate tone, we naturally have to reflect that; in that case it is a simple objective statement of academic fact and not a value-laden judgment. More generally, we should be extremely cautious of anyone trying to expand WP:LABEL too far outside its listed terms - the problem is that any descriptor can be characterized as "controversial" and value-laden. Someone could say eg. "some people loathe the Purple Party, so describing this person as a supporter of the Purple Party is a value-laden judgment and can't be done in the article text!" This has actually been the case when editors argued, absurdly, that we cannot describe people as socialists in the article voice even if it uncontroversially applies because the term has emotive significance to them. Similarly, people have argued that we cannot describe subjects as being far-left or far-right even in the most straightforward, academically uncontentious cases, because they personally have strong emotional associations with those words. That's not what WP:LABEL is for. The key point is that it focuses on loaded language, ie. words that are specifically intended to sway the reader through emotional arguments. If the words are used unemotionally in sources as objective fact, and we use them the same way, then they are not value-laden labels; WP:LABEL discourages unnecessarily emotive language, but (obviously) does not and cannot prohibit us from stating clearly-attested facts. In fact even if it flatly stated such it would have no force, since that would bring it into conflict with WP:NPOV, which states All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a core policy, so it is not appropriate to use WP:LABEL to argue that a significant view can be downplayed or omitted simply because it involves terminology that an editor finds emotionally objectionable. --Aquillion (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Most of this I agree with, but I have two objections:

• First of all, yes, technically "best avoided" allows an out for exceptional cases. But it's not a very practical out. It doesn't give any details except the ones the rest of the sentence gives, and those details are, in my opinion, insufficient to cover the situations where a contentious label should be used.
• Second, by the current wording of the paragraph, describing someone as a "neo-Nazi", a "conspiracy theorist", or a "terrorist", or an organization as a "cult" is always value-laden. The paragraph makes no reference to sourcing or context except to say that with widespread sourcing we might be able to include a label with attribution. This is why people have made those silly arguments: by the current wording of MOS:LABEL, they're right, which is why I want to change MOS:LABEL.

As for the rest, I agree that overall current policy supports the exceptions I listed above. The problem with just saying that is that adding a contentious label to a page, no matter how well-sourced, is currently a headache because, as you note, several people will jump in with MOS:LABEL as it currently reads, prompting a large argument about MOS:LABEL vs WP:NPOV. That WP:NPOV should and usually does win these arguments does not make them productive or useful. Loki (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• No change needed. Many of the examples given above are not value-laden in the sense the page is talking about. For example, calling Richard B. Spencer a neo-Nazi is not contentious or even inherently value-laden; it's just a fact. And so on with the rest of Loki's examples. (Maybe "fundamentalist" should be deleted as an example? I'm pretty sure this is used as a legitimate scholarly term like "pseudoscience".) The purpose of this guideline is so articles on certain people don't turn into unencyclopedically written attack pages; e.g., "X is a racist[1][2] and sexist[3][4]" where sources 1-4 are crappy opinion pieces and tabloid/clickbait media. Editors who hate X would claim that those sources and the lack of direct refutation by other sources (naturally, since they're crap) means that we just have to use those terms in WP:WIKIVOICE. We don't need to help tendentious editors. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  "Neo-Nazi" is not value laden but "anti-transgender activism" is obviously value laden? That seems...inconsistent. Newimpartial (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Its unfortunate that you don't see the difference. If you espouse agreement with the Nazi agenda, then you are a neo-Nazi. It's just a fact. Likewise, if you said you are a follower of Any Rand's Objectivism philosophy, that would make you an Objectivist (even if you didn't like being called that). But the argument "is an anti-transgender activist" is entirely value-laden and most often confused (ignoring various positional nuances), being a subjective assessment of someone's statements/writings and how well they align with a particular, currently popular approach to transgender civil-rights questions. If you actually read the materials in question, you'll often find that the supposedly "anti-trans" materials are in fact pro-trans and pro-LGBTQ+ in general, but are concerned about about tensions with LGBTQ+, and especially certain legal definitional problems. One example: defining "gender" or "gender identity" or "gender expression" or etc. as part of "sex" or "sexual identity" or whatever, rather than alongside sex as a separate protected class. There are concerns that this definitional confusion, by dunderheaded legislators who don't really know what they're talking about, may in subtle ways undermine the civil rights of the L and G in LGBTQ+. And this is just one such discussion. But most everyone from the core of the American 4th-wave transfeminism perspective ignores all such debate distinctions, and just slathers everything and everyone with "anti-trans" or "TERF" or "transphobe" labeling any time even one of the subject's views on one of these dozen+ issues isn't aligned with that activism viewpoint, because the activists either don't understand the nuances or find some threat in them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I am fascinated at your insistence that those who actually read the [anti-trans activist] materials in question - as if I don't - come to the conclusion that the label "anti-trans activism" is confused in its application because these writers in fact are concerned about about tensions with LGBTQ+, and especially certain legal definitional problems but that they are in reality pro-trans, and it is activists from the core of American 4th-wave transfeminism who either don't understand the nuances or find some threat in them. Bollocks; utter bollocks.

  I live in Canada, and within my jurisdiction Meghan Murphy is the most prominent representative of the perspectives many would call "anti-trans". For all her eloquence, none of her work - with which I am quite familiar - carries any of the nuance that I am supposed to be missing in this account. Murphy simply opposes legal protections for trans people based on trumped-up, spurious grounds. And in my experience it is transfeminists and 4th-wave feminists, not anti-trans activists, who understand the nuances related to simultaneous protection of rights based on sex assignment, gender, gender identity and sexual identity. To me, "anti-trans activism" looks a lot easier to define objectively than "Neo-Nazi" identity, in a contemporary context. Newimpartial (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  This cuts at something I mentioned above, which is that an editor's sense of value-laden depends on their own biases and preconceptions. It's why the important thing is to look at how high-quality reliable non-opinion sources (especially ones that can generally be trusted to use neutral language) refer to things - we always go by the sources; an editor's gut feeling or personal opinion that something is value-laden has no weight and should never matter for content decisions. WP:LABEL absolutely cannot be used to override the sources in that case. WP:NPOV would prevent this in any case, but I have sometimes seen a few people try to cite LABEL as an argument to disregard the plain consensus of sources. Often, as I note above, this argument is coupled with an argument that the sources are wrong or that the way they currently cover things is in some way flawed and must be corrected - in that context this argument amounts to trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, ie. no matter how strenuously an editor feels that someone should not be called a white supremacist or a socialist or whatever else they find objectionable, if they are universally referred to as such in reliable sourcing, and there is a plain consensus among the highest quality reliable sources that they can be referred to as such in a neutral, factually-accurate tone, then it is inappropriate to try and use Wikipedia as a place to "correct the record", so to speak. We follow, we don't lead. --Aquillion (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  On the other hand, while we're speaking of personal experience, I have seen editors try to affix labels in wikivoice even though the sources for those labels are rather few and poor; e.g., outlets that mix news and opinion. Said editors then waste time arguing tendentiously and accuse others of having the bias instead. Basically, WP:SOAPBOX/WP:TRUTH behavior. The guideline shouldn't aid that. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but the policies covering that are WP:RSOPINION (and WP:RS more broadly), WP:DUE, WP:BIASED, and so on - obviously care has to be taken when using biased or opinionated sources, and especially when using them to cite things in wikivoice. But some people, by my reading, are arguing that we cannot use such terms even when the sourcing is strong, or are pushing for an interpretation where the strength of sourcing has no relevance compared to an editor's determination that a term is "value-laden" (and, implicitly, that the sources shouldn't have used it regardless of their quality and number - some of the arguments in previous discussions have overtly argued from this perspective.) Obviously editors are sometimes going to disagree on WP:DUE and whether a source is WP:BIASED or the like, and sometimes even whether something qualifies as WP:RSOPINION, but those at least ground the dispute in some sort of reference to the sources. What I object to is interpretations of WP:LABEL that allow people to ignore sourcing, or to directly override terms widely used in high-quality sources based on their own personal opinion that it is value-laden and therefore should not be used. --Aquillion (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've responded to this claim a couple times elsewhere, but: even though that's apparently a common interpretation of MOS:LABEL, it's not actually what it says. The text of MOS:LABEL refers to certain words or phrases a priori and doesn't make any exception for context or sourcing. According to MOS:LABEL as currently written, "neo-Nazi" is always a value-laden label no matter how strong the sourcing is or who it's describing. Loki (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• No need to change MOS. Just because articles are doing this doesn't mean it makes for better articles. It also doesn't mean we should change the MOS to reflect what editors are doing. Heck, the MOS probably says we shouldn't mispell (!) words but that doesn't stop meothers! Masem linked to a long VP discussion related to this topic. There wasn't a consensus to change things but in part that was because it's not clear what MOS/policy/guideline changes would improve things. Springee (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• No need to change MOS. I'm reminded of the talk page thread In-text attribution, I think there have been others. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• No change. Loki doesn't appear to be properly parsing the material, concluding "there is no option to use a contentious label in Wikivoice" and wanting to use such "especially when they are 'widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject'", but this is already exactly what the guideline says to do: "Value-laden labels&nbsp... are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject". And, yes, they should include attribution. It's just not necessary to use attribution at every single instance if attribution is already provided in the article, and indy RS are overwhelmingly of the same opinion on it. See also WP:TRUTH and WP:DUE. The most common error being made in this area is quoting advocacy organization A badmouthing the opposite-advocacy organization B (e.g. "has been labeled a 'white nationalism and supremacy hate group' by the Southern Poverty Law Center") and then proceeding to use all or part of that biased description in WP's own voice. That is not proper. If F-loads of secondary sources like major national newspapers, government agencies, etc., etc., all come to this conclusion, then it is a safer bet. It is not a safe bet if the labeling is just from a group or two of the subject's ideological opponents. However, WP:ABOUTSELF is generally also applicable: if the org's own materials clearly state a white-nationalist agenda and racial superiority claims, then the combination of their own primary source material and that of critics and some news is likely enough for something like "is a white-nationalist and white-supremacist organization" in WP's own voice in the lead; just make sure these claims are sourced and attributed in detail in the article body. It's really no different from how we approach fringe matters; if all the science worth reading says it's pseudo-science, so do we, and we give high-profile examples of such declarations from major science sources. But if it's an ongoing scientific controversy without an overwhelming real-world consensus that it's bunk, then we lay out a more neutral analysis. As with exactly how to write up a science claim, how to write about a new or low-profile organization will usually become clearer over time as more source material (and more analytical, secondary source material) emerges.

  Be, however, very suspicious if someone wants to apply negative labels like this in an article that touches in any way on gender-identity politics. It's been my direct experience that the entire range of viewpoints (which are quite nuanced, and do not form a left–right or other dipole pair of extremes, but a much more complex range of ideas, often in conflict within the left) gets compressed to just "pro-TERF" or "anti-trans" by trans-rights activists any time even a single agenda element doesn't match their viewpoint. Doing that is WP:POV-pushing and WP:SOAPBOXing, as well as WP:OR of the worst sort (warping interpretation of source material to claim it says something it does not). I bring this up because approx. 2/3 of the respondents here so far are embroiled in an ongoing ARBCOM case involving this stuff. This looks very much like an attempt to do an end-run around rules that several persons involved in the case are apt to find used to restrain their behavior.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention the way trans-rights activists gets used as a label for people who hold or sympathize with various trans-positive views that others object to. Let us indeed not use such controversial labels (in article space or Talk space), as it certainly is WP:POV-pushing and WP:SOAPBOXing, as well as WP:OR of the worst sort. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that there is a second clause of that sentence you claim I am not properly parsing: Value-laden labels are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution (emphasis mine). I agree that being consistently described a certain way in unreliable sources is not enough for a WP:LABEL, but thankfully the guideline and Wikipedia's overall verification policy already covers that. (As for your second paragraph, I would like to, as politely as possible, request that you get off your own WP:SOAPBOX and focus on the issue at hand here.) Loki (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Object to the Framing - I disagree fundamentally with Loki's framing of this question, as it confuses whether a label is "contentious" as in RS disagree that it applies, or whether it simply identifies the subject as taking one side of a contentious dispute. I don't think MOS:LABEL was ever intended to cover the second case, where the applicability of the label is undisputed; certainly the examples given in the current text of LABEL all seem to fit better with the former interpretation.
• As an aside, I would also suggest that "conspiracy theorist" should be placed within the same carve-out as "pseudoscience", as the same principles apply. Nobody describes themselves as a conspiracy theorist, but that shouldn't stop the encyclopaedia from identifying them as such based on the undisputed consensus of RS/reality. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To a point, I agree with this if the person spouts many different theories. If they put out one theory and maybe not even stick to that hard, labeling them a "conspiracy theorist" is perhaps far too strong a term, even if a few sources use the term. I do object, however, to when "conspiracy theorist" is placed with high weight alongside careers as in Marjorie Taylor Greene presently: "Marjorie Taylor Greene (née Taylor; born May 27, 1974) is an American politician and conspiracy theorist..." (as you don't earn money for being one) but this is a more a tone/impartial wording issue and less about the label factor. --Masem (t) 21:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The current wording of MOS:LABEL strongly implies that it covers certain phrases regardless of context. So for example, it also refers to contentious labels as value-laden labels, and gives the examples of such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion. It doesn't say anything about the organization, individual, or sexual practice, implying that those are all value-laden or contentious labels regardless of the details of the situation. Loki (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

But cult, terrorist, freedom fighter and perversion are all terms based in subjective validation, and have no objective criteria to determine whether they apply. Terrorist/freedom fighter is the classic example of this, because during the Cold War which organizations one labelled "terrorists" and which were "freedom fighters" was completely dependent on one's ideological commitments, so that one side's "terrorists" were the other side's "freedom fighters", and vice versa. "Sexist" and "racist" are more complicated cases, but there are clearly no generally-agreed or "objective" criteria as to who is to be considered "sexist" or "racist" on an individual level, though the broader speech community has "blatant sexism" or "overt racism" to cover the truly obvious cases.

In any event, all of these terms are different from "pseudoscience", and "conspiracy theory", and I would argue also such political labels as "anti-Jewish", "antifemimist" and "anti-gay"/"anti-trans", where objective criteria can be applied and those objecting to the categorization are only objecting to its stigma. For example, Carl Benjamin doesn't argue that he is pro-feminist or feminism-agnostic but, rather, that feminists really are to blame. Labels from this family - where BLP subjects object to the label only as part of their support for the POV that reliable sources identity using that label - should not be considered "contentious" at all, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• No change. I agree with Crossroads. ("Christian fundamentalism" is a legitimate, neutral term for a particular kind of Protestantism; "fundamentalist" becomes a value-laden label when used as a synonym for "dogmatic and anti-intellectual".) There are certain characterisations (like "X is a false religion") that should never appear in Wikipedia's voice, no matter how often they show up in reliable sources. (Recall that reliable sources are not required to be neutral.) Cheers, gnu57 19:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"official"

I'm not sure what section this word belongs in, but it always strikes me as rather amateurish and unencyclopedic. It has elements of puffery, unsupported attribution and unspecified places or events. I'm thinking of phrases like "the United Kingdom officially adopted the metric system", "Sir Robert Walpole was the first official Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", "Pluto is officially no longer a planet" etc. Who are the "officials" who "officially" make these declarations? I think the word should be mentioned under one of these sections. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of those cases are appropriate; some are not:

• "officially adopted the metric system" -- implies that it was sometimes used before, but that this was codified in law or regulations. "Officially" seems OK here, though something like "the UK codified the usage of the metric system in 19XX" would be better.
• "the first official Prime Minister of the UK" -- I think what this is trying to say is that the post did not exist previously, which makes the word "officially" redundant.
• "Pluto is no longer officially a planet" -- Depending on the context, would be better to say explicitly something like "Since 2006, Pluto has not satisfied the IAU's definition of a planet".

More:

• "The PRC officially recognizes 55 ethnic minority groups" -- seems fine, assuming that the notion of "recognizing" has been defined.
• "Saudi Arabia, officially the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" -- seems fine
• Treaty of San Francisco uses "officially" multiple times in various unclear ways; I have edited it to improve it

So I guess I agree that "official" is a "word to watch", in the sense that the claim can usually be made more explicit and clear with other language. --Macrakis (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to add that these points here are very similar and relevant to the points below on "conspiracy theory" as a value-laden contentious label. I agree with MaxBrowne2 that using "official" can indeed be constitute puffery, and can be used as a rhetoric trick to make something seen as the only correct and acceptable thing. There are situations where we can use the word fairly, for an example, when writing about the (official) mottos or anthems for countries. I think it would be the right thing to add "official" to the list of words to watch, with a few notes on acceptable usage. Lukan27 (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

"Commit" suicide

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is the word commit neutral? If not, should the term "commit suicide" be disallowed for violating NPOV? This question is carried over from the wider discussion at the RfC on the same topic at the Village pump, and Talk:Robin Williams#"Committed suicide" vs. "Died by suicide". While there are many agencies and professional organizations which recommend against the term,[2] I believe we should start by evaluating its definition.

Definitions of commit

• American Heritage Dictionary [3]
• Lexico [4]
• Merriam-Webster [5]
• Chambers [6]
• Dictionary.com [7]

Definitions of commit suicide

• Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary [8]

Dictionary usage notes

• Dictionary.com, "suicide" [9]
• American Heritage Dictionary (interview), "commit suicide", etc. [10]

Lexicographers

• American Dialect Society 2017 words of the year: die by suicide [11]

Feel free to add other dictionaries. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please consider the above post a detailed invitation to participate at the RfC. I would appreciate input at WP:VPP#"Commit suicide" as an idiom. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is a value-laden contentious label

We need a thorough discussion on using the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist". Wikipedia should be a place for fair, unbiased and objective information to the extend (practically) possible. This goes for the language used too. The label "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" are widely used (in the west) as a rhetoric trick to frame "the others" as unreliable, dubious and untrustworthy. If we want Wikipedia to be a fair place for reliable wide-ranging information we need to start avoiding labels and framing that are actively used to disparage others. "Conspiracy theory" is extremely similar to the contentious words "heretic" and "controversial" which we advise against. While the words and terms to avoid are not limited to the ones on the list, there is still widespread uncritical and sinister use of "conspiracy theory" and its variants here on Wikipedia, and it has become quite worse lately. "Conspiracy theory" is pretty much as unfair as it gets, and using it like it is used now does not make Wikipedia better. Lukan27 (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Points of discussion (discuss the specific points under each respective point, not straying off)

• What is Wikipedia trying to say when using the term? What do we want "conspiracy theory" to mean when we use it in general?
• The term is too vague.

"[the paper analyses] the epistemological effects of designating particular questions and explanations as a ‘conspiracy theory’. It is demonstrated how such a designation relegates these questions and explanations beyond the realm of meaningful discourse.", emphesis added, Theory, Culture & Society, Sage Pub., source. Lukan27 (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Replying in the middle of your own opening post is not really WP:TPG, but since you have done so presumably this is also where to answer my reply to your addendum. You have just inserted a reference to a Luhmannian theorist of gambling who wrote a paper on Wittgenstein and Conspiracy Theory discourse. If you don't have better sources, that is looking pretty FRINGE, yo. Newimpartial (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's an ad hominem fallacy and has no relevance to the discussion at hand. Sage Publications/Journals is an extremely well-respected and highly used source for all subjects scientific and scholarly. Lukan27 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Pointing out when academics have published work outside their field is not ad hominem fallacy. Not all peer review is created equal, and not all published scholarship is of equal credibility. Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You're basically saying that "they made research about something else, thus they're not qualified for this, thus this paper is bad". Plus, it's only Bjerg who has written about gambling theory. Further, when researchers publish something in an area, that inevitably makes that field one of their fields of expertise, at the very least in some sense. But Presskorn-Thygesen and Bjerg have a PhD in Sociology and Philosophy, respectively. Obviously it's well within their area of expertise. Not all peer-reviews are equally good indeed, but you don't point out why this particular review is insufficient, besides the already-mentioned fallacy. Lukan27 (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A single peer-reviewed publication does not make anyone an expert in a particular field. Bjerg, as I say, seems to be the Luhmannian expert in gambling theory, while as far as I can tell the second author is a philosopher-dilettante. Neither author seems to be knowledgeable about conspiracy theory, or about political discourse in general (and indeed, this is an example of a topic area that attracts a lot of non-expert commentary by academics writing outside of their specialization). Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that they were "experts" in the field. I said that they given their education, choice of publishing in that field of research, and succesfully become published by an extremely well-respected academic publisher, that makes that field one of their fields of expertise, at the very least in some sense. I generally find your argumentation here to be attempts to avoid fair and reasonable discussion. I will post more sources, but I will ask of you to have patience. Lukan27 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lukan27: Please do not throw fallacy-links around to refute arguments. Both of you have valid points, a discussion does not have to have just one side arguing "correctly". I have managed to get access to that article and tried to read through it, though I must admit I didn't manage to follow it completely. Lukan27, I agree with you that this is a scientific article and Sage a reputable publisher; so there indeed is academic criticism of the term "conspiracy theory". However, I also agree with Newimpartial that this paper is not particularly great at proving your point: As much as I admire Wittgenstein as a philosopher, I do not believe most people are familiar with his theories. And this paper discusses terms in a very specific matter, in a way that is hard for me to follow. (The paper draws a connection between terrorism and conspiracy theories?) In the end, it's just a single paper, which does not prove to me that "conspiracy theory" is indeed as vague as these authors suggest. --LordPeterII (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• The term is too value-laden for general use.
• General use of the term gives the impression of a false balance/weight.
• The term is a rhetorical/dialectical maneuver.

The term can be understood in (at least) two ways, that is, neutrally "the theory/postulation that two or more people are conspiring" and pejoratively "a rediculous stupid idea that deserves no attention". Proponents of using this term may use/abuse this ambiguity on purpose, so when readers open up a (relevant) article on Wikipedia they understand the labelling in the pejorative sense, and the proponents know this, but when the editors/proponents argue for using the term they argue that it's merely being used in the neutral sense. Lukan27 (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"Struggles over [conspiracy theory attributions] can be analysed in terms of the tactics that powerful perpetrators use to reduce outrage over injustice: cover-up, devaluation, reinterpretation, official channels, and intimidation/rewards.", Social epistemology, Taylor Francis, source. Lukan27 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That is an interesting piece, but what the author is actually doing is responding to the reception of the dissertation of one of his Doctoral students (Judith Wilyman) which was labelled in the media as promoting vaccine conspiracy theories. There is nothing in the piece that suggests that conspiracy theory attributions are not susceptible to being evaluated based on evidence. In fact, in the case with which the article is most concerned, Wikipedia does not use a conspiracy theory attribution in wikivoice; rather, the WP article mentions the controversy with attribution (The thesis came under heavy criticism from multiple directions, including medical professionals, due to claims within the thesis, including advancing a conspiracy theory). The obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that some conspiracy theory attributions are verifiable and essentially undisputed while others are more contentious: in the latter case, but not the former, attribution is appropriate. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Free-flow discussion (as-it-goes discussion)

We don't want to misinform readers by avoiding language that would properly contextualize a given explanation as unreliable or fringe. So we shouldn't avoid using the unqualified term, but we should have good justification for when we do so.

I agree that we should strive for proper contextualization. But I contest that using "conspiracy theory" in general like Wikipedia actually gives the proper context. Actually, it gives the wrong impression/context almost always. Lukan27 (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a case where you believe the term is misused? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Some specific cases come to mind, but it's a core issue and a general problem on Wikipedia, which is why I started this section. I would humbly prefer to keep this as far away as possible from (discussion of) specific pages, although specific use-case examples are obviously unavoidable. Lukan27 (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree that "conspiracy theory" is a WP:LABEL. On the other hand, like "pseudoscience", it's a LABEL that if we were to stop using it, it would invite WP:FALSEBALANCE issues all over. I think that the current guidance that says to only use contentious labels when reliable sources consistently use them strikes a good balance. Loki (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

We must definitely avoid false balance. We should never make anything look like it's, say, 50-50, when it's actually, say, 99-1. That much is clear. But inversely, labelling something as a "conspiracy theory" actually falsely gives the impression that it's, say, 99-1, instead of, say, 60-40, or whatever. Further, pseudoscience is without a doubt a much more precise and substantial concept than "conspiracy theory". The term is extemely vague, and that alone is/should be sufficient reason to avoid it, or to use it with severe consideration. Lukan27 (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There are a handful of labels like "conspiracy theorist", "climate change skeptic/denier", "flat-earther" and some others which are definitely labels, but less "value-laden" compared to things like "racist", "white supremacist" etc. because it is easier for RS to judge these by their statements directly, and thus compared to the other value-laden labels, as long as there's reasonable agreement on the RSes for the use of these terms, I see no issue with Wikivoice saying these factually. HOWEVER they must be considered still as characterizations and not neutral objective aspects of a person, and should absolutely not be in the lede sentence of a person's BLP, which is where these tend to end up being used. (The case in point I'm guessing this is coming from Marjorie Taylor Greene. A "conspiracy theorist" is not a career path compared things like politican or businessperson, and that's false equivalency to try to group it with those terms. But this is not to say that in the case of Greene that "conspiracy theorist" should be avoided in the lede, just not the lede sentence, as her ties to QAnon and other conspiracy theory groups is well documented and part of why she is notable more than just being a US Rep. It just not appropriate per BLP or NPOV to identify that term or any of these similar labels that I mention as early in the first sentence regardless of how much they apply to the person. --Masem (t) 15:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

On the question of Greene, I wonder whether editors would feel like she was less 'labeled' if the article began with something like "Greene is an American politician and businesswoman who is notable for espousing conspiracy theories while serving as a US Representative". This provides a bit of the bad person/bad action distinction that parenting manuals have been so fond of for the last half-century, and it's not technically "a label". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"A "conspiracy theorist" is not a career path" -- it's very much her career path, just as with such people as Alex Jones. MTG hasn't been a businesswoman for a decade, and she became a US Representative largely in response to the conspiracy theories she believes in. If RS describe someone primarily in terms of being a conspiracy theorist, it's not up to editors to overrule them. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are used by RS to describe a specific kind of behavior and declaeration. Note that "false balance would be "if 3 sources say it, 3 don't and none dispute it, its a consensus". No, if RS disputes its true its a false balance to say it is true, there are however many reasons why an RS does not say it, its does not reman they are saying it not true. What we must not do is ignore or whitewash outright falsehoods. If people do not want to be labeled "conspiracy theorist" by RS do not publicly pedal "conspiracy theories", its as simple as that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are also used by unreliable sources. The problem here is that what you and misc. sources call "conspiracy theory" is just your (biased) viewpoint. Labelling something "conspiracy theory" doesn't make it a "conspiracy theory" or ludicrous. And I would also argue that sources labelling people left and right as "conspiracy theorists" actually makes those sources in those specific cases unreliable. Lukan27 (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• One of the things with "conspiracy theorist" (and nearly every label) when it comes to how we use them in our articles is trying to make sure that when these labels are being called out by RSes, that we are only cherry picking a few cases and then claiming it represents a whole, which unfortunately I see happen far too much. It would be inappropriate to highlight a person as a conspiracy theorist if only the New York Times used that label about that person and no other source at all (though this would be an unlike scenario). On the other hand, if out of 100 or so recent articles that are providing significant coverage of the person across the range of RSes we have, and at least 25 of them use "conspiracy theorist", that's probably a good reason to use that; if its less, then you probably have to be walking with careful attribution around the label and it should not be a highlighted "feature" of that person in discussing them. I've discussed the idea that editors should really engage in these type of source survey on talk pages to be able to document when a label applies and be able to point to that survey when the label is put into doubt by new editors/IPs that might complain. --Masem (t) 14:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem with this approach is "how many" is enough? Moreover, how do we "attribute" 10 sources? I would agree, it is it only one or two RS (or a lot of fringe or weak sources) we should attribute, but if it is (to my mind) a case of "five out of 10 sources on a google news search" say it, so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The idea is that if you are able to show a significant number of different sources routinely agree with the label (eg the 25% metric I suggest), named attribution in the body should not be required as long as the immediate followup in prose explains why that label applies, and that one attached 2-4 highest quality sources otherwise not used to the statement with the label; in the lede, then, assuming this is done in the body, you simply need to reassert the 2-4 sources. If that 25% is not met, then you likely need to be specific on attributing sources.
    • Further, the size of this survey is important. If you can only find 10 sources about a BLP, and even if 9 of the 10 use the label, that's probably still caution to use named attribution and not the generalization I suggest, as 10 sources is far from vast coverage. If that survey was 100 sources, then that's a bit better sampling and clearly didn't exhaust the possible pool of sources for the topic at hand, that would be better to justify the generaliztion approach if the label was routinely used by those sources. --Masem (t) 14:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
      • • If its enough sources to establish notability its enough sources to establish they are not able for this. A person is notable for what they are notable for, and if that is being a "conspiracy theorist" then we note that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Oh, I'm not saying that having only a few sources total doesn't prevent you from saying a label, just the line between where it should be treated with clear attribution, and with the type of broader generalization. If you can only find 10 RSes about a person but have clear significant coverage to meet GNG/NBIO, and all ten discuss the person with respect to being a conspiracy theorist, I would still say that when identifying them as a conspiracy theorist, that you have to use named attribution as you don't have a critical mass of sources to know if this is generalized across enough RS voices, but you 100% have to include that label per WEIGHT. --Masem (t) 15:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Just a generalized concern here. One of the failings I see in many Wiki articles is the desire to apply labels or mention facts that appear in RS but not tell the reader why that information is significant. Even worse is when the context isn't explained but is presented in a way that could lead the reader to conclusion not supported by RS material. How does this improve our articles? Is the objective to provide readers with a full set of facts and understanding or is it to list the negative things others have said? For example, "Mr. Smith" is called a conspiracy theorist. Most examples are by sources that say, "Mr Smith, a conspiracy theorist, said X about the Governor's speech." So we say Mr Smith is often described as a conspiracy theorist. Doesn't that beg the question why? I would hope that before we decide such a negative thing has weight for inclusion that we also make sure the article has sufficient content to explain why a rational RS might use that label. In the best case we would have a RS tell us why Mr Smith is a CT. My related concern is when we have something like "Mr Smith met with [bad group]". OK. Is that because Mr Smith wants to join, wants to support or perhaps wants to discuss their concerns even if Mr Smith doesn't agree. Basically when we present some fact it should be clear why it's significant in the bigger picture and should never be introduced in a way that could lead a reader to a false conclusion. Springee (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
            • I agree. We should present the facts and sources in our work to the best of our abilities, and help readers make their own informed opinions instead of telling or hinting what they should think. And it is without a doubt more precise, and in most cases much more fair, to state that sources describe Smith as a "conspiracy theorist" instead of just going with how some generally reliable sources label Smith. Lukan27 (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
            • I question the utility of such labels, in that they have the potential to be cynically misapplied for nefarious purposes. "Disseminator of unproven allegations", or similar, while it could become a label over time, is a phrase with fairly clear semantic content, which may be parsed with respect to the behavior of an individual, thus avoiding the risky slickness of a label. I fear that numerical definitions of "conspiracy theorist" carry the risk of being cynically manipulated. Take the example of Cary Mullis and his beliefs about AIDS and HIV. Why tote up what RSes have said, when, clearly, he has disseminated unproven allegations?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
              • I can only agree. Saying "conspiracy theory/theorists" as it is normally understood is dubious to say the least, involving Vagueness, straw fallacy, ad hominem including guilt by association, begging the question, cognitive bias, media manipulation and red herring just to name a few. The typical semantic understanding of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" are nothing but rife with fallacies, bias and rhetoric/dialectical manipulation. Lukan27 (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
                • You are lucky that you specified near your opening of this discussion I would humbly prefer to keep this as far away as possible from (discussion of) specific pages; otherwise you would be expected to provide evidence that *any* of the wikilinked but unsourced claims you just made are in some way related to actual Wikipedia articles. Since you have not offered any evidence, though. we should presumably interpret your typical semantical understanding of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" as a pure straw man, and therefore ignore your intervention here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
                  • Lukan27 has been banned from discussing post-1992 American politics (due to contentious editing and repeated attacks on editors' good faith around this very issue) so that disclaimer is understandable and we should not encourage him/her to violate the ban. You can check for yourself though that the article that was their focus that resulted in the ban does not have the problems that Lukan27 is calling out. I'm afraid this whole page is a waste of a lot of peoples' time, a consequence of several SPA ideologues claiming that it's biased to call a certain person a conspiracy theorist despite numerous reliable sources describing her as such. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
              • It's not only a label but a description and the above would be true about any claim made in a WP:BLP that is unsupported by acceptable sources, "conspiracy theorist" is no exception or special case. —PaleoNeonate – 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Conspiracy theory" is an established concept in high quality sources (e.g. academic textbooks[12]). If Wikipedia abandoned it it would put us of-of-sync with the kind of respectable serious sources we (should) aspire to. "Conspiracy theorist" is potentially a bit more problematic, especially in view of the need to respect WP:BLP. But, on the other hand, when high-quality sources describe an individual as such, Wikipedia needs to follow out of respect for WP:NPOV, which is not negotiable. If we stopped calling David Icke one for instance, we'd be failing in that duty of neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Certainly the label applies on Icke's article, but as I mention above, giving "conspiracy theorist" the same weight of lede importance as his actual objective careers, and the subsequent weight of calling out his conspiracy theories in the lede, is absolutely not neutral per our policies. No one has a career as a conspiracy theorist. Icke should be mentioned as a former footballer and broadcaster, and then introduced, in a new sentence after that as a conspiracy theorist given that this is significant to his notability; it just cannot be the lede since there are other things he was noted for from a more objective standpoint. --Masem (t) 18:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    • With respect, that's bollocks. Icke's fame in RS derives almost entirely from his "career" (yes) as a conspiracy theorist. His early life as a minor footballer/sports reporter is of negligible interest to RS. Your proposal would be a howling violation of NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
      • But there is no such thing as an objective career in "conspiracy theroist", its why its a label. You can say to lede off "David Icke is a writer and lecturer, and a former footballer and sports reporter. As a writer and lecturer, Icke has engaged in promoting conspiracy theories...." or something like that. There is no policy that requires ordering the lede elements in terms of notability (outside of making sure the lede ultimately captures why someone is notable) but there is policy per both BLP and NPOV that articles must be written in an impartial tone and dispassionately. This would require destressing the conspiracy theorist aspects (which I agree are what he is most notable for) until after what we can objectively state about him. Leding off with the conspiracy theorist term before anything else - given that this is not the extent of what he is known for - gives the article the appearance of an attack piece on him. There are ways to still keep the lede focused on stressing that he is a conspiracy theorist without the tone the article currently establishes. --Masem (t) 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
        • But we can state objectively, and based on reliable sources, that Icke has only a questionable claim to be the child of the godhead, but that he is unquestionably a conspiracy theorist. Literally no reliable sourced dispute this, and consensus reality affirms it very clearly. Destressing observations that are objectively true and well-sourced is an immense failure of NPOV IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
          • Agreed, we don't have to take "conspiracy theorist" out of Wikivoice for the case of Icke in this case because of the overwhelming coverage for that, per what I agree with above (as long as the body is explaining in full why this label applies w/ sources). It's just the ordering and wording of the lede, putting a judgement-weighted term ahead of non-judgmental career facets, sets a very negative tone, even if the term fully applies. Switching things around loses no information but reduces the tone from accusation to informative which is where we are supposed to be writing these articles. --Masem (t) 19:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
            • I just don't regard "conspiracy theorist" as a "controversial" term in the sense of WP:LABEL - it has a clearly-defined meaning and is rather well-documented in its application to particular cases. In the cases where it is appropriately used, the only sources objecting to it represent those who believe in the conspiracy theory, so it would be FALSEBALANCE to destress the term, except in cases where it is tangential to the subject's Notability. This is certainly not the case with Icke. Of course, if the reptilian Anunnaki reveal themselves and reliable sources confirm this, we will then need to rewrite a few articles, but that is a small price to pay for accuracy in the present IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
              • You may not see it as controversial, but the fact its listed among LABEL says we should consider it to be one. How many people claim to be self-identified conspiracy theorists? Pretty much no one. I do agree that we can designate it as a non-value-laden label similar to "climate change denier" or "flat earther", meaning that with sufficient sourcing, it can be said in Wikivoice without attribution in ledes as long as that claim is backed up in the body. But these are still terms that pass judgement on a person, and should not be the first things we are saying in their ledes. The only time this should be the case if this is absolutely the only notable thing that person is known for throughout their life, as the case typically with many criminals in prison on murder convictions or the like. We have to write neutrally and dispassionately, and throwing judgmental terms out the door as the first things said about a person is not neutral nor dispassionate. We should still strive introduce the term early enough as to not bury the lede to speak, given the weight of importance to Icke's article here, but laying it out after some rudimental objective statement , one consistent with nearly every other bio on WP, keeps the article far more neutral in line with BLP and NPOV. --Masem (t) 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
              • Eh? It's not listed anywhere. The person who created this section apparently wants it so listed; that's what the discussion is about.

Self-identification is irrelevant--e.g., few people self-identify by the crimes they commit but that may still be the primary reason for their notability. The article that prompted the person who started this section to do so is about someone for whom being a conspiracy theorist is a major claim to fame--she would be a minor and insignificant freshman member of the U.S. House of Representatives if she weren't also a conspiracy theorist. Before winning election, she was a conspiracy theorist prominent for the fact that she was likely to win election; that's the source of her notability. It should be one of the first things said in the lede because it's one of the first things said by reliable sources. This whole section is just an attempt to hobble reports of reality. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • You say "it has a clearly-defined meaning". I can only disagree severely. Could you maybe point out what this clearly-defined meaning would be? Lukan27 (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
                • The plain, lexicographic meaning of "conspiracy theorist" is "person who believes in a conspiracy theory". Newimpartial (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
                  • And "conspiracy theory"? Lukan27 (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, lexicographically, a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event. There seems to me to be some confusion about "covert but influential" - the belief that software companies, who are not in themselves covert, are responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic is still a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, as software companies are "hidden forces" in relation to biological pathogens, their influence is still "covert" in relation to the phenomenon being explained by the CT. Newimpartial (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Per Alexbrn, when we have multiple high quality academic sources describing a person as a conspiracy theorist with in depth analysis of their theories, NPOV requires us to include this description in the lead. Examples are folks like David Icke, Milton William Cooper, Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist), Alex Jones, James H. Fetzer, etc. I think a problem arises when something like "Senator X promoted a debunked conspiracy theory" appears in reliable news and commentary sources. In this case, the person is typically not primarily notable as a conspiracy theorist, so describing them as such in the lead isn't appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  LuckyLouie, I'm not sure about the Senator X point; at some stage there's a threshold where Lieutenant-General Y ends up being such a notable proponent of the delusion that it would be wrong not to label them as such in the lead, nay, in the lead sentence. GPinkerton (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  And in this particular case, that prompted the above, the lead has: "She has voiced support for conspiracy theories including Pizzagate,[4] QAnon,[5] false flag shootings as a means for Congress to legislate for gun control,[6][7] 9/11 conspiracy theories,[8] and the "Clinton Kill List".[6]", that and supporting sources appear enough to support the description... —PaleoNeonate – 19:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  If you're talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene, I agree, conspiracy theories is what she's primarily notable for in the majority of reliable sources. In fact, it's hard to find sources that don't describe her as a conspiracy theorist. Re my example, I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Ted Cruz, who isn't primarily notable for allegations of giving credibility to conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Please note that the editor who started this discussion did so with the specific purpose of supporting their effort to not label Marjorie Taylor Greene as a conspiracy theorist. They have tried multiple tactics, including claiming that the blog posts were by an imitator (MTG told people on her Facebook and Twitter pages to read her blog posts), that we only have evidence that she used to be a conspiracy theorist (the blog articles were in 2017 and 2018 and MTG has never repudiated them) that every source is left-leaning and biased against democrats (both left-leaning and right-leaning sources call her a conspiracy theorist) and now this. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  That's not true. It's correct that I've been engaged in M. Greene's talk page before I started this section. Consider this. But I didn't start this section just to escape closing or whatever of that talk page section or to forumshop. This has been a point of worry for me for a very long time, and I genuinely believe that this is a subject something everyone should join in on and discuss. Lukan27 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Lukan27: I am afraid this link to your diff only makes it worse: Are you actually campaigning since 2013 to remove content that is contrary to conspiracy theories? Now, I do not mind this discussion, and I believe you brought up a fair point. But the wording in the diff is quite problematic: Removing content that tries to "save" ("redde") the "official explanation" is basically content that WP:RS agree on. Sure articles should be NPOV, but in my opinion that specifically does NOT involve to include only supportive information - we have criticism sections in articles about companies, in articles about just about anything. Maybe I am misunderstanding your motivation there or the Danish Wikipedia has some different guidelines. But I am not convinced that a criticism section should be on its own page, so that a conspiracy theory (and "9/11 was an inside job" is a prime example of a conspiracy theory that WP:RS agree on) is presented just as a theory, without criticism. Again, I won't take this against you here, because the discussion here is a valid one. But it does not prove the point that you are neutral/impartial on the subject. --LordPeterII (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Note that Lukan27 is banned from discussing post-1992 American politics and their comment above mentioning Marjorie Taylor Greene's page is a violation. It's probably best to avoid engaging them here as it would be a provocation to further violations. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are fair descriptions. We can use them if and when WP:RS do. Often enough, omitting that characterization would amount to whitewashing. Above, these terms were argued to be less precise than "pseudoscience", but any subtlety or gray area with "conspiracy theory" will have its counterpart with "pseudoscience". (For example, an idea might start as legitimate but dodgy science and become pseudoscience over time as die-hards refuse to accept evidence piling up against it.) As to whether or not they are value-laden, well, if they express any preference it is for fact over fabrication, and it's hard to get all that steamed about that in an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Pseudoscience has a clear definition, but in my experience, some of the sources we cite are apparently unfamiliar with it. If someone says that the Moon is made of green cheese, that's not pseudoscience; it's just plain wrong, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition notwithstanding. It is, however, not difficult to find sources that claim all sorts of things are pseudoscience (e.g., economics), even if they do not claim to be any type of science at all (e.g., art history). It seems to get used as a term that means "stuff I don't believe in". I think we should avoid labels when the facts suggest that the source does not use them with precision. However, when the label is used with precision – when the pseudoscientific claim comes with a story about string theory causing the toxins to leave your body, or when the conspiracy theory claim names the specific conspiracy theory that the person promotes – then I have no concerns about using those labels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitions

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conspiracy-theorist

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory

Note these are very basic, but do give a clear defintion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote: MoS does not need to be changed

• "Conspiracy Theory" and "Conspiracy Theorist" are a strict enough parallel to "pseudoscience" that I would like to see them excluded from WP:LABEL in the same way that "pseudoscience" already has been. Similar to "pseudoscience", these are objectively accurate terms that the figures to whom they apply cannot accept, for their own (cognitively understandable) reasons. Newimpartial (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. These definitions are dictionary definitions and merely (try to) point out what some people mean when they say "conspiracy theory/theorist". Wikipedia/voice should make up it's very own mind what Wikipedia/voice means when it says "conspiracy theory/theorist" in general, and whether they want to partake in derogatory labelling or not. Wikivoice should definitely consider these dictionary definitions, but not blindly follow them nor blindly ignore them. Further, these dictionary definitions above are in the neutral sense, which would mean that theories like the official explanation of 9/11 would be called a "conspiracy theory", given that it's a theory about a handful of foreign conspirerers plotting against the US govt., etc., which would mean that official theories should be labelled as "conspiracy theories" as well. That alone is sufficient for rejection. But it's not the dictionary definitions we are discussing in this section in general. We're discussing the general and typical use of the label, which include (but is not limited to) the derogatory sense of the terms, and Wikipedia/voice's stance and use on/of it. Further, these dictionary definitions are quite useless when it comes to evaluating specific cases of (alleged) "conspiracy theories". Lukan27 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• The circular nature of your argumentation on this subject is impressive, not to mention the moving of goalposts. You literally asked what is meant by the term, and when provided with the standard definition, you reject it for being "useless in evaluating specific cases" (although this has been alleged rather than supported with any evidence). You presume that the term is used in a "derogatory sense", without showing evidence of this from RS (or anywhere), and without pointing to a single case where WP has "blindly" followed these supposedly misleading sources. You also raise the red herring of cases where actual events were caused by covert action, according to reliable sources, which are excluded from the "conspiracy theory" category because they are true. The moment an explanation is provided with convincing evidence that makes it part of consensus reality, it is no longer a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. They are clearly value laden as they are terms used to suggest claims made by the subject are not credible. Additionally, they are often applied with cynicism in sources. As an encyclopedia we really shouldn't be using tabloid type labels. Unlike pseudoscience these are labels that are (almost) always applied to people, not a theory. Springee (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) EDIT: In reply to LordPeterII's correct concern below, I'm clarifiying that I was thinking of "conspiracy theorist" since that is applied to people. I'm less concerned with "conspiracy theory" when applied to a thing since there are no BLP concerns. Springee (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just a question, what do you mean with "are (almost) always applied to people, not a theory"? Afaik they are applied first to theories, and only secondary to people who adhere to these theories. Has there ever been an example of a person being accused of being a "conspiracy theorist", without also giving a conspiracy theory which they follow? I have not heard of such a case - and which convinces me that the similarity with pseudoscience is quite striking. (That's solely about your second point, I can understand your concerns about tabloids.) --LordPeterII (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• You are correct, I was thinking of "conspiracy theorist" since that is how I often see this used. Conspiracy theory can still be problematic but it is rarely applied to a BLP. I've added a clarification note. Springee (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support The parallel is accurate. Caution is warranted when labeling a person in this way, but that's true of many other entirely valid descriptions. Talk pages are there to debate the borderline cases if necessary; the basic principle is sound. XOR'easter (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I do agree that "conspiracy theorist" is less a value-laden label and more a decently defined term. This would also apply to things like "flat earther" or "climate change denier" and thus don't fall into the same class as the other value-laden labels as LABEL currently points to. We still should be making sure that enough RSes use the term before we can use it as there are subjective edges to these terms. But my issue is that these are terms that are not neutral descriptors and remain pejoratives. Similarly, there are terms that are positive, non neutral descriptors that work in the opposite way, like "philanthropist", "savant", and "genius", which we should also be similarly careful about in the same manner. All these fall into a class of descriptors that we may be able to say factually in Wikivoice (not being the LABELs), but absolutely need to be justified in article body text somewhere using the RSes that use the terms, and which should not be treated as objective terms to introduce the topic in the lede. Thus, the oppose for this is that this points to the need for a new class on this page (WTW) to deal with these types of terms. --Masem (t) 15:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neither Support Nor Oppose. "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" should be used with in-text attribution, as it tends to vary with the perspective of source issuing the characterization; it is far from objective. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• That's silly. What about Chemtrails, the Phantom time hypothesis or Saddam Hussein's stargate? Failure to WP:ASSERT the obvious is actually a violation of NPOV because it gives the impression the conspiracism aspect is "just somebody's view", as well as being a symptom of muddle-headed relativism. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Alexbrn—the aim is not to pull the wool over the readers' eyes. Even if it is reliably sourced that someone is a conspiracy theorist, we are giving the reader more information when we say who is considering the person a conspiracy theorist. That is best accomplished by means of in-text attribution. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• We WP:ASSERT what is not seriously in dispute, to remain WP:NPOV. If, on the other hand, there is serious dispute over whether something is a conspiracy theory then attribution may be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is not affected by stating the origin of the characterization. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is, for the reason given in WP:ASSERT. Furthermore, there is almost never one ("the") origin of such knowledge. We don't say stuff like "David Icke is a conspiracy theorist according to Edith Trellis" because that would be misleading garbage. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia should not be running around stating willy-nilly that people are conspiracy theorists because that is a serious charge. And again we are here to inform the reader, not pull the wool over the readers' eyes. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I totally agree, no "willy nilly", but when some fucker like Icke is undoubtedly, per RS, a conspiracy theorist, we just say it. To be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Identifying someone like Icke as a conspiracy theorist is not necessary being neutral, but being accurate in the same manner that identifying a fringe theory as pseudoscience is being accurate. The term of "conspiracy theorist" as with "pseudoscience" should not be taken as neutral terms, though ones that can be said in Wikivoice without attribution (as long as fully justified in prose in the same article w/ sources). It's important on this distinction and non-neutral terms need to still be used carefully in Wikivoice, compared to fully neutral terms like "writer" or "thoery". --Masem (t) 18:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but that shows a fundamental failure to understand core Wikipedia policy. Accuracy (to the preponderant view in sources) is neutrality. I get the impression some participants here have either never read, or have forgotten, WP:NPOV. Get a WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are multiple aspects of neutrality as defined within NPOV. Neutrality w.r.t. capturing the dominant view of the sources as per UNDUE is one facet - and this to me is where reiterating someone as a "conspiracy theorist" if that's a dominant stance in the sources is being accurate to capture the view of sources. Tut there is also neutrality w.r.t. to tone and language that we use to write to that as to maintain WP's impartial/dispassionate role, and that's where we recognize these terms are still loaded language and should not be mixed and prioritized over objective, impartial terms to describe a person. --Masem (t) 19:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. Your inventions about "neutrality w.r.t. to tone and language" are entirely your personal bugbear, and have nothing to do with how Wikipedia should be written to be neutral. Of course the WP:TONE of Wikipedia should be aligned with respectable sources, but that doesn't mean we write with some kind of squeamish pappy language that evades reality, as you seem to advocate. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• And all I'm saying is that with terms like "conspiracy theorist" or "philanthropist", terms that we can state in Wikivoice without attribution when there is strong agreement in RS but that still carry a non-neutral tone, these should absolutely not be in the first sentence of the lede, or at least not prior to the standard, more objective descriptors of one's career that nearly every other BLP/BIO article leads off with. If these are the most notable facets of the person, they can likely be brought up in the second sentence of the lede; if not the case, but they still are key parts of the notability for a person, they still can be brought up in the lede. But to highlight them in the first lede sentence violatesWP:BLPSTYLE in addition to TONE. Delegating it to the second sentence, at worst, while keeping it in Wikivoice doesn't violate part of NPOV and makes sure this well-recognized detail is still placed in a high position in the article. --Masem (t) 19:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Philanthropy is an analogous case. If somebody is (in RS) pre-eminently a philanthropist, like George Peabody, then Wikipedia simply asserts that. The problem with "philanthropist" is that some Wikipedians seem to want to redefine it as meaning "somebody who once gave to charity". In my (perhaps cynical) view, the main purpose of the word philanthropist on Wikipedia is to help identify UPE editors writing bios. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Alexbrn—you are arguing to collapse the characterizations that you find in sources into a pigeonholing of the person being so-characterized. This is pulling the wool over the readers' eyes. We serve our purposes better by expanding on the one-word or two-word characterization that you are arguing for. Instead of stuffing the person into a box that is dismissive of the person, we should be providing a more fully-worded description of the person, while adhering to the sources as faithfully as possible. Wikipedia should try not to pigeonhole people into one-word or two-word descriptions. That is dismissive of the person being so-described. We are here to inform the reader; to the greatest extent possible the reader should be allowed to reach their own conclusions. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Nice straw man. I agree. If somebody is other things besides a conspiracy theorist, we says those too. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• You are in essence arguing to spoon-feed digested information to readers. The reader does not need you to digest information for them, at least not subjective information that is highly dismissive of a person called a "conspiracy theorist". That can be used but it should have in-text attribution. Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Another straw man. I'm not arguing to "digest" anything. If, in high-quality sources, somebody is indisputably a conspiracy theorist, we WP:ASSERT that straight. NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we are primarily discussing extreme examples. I don't know enough about David Icke to weigh in knowledgeably. But in instances in which the characterization is not crystal clear we should err on the side of providing the reader with more rather than less information. "Conspiracy theorist" by itself does not cut the mustard without in-text attribution. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Our readers are presented with more accurate (less misleading) information if they are told that David Icke is a conspiracy theorist than if they are told he is "referred to by some as" a conspiracy theorist. We owe this degree of objectivity to our readers, per WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• And I will add from my view that I agree this is the category of labels we can state factually in Wikivoice without attribution as long as the sourcing and discussion in the body (as the case in Icke's article) is clearly there to support it. I just have an issue on placement/weight of the term in the lede relative to other terms but not to its use in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 20:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is laughable that it is the first sentence in the lede: "is an English conspiracy theorist". And, Newimpartial, I did not ever suggest the language "referred to by some as". Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• What would you propose? "David Icke is a former footballer who subsequently claimed to be the son of the godhead"? Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• The first sentence should avoid the term, but it can be brought up in the second. "David Icke is an English writer and lecturer, and former footballer and sports broadcaster. He is a conspiracy theorist, having written more than 20 books promoting his New Age theories and alternative medicine." --Masem (t) 22:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, so the question is now about where to put "conspiracy theorist" in the lede? Whether first sentence or second might be a point to discuss, but it isn't about whether the term should be used at all because it was a contentious label. I believe discussions about the weight given to/placement of "conspiracy theorist" in a specific article is more a consideration regarding WP:BLP in general. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• In my opinion if caution should be used with a term or an assertion, even more caution should be used with that term or that assertion, the closer it is to the top of the article. I think placement has bearing on the appropriateness/inappropriateness of a term or assertion. Bus stop (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes you are right, caution is advised the closer something is to the top of an article; I didn't want to disagree with that. But I do feel as this is a point not directly related to the question at hand, which is whether or not the term should come to be included in the "words to watch" section on this MOS page. At least in my personal opinion, there is a huge different in having a lede start with "Person X is a conspiracy theorist" (if that's what they are primarily notable for; most of the time it should not be in the first sentence) as opposed to "Person X is a racist heretic": The first example would be something to be discussed on the talk page, the second example is something I would likely immediately revert because it is just much, much more contentious label. So I believe there's a huge difference in quality between some of the current contentious labels (such as "racist" or "heretic"), and "conspiracy theorist". And placement position is a valid point for discussion, but e.g. with "racist heretic" it doesn't matter if it was in the first or second sentence, as that will 100% need an in-text attribution or even outright removal (at least in a BLP, not talking about people from 1000 AD or sth). --LordPeterII (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. WP:FRINGE is a more important policy than WP:LABEL; it is vital that we describe things as conspiracy theories when there is universal or near-universal agreement among the sources. Taking a fact and treating it as an opinion is a violation of WP:NPOV, and it is a particularly severe problem to do so in a situation where we end up treating a fringe theory as though it has more support or basis than it actually does. More generally, I feel like this is part of an underlying issue with WP:LABEL where there is a risk that it can be used to push for the appearance of neutrality even at the expense of actual neutrality - obviously neutral appearances are important, but actual neutrality (which requires strict factual accuracy according to the best sources available) is the heart of WP:NPOV and is far more important, so when the two conflict LABEL should always and without question be disregarded, and should make that clear in its own text. It is good to seek less dramatic wordings, but if doing so involves sacrificing even the tiniest sliver of accuracy or moves us even the tiniest step away from the consensus of the sources then it is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just on a point of detail, WP:LABEL is part of the MOS, so of little weight in policy-based considerations in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It is a valid (and probably overdue) discussion, but I have not been convinced that there actually are major problems with its usage on Wikipedia. I commend the attempts by Lukan27 to keep this independent of any specific Wikipedia articles - but I have not yet seen any case in which undue weight or slander has occured in relation to "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" (apart from blatant vandalism and similar, ofc). All the examples brought up in the posts above were not really contentious. Additionally, I am convinced by the similarity to "pseudoscientific", so I do not see how "conspiracy theory" should deserve a different treatment. They certainly both are terms that should not be trifled with; but where they are used overwhelingly by reliable sources, I have no reservations in using them. Any case where they might be problematic is imo already sufficiently covered by WP:BLP, so there is no need to amend the specific guideline here.

As a side note, this vote is currently not very easily visible; could this be formatted a bit better to be separate from the primary discussion which advocates the polar opposite? --LordPeterII (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The sciences and the social sciences are not the same. You are saying "Additionally, I am convinced by the similarity to 'pseudoscientific', so I do not see how 'conspiracy theory' should deserve a different treatment." Wouldn't "conspiracy theory" more likely be associated with the "social sciences" and "pseudoscience" more likely be associated with that which purports to be science? Bus stop (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I... am afraid I can't follow you Bus stop. What do you mean with that? In my opinion, both are concerned with theories that are dismissed by the majority. Sure there are differences, as pseudoscientific theories are mostly related to the natural sciences. But as with e.g. vaccines and autism, where the natural sciences have disproved a correlation, it gave birth to a conspiracy theory. So I believe the two are related, although it probably falls into the realm of social sciences to investigate why a conspiracy theory becomes popular. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there are absolute answers in science. Not so in the social sciences. The social sciences are dominated by opinions. We can speak of something being pseudoscience with more assuredness than we can speak of something being a conspiracy theory. You are saying "I do not see how 'conspiracy theory' should deserve a different treatment". But it should deserve slightly different treatment. We can be confident in saying something is pseudoscience. If we are going to say something is a conspiracy theory, we are going out on a limb. We may be wrong. Just because a bunch of opinion-makers dismiss something does not mean they are right. I understand that we adhere to the findings of reliable sources. But opinions should be treated more carefully than the facts that emerge from the hard sciences. Bus stop (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, as an aspiring physicist I can say that I do not personally believe in absolute answers in natural sciences (I believe that's what you mean with "science"). I do believe natural sciences can give us very good and substantiated answers, but any of these might be overturned (or amended) in the future in the light of new research (for example, there even is tentative evidence that the laws of physics might be spatially variable [13], which could have all sorts of implications similar to science fiction). I understand your point, and in a way you may be right. However, take my example - or better, let's take three examples:

1. Vaccines and autism: This is a theory about medical effects/correlations that should in theory be subject to the scrutiny of the natural sciences. And indeed, the scientific community disproved this correlation as a myth. We even know who started it; the whole thing is scientifically debunked (which, ofc, doesn't mean that any vaccine ever will be safe from any side effect). Yet the conspiracy theory persists - it's directly going against natural science. Just as with pseudoscience, there's not much involvement of social sciences except maybe to investigate why the myth persists.
2. QAnon: This arguable is a prime example of your stance. It's completely unrelated to science, and revolves around a conspiracy within society that is not related to the natural sciences much. It's basically just a claim that you either believe or not, and frankly I don't see many options to ever disprove it completely.
3. Modern flat Earth beliefs: That's an interesting one, because it has historical roots. It is subject to scrutiny by the natural sciences because it revolves around things unrelated to human society that can be measured. Incidentally, the theory itself is also labeled as pseudoscientific in the lede of the main article here: Flat Earth. So there's at least sometimes a significant overlap between "pseudoscientific" and "conspiracy theory". Indeed, there exist multiple easy ways to disprove a flat earth theory, my favourite one being the "ship sinking" into the horizon, or any other thing sufficiently far away like here [14]. As per Ockham's razor, flat earthers struggle to explain this. I'll give another anecdote on how natural sciences are very important for that one: In a video I watched about "flat earth" that tried to explain it, the narrator suggested that gravity was a wrong concept because it would only work with a spherical earth, and thus promptly tried to replace gravity with Aristotle's concept. However, as a physicist I can assure anyone that gravity indeed works very well with a flat earth! There's no reason to criticise gravity here, the physical theory does not require a spherical earth. But it's likely that the narrator was not sufficiently accquinted with physics to realize this.

I apologize for the digression. But in conclusion, I do believe that in many cases the two concepts "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theory" are closely related. There are slight differences, and certain alleged conspiracies are beyond the realm of the natural sciences. That doesn't mean there is much of a difference in treatment: Pseudoscience is a theory that is rejected by scientific consensus. Conspiracy theory is a theory that is rejected by scientific and/or societal consensus. Whichever consensus is reported by reliable sources, that's what we work with. We don't have to have absolute answers in either case - and if flat earthers are ever proven correct and achieve scientific consensus, well, I'll be dammned, then I'll vote to remove that conspiracy label from them and report that the earth is flat (but I still reserve the right to not believe it personally). --LordPeterII (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not so in the social sciences. since Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to be doing the science, it doesn't really matter, so we depend on sources. —PaleoNeonate – 18:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Opinions and facts are different. In Natural science we deal with facts; in Social science we deal with opinions. This is a simplification, perhaps a gross simplification, but I think it is generally the case. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This may he a tangent, but opinions and facts are different. In Natural science we deal with facts; in Social science we deal with opinions should be a self-disqualifying statement in terms of WP:CIR. Health data, for example, do not magically change from "fact" to "opinion" and back again depending on whether a biologist or a health geographer is working with it. Nor does an interview become more or less of an opinion when it is given to (or from) a journalist, an historian or a scientist. Confusing "natural science" vs. "social science" with "fact" vs. "opinion" (or with quantitative vs. qualitative data) is a simple category error that no competent editor should be making, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is requiring you to accept my observations as to where "pseudoscience" differs from "conspiracy theory". But they are two different terms. And they are not interchangeable. Starting from this premise it stands to reason that one of the terms more often is contingent on facts and the other of the terms is more often contingent on opinions. But I don't really want to belabor this point any further. It is an observation that I am making and it is your prerogative to disagree with it. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The term « conspiracy theorist » should be used in lede only if several WP:RS do, identical with « rapist » and « dictator ». No more, no less. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: LordPeterII pointed out a flaw in my statement which I think points out a significant distinction. There is a difference between calling a thing a conspiracy theory and calling a person a conspiracy theorist. A theory has almost no BLP implications. Labeling a person a theorist is clearly in the area of BLP. Also a theory is generally applied to a singular thing while actions, activities, etc of a person are more complex and it's harder to classify them as clearly. Regardless, I can see the arguments for saying "conspiracy theory" should be treated as a non-contentious label while I think "conspiracy theorist" must be treated as a contentious label. Springee (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• This, in general. We have chosen to be "proactive" to making sure that flawed science and medical ideas as well as false malicious theories involving public figures are called out quickly, as per SCIRS, MEDRS and BLP, so identifying things as pseudoscience, fringe theories, and conspiracy theories as fact (assuming well-backed as such) in a lede sentence is appropriate. But BLP requires us to treat living persons far more carefully and be less aggressive towards calling them out on being "bad people"; we are required to write about them in a dispassionate voice. We are not here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and make sure that the reader immediately knows said person is "bad" because they are a conspiracy theories. Which means, that while we still can call a person a conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice when the sources support it without attribution, this must be treated with a lot more care and consideration and hence be placed later in ledes (eg second sentence if that's what they're primarily notable for).
• Also, as pointed out above, we still have to watch for cases where these labels like "conspiracy theorist" and "philanthropist" are poorly/inappropriately added either as OR by an editor w/ no support from sources, or where only a couple sources rather than many sources support the term. I'm working on the assumption that we can use these terms in Wikivoice only when a large number of sources explicitly use the term so that we're not evoke OR or cherry picking here. --Masem (t) 14:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• A project-wide and general problem is taking unclear sourcing and running with it and in the process turning questionable support in sources into a full-fledged assertion. At Talk:Jordan Peterson#Philosophy it was debated whether Peterson should be called a philosopher. Multiple poor quality sources were presented. This is an instance I think in which we are not justified in stating something in Wikivoice and without attribution. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• That's also a good example where the body of the article doesn't support the label. I think this is often missed in article level debates. We really shouldn't be asking what external sources say before adding a label to the lead. We should be acting as if the article body is the only source for writing the lead and then ask if the label is justified. If not based on the body of the article then either the body needs to be fixed first or the label shouldn't be used. Springee (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, in the case of Peterson, "YouTube philisopher" is a reliably-sourced but not universal label, which could therefore be used with attribution. The problem with the Talk page proposal, as I recall, was that some wanted to extract "philosopher" to include in the lede based on "YouTube philosopher", which would make about as much sense as extracting "philosopher" from "armchair philosopher" or "barstool philosopher". Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that is a problem. People might reliably call me an "NFL armchair quarterback" but that doesn't make me an "NFL quarterback". Springee (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think sometimes the lede of an article is used as a billboard. Summarizing is different from advertising, which is what billboards are good at. We should err on the side of summarizing. Based on this reason I am not sure terms like "conspiracy theorist" should ever appear in ledes. More oblique language is preferable for use in the lede. The danger of using "conspiracy theorist" in the lede is the danger of pigeonholing a person. A more openminded approach should be taken. As Masem points out "we are required to write about them in a dispassionate voice". Pigeonholing and dispassion are mutually exclusive. The prominence of the lede section of an article exacerbates potential problems associated with pigeonholing. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I retract the following suggestion. Further discussion has revealed that this approach would not be helpful and rather seems to confuse people. @Springee: That is actually an interesting observation, that I wasn't even clear on myself. But I agree that this is right: "Conspiracy theory" for a thing is not contentious, "conspiracy theorist" for a person might -potentially- be a contentious label. But that brings me to a follow-up problem: What if we describe someone as a follower of a conspiracy theory?

Like, for example instead of saying someone "is a Christian", we would say they "are a member of a Christian congregation". This basically means the same thing - is there any difference in the two phrasings?

Now if instead of saying "Person X is a conspiracy theorist" (generic label), we would say "Person X is a proponent of conspiracy theory Y" (specific label) - would that improve the situation? I honestly do not know, and would be glad to hear some opinions.

Personally, I am leaning towards that this would be an improvement and less contentious. Because someone who, for example, has publicly voiced their believe in and support for QAnon, would probably not feel slandered if they were described as a follower of QAnon, with QAnon itself being described as a conspiracy theory. Same applies to flat earthers; I do not believe we are breaking NPOV if we describe them as adhering to the flat earth conspiracy theory as opposed to just generic "conspiracy theorists". But this is thinking pretty meta and yeah, I would love some feeback on this. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" should probably be reserved for when the person is known to adhere to multiple conspiracy theories. If the people is only known to adhere to one specific conspiracy theory, that doesnt make them a conspiracy theoriest in broad terms and likely better to say alternative wording. --Masem (t) 13:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point. If we would need to list several conspiracy theories in a row, it would be more elegant to just use "conspiracy theorist" so as not to block the reading flow. But that would already be the first exception to the rule - the more I think about it, the less I believe that this would actually be an improvement or a solution. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know most sources don't use it this way but I would distinguish between those who believe/promote a theory with those who originate a theory. I promote Newtonian physics but that doesn't make me a physisist. If I promote a well established theory but add nothing to it am I a theorist or simply a proponent/promotor of? Beyond that, I do agree that it should probably be more than two theories before we even consider the theorist label. We should also consider the balance of their work and time span. Springee (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No @Springee, that's not what I meant, and I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this. This is only about the potential of it being a contentious label, not the term's meaning. (You can ofc have your own opinion about this, but we cannot simply go against both reliable sources and general usage in the MOS. It would confuse the heck out of ordinary people like Wikipedia's readers.). What "conspiracy theorist" means is used consistently within reliable sources, and also clearly defined, for example here: Cambridge Merriam-Webster (as was already quoted above). So "conspiracy theorist" is equivalent to "proponent of a conspiracy theory". This is a notable difference to other cases, like in your physicist example. The definitions also specifically refer to "a" (single) conspiracy theory, so there is no need to wait until they support multiple conspiracy theories. And really, how could the label be contentious if used while the person believes in one conspiracy theory, and not contentious if they believe in multiple? I don't really get anymore what this is about; just that my suggestion would probably do more harm than good. I'll retract it. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. That wasn't meant to be a reply to you and I also understand that how I was defining it (the person who creates/invents the theory) is not how it is normally used (a person who promotes a conspiracy theory). I was just putting that out there. Springee (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Masem that alternative wording should be preferred. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support not a value judgement, if reliable sources indicate that someone who engages/has engaged in concocting, espousing, promoting, or profiting from conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist, we can fairly, and accurately, refer to them as a conspiracy theorist. It's non-controversial. Acousmana (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Given the importance of this discussion, should we maybe make this a WP:RFC to give other editors a chance to voice their opinion? I stumbled upon this discussion by pure chance, and I believe we should give more people a chance to participate. However, I am not sure how to initate such a thing and would prefer an experienced editor to open a RFC, if possible.

Also, I have added a line to indicate where the voting starts, to avoid confusion with the discussion above. I hope this is appropriate. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Including it in the list of words to avoid would seriously impede writing about conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. It would be the wet dream of whitewashers. The term is not an arbitrary label, although it can be and is occasionally used as such by people who do not know what they are talking about, typically in "so are you!" retorts. Conspiracy theorists do not like the term because it unmasks them, and they have fought against its use since it exists, just as pseudoscientists did and do against the term "pseudoscience". We should not fall for their self-serving rhetoric, we should not repeat their bad logic, and we should go on calling a spade a spade when reliable sources call it a spade. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Should we apply that same logic to "racist", "neo-nazi", "pedophile", etc? I mean we need to expose those people! Who cares about IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  If all reliable sources agree that someone is one of those, of course we should. If you are trying to argue that Wikipedia editors know better than reliable sources and we should second-guess them, that stance will not get you very far. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• That depends on does it violate our rules on crime. But yes if a majority of sources use a label that is not an accusation of criminal activity, yes we should say it in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Here we have a usage from merely one day ago. At the beginning of the video Bret Weinstein says "that term is simply used to make it go away". Weinstein is referencing the term "conspiracy theory". Just because a reliable source uses a term does not mean we should use it. An encyclopedia should exercise caution using terminology like "conspiracy theory/conspiracy theorist". Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  that term is simply used to make it go away So what? When a vendor rings at my door trying to sell me something I do not need, I use the word "No" to make him go away, and there is nothing wrong with that. The point is not the purpose of the word but its meaning. Do reliable sources say it applies to a situation or do they not? When they use the word, who are you to say "no, that's wrong"? If you have good reasons to mistrust them, you can try to get their reliability taken down at WP:RSP, that is all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, Hob Gadling. You say "When a vendor rings at my door trying to sell me something I do not need, I use the word "No" to make him go away, and there is nothing wrong with that." Therefore the term is obfuscatory. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That sentence obfuscated whatever you tried to say. I have no idea what path your alleged logic followed to arrive at that conclusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: This whole discussion is about the idea that the sentence "this is a conspiracy theory" is never legitimate.

Only if that idea is true, only if "this is a conspiracy theory" is never legitimate, then it is justified to avoid the term in all cases. The literature on conspiracy theories will tell you, if you actually stoop to look at it, that the idea is wrong. It is itself a fringe idea. Conspiracy theorists use that fringe idea to try and shoot down the argument that their fantasies are conspiracy theories. That is what I meant above by "self-serving". The only reasons I can think of why anyone would want to include the term in the words-to-avoid list are: they believe in the fringe idea that "this is a conspiracy theory" is never legitimate, or they do not know the first thing about conspiracy theories, or they care less about how well Wikipedia articles reflect reality than about other goals unknown to me (such as the blood pressure of conspiracy theorists when they read the Wikipedia articles about themselves). --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling—opaque language should be used more carefully than self-explanatory language. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

<irony>That comes as a surprise to me. I always thought self-explanatory language needed more work.</irony> Again, you failed to communicate anything. I do not know whether you are trying to say you did not understand what I said, or whether you think, for a reason you did not share with us, that the term "conspiracy theory" is opaque, or whether it is something else I cannot fathom at the moment. It's okay with me if you write in such an opaque style, as long as you don't expect me to understand it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support An article about someone who was recently elected to national office and is prominent primarily because they subscribe to numerous conspiracy theories (as documented by numerous reliable sources) was attacked as "biased" by several people (who presumably are politically aligned with the subject or their party) solely because the subject is described as a conspiracy theorist. One of the complainants was broadly banned from discussion of post-1992 American politics because of tendentious edits and attacks on the good faith of Wikipedia editors, specifically and broadly, in connection to that specific article. Subsequently they created this discussion. There was nothing wrong with the abovementioned article or its use of the term "conspiracy theorist", and no evidence has been presented here of any such problem with any other article. When asked for evidence, they write here "Some specific cases come to mind" without mentioning any such cases or that they aren't allowed to mention them, and "but it's a core issue and a general problem on Wikipedia" which simply isn't true. I think the change is baseless and unwarranted, and that this entire discussion is a poor use of Wikipedia resources. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia articles need to be able to use clear language to describe fringe viewpoints and those that hold them, and there is nothing wrong with labeling these things with the commonly accepted terms. --Jayron32 20:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think this illustrates an issue with this question. Are we asking if it's contentious to call a thing a conspiracy theory or a person a conspiracy theorist. Based on the discussion above editors aren't decided if they should be treated the same way or not. I do tend to think even "conspiracy theory" qualifies as a contentious label but I also feel the bar for calling a particular theory a conspiracy theory is much lower than calling a person a conspiracy theorist. Even if RS say the label applies I don't think anyone would see "conspiracy theorist" as a good/positive label. Do we think a BLP subject would agree to being called a conspiracy theorist? If the answer is "no" to either question then I would say the criteria for being a contentious label has been met. Anyway, I think LordPeterII is correct, this needs a proper RfC. Springee (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• If a thing is not good or positive, it would be incorrect to use words that imply that it is. --Jayron32 20:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree we should make it clear something is negative if RSs say it is. I'm also not as worried about calling a particular theory "conspiracy". I'm more concerned when a person is labeled a conspiracy theorist. We may agree with RSs that the label has been properly applied but that doesn't mean the label isn't contentious. Contentious labels aren't something we should never use, just something we should use with care or with clear attribution. So it would be no issue to call the faked moonlanding theory a conspiracy theory. Springee (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding a new class for words like "conspiracy theorist" and "philanthropist"?

I think there's agreement from above that words like "conspiracy theorist" and "philanthropist" and others are terms that are not value-laden labels (though may have edge cases we have to watch for from editor OR and weak sourcing) which likely can be said in Wikivoice when the sourcing and prose is sufficiently there to back it. But I think we should still recognize that these still overall fall into "Words that may introduce bias" - they are simply not neutral/impartial terms even if backed by sources when describing persons. So I would suggest if we should need another category within WTW to include these terms, explaining they can be used in Wikivoice when appropriate backed by sources and where caution should be used on these terms. --Masem (t) 15:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Opppose suppression of academic term with a well defined history of usage in peer-reviewed publications.--Moxy 🍁 21:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose-ish out of a general desire to avoid guideline creep and the feeling that this is adequately covered by calling the page "Words to watch". I can see the motivation behind it, and it's not an unreasonable concern, but adding a new class of words doesn't seem necessary to me. (Nothing we can say in a guideline or a style manual will forestall bad-faith complaints, and good-faith disagreements can be settled without a new word-class.) XOR'easter (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • My concern is that sorta related to Moxy's oppose, we have a series of terms that do not fall into value-laden labels, some which I would fully agree that in time, gain academic usage, but in the short term, NOT#NEWS concern, may be applied far too early or with far too little sourcing. (That might point to RECENTISM as a better place). --Masem (t) 03:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Conspiracy theory/conspiracy theorist are used to dismiss ideas and people. This language is opaque instead of being informative. But there is an important point associated with these terms—that is who or what is leveling the charge. This is from 2 days ago. Bret Weinstein is an educated man. Notice how he uses the term "conspiracy theory". He says "this was never a conspiracy theory in fact that term is used to make it go away". He is implying that a hypothesis is called a "conspiracy theory" to "make it go away". That is the reputation the term has, at least in the mind of this educated man. Shouldn't we use it with caution? Bus stop (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Opppose We should not be mealy-mouthed, if people don't like it, they can always stop peddling conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That is logically flawed. That we say people are engaging in peddling a conspiracy theory doesn't mean the term is any more or less contentious, especially if we call a BLP a theorist. Also, I think we have already decided that just because a BLP has said they stopped engaging in something we don't like we don't retract the label. Springee (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not really, it may be policy flawed (but then I have nothing to add in that regard to what's already been said (by me and others). But its not logically flawed, its really only contentious because people who peddle conspiracy theories want them to be taken seriously, and thus do not like it when they are not. If they were not conspiracy theories RS would not call them thgat, that would call them conspiracies (or theories). We shoulds not and cannot mince our words when we talk about people who peddle Qaunon or Pizzagate.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that the exact same reason we say that terms like "racist" or "white supremacist" are contentious? Isn't that the same reason RSs call people racist or white supremacists? Just like "racist", there is no clear line between what is or isn't a conspiracy theory. I don't see how treating conspiracy theorist (the BLP label) the same as we treat "racist" (attributed when RSs broadly say as much, not mentioned if only some RSs say it) is going to harm our readers. BTW, I'm not specifically advocating for or against Masem's proposal. I don't think I understand it well enough to voice a vote one way or the other. Springee (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No one is saying its not "contentious" we are saying if enough RS say it its only contentious in the same way flat earthism is contentious. We are talking about things that fail wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• The issue is not that these terms shouldn't be used (and in Wikivoice) when they apply because they have more objective nature to them as per the prior section, but they still must be words to watch and used only when there is appropriate backing of sources (as has been outlined above, there are cases when editors may OR-ly applies these terms appropriately, and if only or two sources use these terms compared to dozens, that should stay in the realm of attributed labels), and should be recognized as either pejorative or puffery terms (depending) and thus have an impact on tone and neutrality when writing an article. --Masem (t) 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose because WP:LABEL already de facto covers it, and it should say it more clearly rather than making cutouts for specific exceptions. Our policy on contentious labels should cover all such labels, and not have cutouts for each specific word. Loki (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Falsely

Are there any problems with the word "falsely"? It's not specifically listed on this page. Could possibly fall under MOS:EDITORIAL or WP:IMPARTIAL. It is springing up on pages related to Donald Trump claiming election fraud, i.e. "Donald Trump falsely claimed that he won the election". –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Well of course 'claimed' is a violation of WP:CLAIM and I think when people begin to string all those disclaimers together, it smacks of The lady doth protest too much, methinks as if a critical reader of Wikipedia is somehow going to miss that said statements were false. Elizium23 (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. By the way, any suggestions for re-writing the above sentence? –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Donald Trump said that he won the election" is all that needs to be said, and contextualized, if needed, so that is obvious that no evidence was produced. Elizium23 (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• It depends. We obviously do want to say "Dr X falsely claims that coffee enemas can cure bowel cancer" (assuming RS says it) because sometimes such negations are intrinsic to accepted knowledge on a topic, which Wikipedia must reflect. Other areas, like on political matters, are obviously more tricky. Alexbrn (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• I asked a related question here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive_9#Does_the_word_"falsely/false"_imply_deception?. The results were mixed so no resolution was reached. My personal feeling is as follows, stating a claim or conclusion is false is not value laden. The results of the experiment were false. The claim made by Mr Smith was false. However, when we state "Mr Smith falsely claimed the Earth is flat" the problem is it is ambiguous if we are defining falsely as merely "not true" or "not true with the intent to deceive.". If Mr Smith believes the information then we shouldn't say falsely as it could imply he was intending to deceive, not just state what he believes to be true. Mr Smith might be from an isolated tribe that does believe the Earth is flat. In my view if we don't know the intent then we shouldn't use words that can imply an attempt to deceive. Springee (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Falsely claim" is the language that newspapers and fact-checkers use to state that a claim is false without implying the speaker is knowingly lying. (Recent examples from a Google News search: [15][16][17][18].) Avoiding this language when the WP:RS use it risks violating NPOV. XOR'easter (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • See, for example, Mantzarlis, Alexios (January 26, 2017). "When is a false claim a lie? Here's what fact-checkers think". Poynter Institute. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Falsely" is a straightforward statement of fact. It should be used when the sources are clear (and not in other situations.) Some caution is warranted because its use in that context is a stark statement of fact in the article voice and therefore often requires strong sourcing, especially if it implies something WP:EXCEPTIONAL, but it isn't a WTW itself any more than any other statement of fact. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• If it's false and sources describe it as such, I don't see a problem. Variants would be "discredited", some sources say "baseless allegations", etc. Using "lie" would be something else, though. Even "claim" (that is in the guide) can be appropriate when in the right context (and "to watch" is about avoiding where undue, not forbidding). —PaleoNeonate – 19:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think "incorrectly" would be a preferable term in many instances because I think "falsely" can imply the deliberate will to deceive but context would be an important factor in making an ultimate determination so I would say we should decide on a case by case basis. Bus stop (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do agree with the above comment that the use of "incorrectly" in cases like that would be appropriate, however, I also see nothing wrong with using "falsely" (especially if whatever being discussed or referred to has in fact been proven false) once the context surrounding the statement is clearly explained so as not to give the impression of perceived bias. Though, the sentence could simply be written as "Trump said (or announced) that he won the election but statements from the White House (or names of news outlets or other relevant source) revealed he had lost to Biden..." or something along those lines. There are multiple ways it could be worded depending on what you are is trying to be say said without using terms that could cause dissension among editors. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• In some cases it works and in other cases it does not work. I am not addressing any specific usages. I am only speaking in generalities. Bus stop (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I did not mean to imply that you were. I was addressing both general usage+applicability to the specific example above, but realize now how it could appear misleading. I've ammended my comment to clarify. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Nary a problem, Carlobunnie, nice to make your acquaintance. Bus stop (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrectly has the opposite problem that people are claiming with falsely in that it implies an honest factual error, rather than willful deception (or neutral between the two). I echo my sentiment from the last time this was discussed that it's best to leave it to editors with using their judgement on what the best word choice is. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 21:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

You say "it's best to leave it to editors with using their judgement". Sure, it can be decided on a case by case basis. But if there is a dispute between "falsely" and "incorrectly" then the sentence should be re-cast. That may entail writing two sentences—one sentence to say what the person asserted, another sentence to state how the verified fact differs from what the person said, and to be utterly clear, a citation to a reliable source could follow each sentence. By presenting the relevant information in a different way, we can resolve an editorial dispute, we can avoid introducing bias to the article, and we can allow the reader to reach their own conclusion as to whether an honest mistake transpired or a deliberate will to deceive transpired. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Case by case basis means that even the solution should be decided for particular cases. In some instances, your proposal might be a proper solution. In others, community input would be warranted on whether falsely or incorrectly is the better choice. I don't think it's helpful to try to anticipate problems and solutions and then make sweeping statements about the latter when we don't have any indication that blanket prescriptions are warranted or helpful here. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 13:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Aeusoes1—you say "Incorrectly has the opposite problem that people are claiming with falsely". There is no need to say that a person "incorrectly" or "falsely" said something. We can omit both terms. We can simply say that someone said something. A citation can support that they indeed said that. In a subsequent sentence we can state a verified fact that contradicts what they said. A citation can be put in place supporting that verified fact. The reader will read sentence A and sentence B and recognize immediately that there is a contradiction between the two sentences. They will decide on their own whether this is an instance of willful deception or honest mistake—or even if the supposedly verified fact is somehow not so "factual" after all. What I am suggesting is that we sidestep this problem. Rather than Wikipedia taking a stance on this question I am suggesting that we just present the reader with the applicable facts and leave it at that. There is no need to say that a person "incorrectly" or "falsely" said something. "Falsely" and "incorrectly" are adverbs that have slightly different implications. I think we can dispense with them. We can simply re-cast the problematic sentence, probably into two sentences. When the two sentences are considered together the contradiction becomes evident. We aren't really here to tell readers what to think. We are here to provide information. Bus stop (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Bus stop I don't really care to repeat myself. Please re-read my comments and tell me if you are confused by something I said. Your proposal strikes me as a heavy handed attempt to solve a problem of content disputes that don't actually exist and that cannot be shown to be a viable solution without actual examples. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 16:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• There is no problem, if it is "false" and RS describe it like that.--Renat (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• I personally think that the language "X falsely claimed Y" implied some malicious intent in X making that claim (as one can argued behind Trump's claims regarding the election). This is to distinguish from someone that makes a claim that later turns out to be false, but the person making that claim original had no malicious intent in their statement - they were using all best educated guesses in making their claim (eg we would never say "the weatherman falsely claimed it would be clear and sunny today, but it was a rainy all afternoon.") As such, we should not use "falsely claimed" in Wikivoice, but should attribute it or point to where that's coming from, eg for Trump "Many journalists have stated that Trump falsely claimed that he won the election.", or otherwise rework to remove the "falsely", eg "Trump claimed he won the election, which has since been demonstrated false." (that's acceptable in Wikivoice). --Masem (t) 17:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The inference depends on context. While it might be present for your example, I can think of others where it is not. For example, if I said "X falsely attributed Y to Z" the inference of malicious intent is gone. There are too many contexts to make it feasible to proscribe the use of false or falsely or even to list the verb-adjective combinations that editors should use or avoid. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 19:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I could still see cases of the form "X falsely attributed Y to Z" as a malicious form, depending on context (eg : "Congressman John Q. Smith falsely attributed the Jan. 6 attacks to antifa."). Context very much matters. --Masem (t) 19:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I find it really hard to think of cases along those lines where something would be acceptable in journalist-voice and not in wiki-voice. False claim and falsehood are what they say instead of lie, precisely because the latter implies a knowing deception. XOR'easter (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

XOR'easter—just because something is found in a reliable source is no reason that we are compelled to include it in our encyclopedia. One reason for that is that we aim for a neutral point of view. The statement made by the person can be stated and, separately, the verified fact can be stated. The discrepancy between the verified fact and the statement is thereby obvious to the reader, and in compliance with our cherished neutral point of view. No words are banned. This is the manual of style. I don't think locutions containing the word "falsely" are impermissible. But if the argument is between "falsely" and "incorrectly" I think we are facing a neutral point of view issue. You refer to the journalist voice. Journalists don't necessarily face neutral point of view issues. But we do. Bus stop (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It's true that they have different pressures, but in this case, they are confronted with exactly the problem we are, and that's the solution that newspapers of record have gone with. NPOV means reflecting the sources accurately; if we fail to do a thing that they do consistently, we are quite possibly violating our own principle. XOR'easter (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with XOR'easter. Journalists have made this choice because they are trying to be neutral. If we are to make a different choice, we should have an actual reason to do so and not rely on handwaving in lieu of logic. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 15:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hate speech/genocidal terminology in the Horn of Africa

I started a talk page section at Timeline of the Tigray War warning about the frequent use of eliminate by Ethiopian News Agency. Possibly the best background article documenting hate speech/genocideal terminology in the Ethiopian context is The ethnification of the Ethiopian media, currently ref 3 in Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia. Rastakwere was wondering if there's a better place than that talk page to collect discussion on the issue. My feeling is that having a specific page could be useful, especially since there's going to be a mix of English words and local-origin words such as Neftenya, which will not be relevant to world-wide hate speech contexts.

So I propose creating Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Horn of Africa. Any objections or better suggestions?

Hopefully, more and more people who are from the Horn of Africa, either living there or diaspora, will constructively edit en.Wikipedia articles related to the region, which is a sensitive topic. It's not someone's fault if s/he picks up language used by others without realising the connotations - or if different people/groups interpret words differently. The new page and its talk page would help people learn both from external sources and from Wikipedians' perceptions of the words and reach consensus on terminology.

One major peace researcher currently in the Tigray mountains, Mulugeta Gebrehiwot, says (27 January 2021) that the current Tigray War is "genocide by decree", so any propagation of hate speech risks not only creating difficult editing disputes, but also having real-world consequences. Boud (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Genocide would be very unfortunate if that is really happening, but if so who are we insinuating would have "decreed" it? Some have thrown the forsekin at the feet of the current government but that is hard to accept and should be taken as typical political talk when people say anything. Behavior on front lines is not always decreed by anyone, unfortunately. And disagreements about deciding here, what word is or isnt to be categorized as hate speech in English from now on can lead you down a real rabbit hole. KZebegna (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines and policies start out from proposals and discussions - their strength of their application develops (or weakens) with time and as consensus builds up (or dissolves). So "deciding" is appropriate, but in the Usenet/Debian/GNU/Linux/Indymedia/Wikipedia sense of proposal and arguments/evidence for/against and gradual build-up of consensus. So a "rabbit hole", maybe, but the alternative is to contribute to stage four of Stanton's model of genocide. Boud (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)