Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

There is no word that should never be used in a Wikipedia article, but a number of expressions should be used with particular care to avoid poor style. It is almost always possible to improve on or eliminate expressions that are ambiguous, offensive, flattering, condescending, clichéd, or jargonistic. (This does not apply to quotations.) In treating contentious matters, avoid expressions that suggest Wikipedia subscribes to a specific point of view.

Synonyms for "to say"

A point of view may be implied by using loaded synonyms for the verb "to say." For example, "X noted," "X reported," and "X observed" imply that X was correct to note, report, or observe. "Revealed," "pointed out," "exposed," and "surmised" carry similar dangers. On the other hand, synonyms such as "stated" and "argued" express no point of view; "according to" can be used in the same way.

"X claimed" should generally be avoided, because it raises a question, particularly after a factual statement; for example, "Jones came under fire for his use of racial slurs, but in a statement yesterday claimed he was not a racist."

Words such as "insist," "maintain," "protest," "contend," or "feel" are fine when used appropriately, but be careful not to imply that the subject is irrational for "feeling" or "insisting" something. Similarly, "admit," "confess," or "deny" should be used judiciously, particularly of living persons, because they can convey guilt. For example, "Supervisors said they knew nothing about the incident" is better than "Supervisors denied all knowledge of the incident," which hints that perhaps they really did know something.

Words that may introduce bias

Template:Quote box4

Words such as "supposed," "purported," and "alleged" can imply when used incorrectly that Wikipedia is saying a given point is inaccurate. "So-called" should be used carefully: it can mean "commonly named" or "falsely named," and it can be difficult to tell the two apart. It should therefore be restricted to the first meaning when introducing words that may be unfamiliar. Words such as "however" and "although" can imply that one alternative is less favored than another, so use them with caution too.

Words that may label

Words that label a group or practice—such as calling an organization a cult, a sexual practice a perversion, or an individual a racist or anti-Semite—need in-text attribution. The terms "extremist" and "terrorist" are particularly contentious and should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. Generic words such as militant, insurgent, paramilitary, and partisan can also be used. But even with in-text attribution ask yourself what information is conveyed by adding such descriptions to the article. More descriptive terms are usually preferable, such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, or kidnapper.

Also be cautious with religious terms such as cult, sect, fundamentalist, heretic. The labels are best avoided unless they are used widely by reliable sources to describe the group or idea in question.

Words that may editorialize

Adverbs such as "notably" and "interestingly," and phrases such as "it should be noted," highlight a particular fact or opinion as particularly significant, and should usually be avoided for that reason. Words such as "fundamentally," "essentially," and "basically" can indicate a preferred viewpoint, as can "clearly," "actually," "obviously," "naturally," and "of course." Similarly, Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether something is amusing, interesting, or "fortunate," or whether something "unfortunately" or "happily" occurred. Use caution in calling a musician "legendary," unless it would be obtuse not to, or his album a "classic."

Euphemism and cliché

"Died" is neutral and accurate. Avoid euphemisms and clichés such as "died tragically," "untimely death," "passed away," "passed over," and "gave his life". Avoid "resting place": dead people aren't resting.

Vague attribution

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

Ambiguous words and neologisms

Template:Quote box4 A theory is a system of thought that has a degree of acceptance, often within academia, though it may not be correct. For less established ideas, use hypothesis, conjecture, or speculation, or consider using "idea," which is more generic. As always, check the reliable sources.

Words such as "controversy," "scandal," and "affair" can convey a point of view and should be used with caution. The phrase "-gate" is often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode. Use it in articles only when the issue is being widely described as such, and use in-text attribution.

Neologisms are expressions that have recently been coined. They should generally be avoided because their definitions are unstable; if you do use them, make sure you have a reliable source. Be careful not to add "-ism" to a term—which can make a set of beliefs or practices sound more established than it is—unless the sources do.

Article and section titles

See also: Wikipedia:Article titles

Article and section titles should be chosen, where possible, to avoid implying a viewpoint. For section titles, a compromise may be needed between a neutral and a concise heading, while for article titles, words which should usually be avoided may be part of the title if this is the most common name for the subject of the article. In other cases, choose a descriptive title that does not imply a particular conclusion.

For example, the title "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy" is inappropriate because it suggests a viewpoint on whether there was such a conspiracy.

The appropriateness of a word may depend on the topic. For instance, the existing article on "Sodomy" is an article about the word itself, both in common and legal use. This is appropriate, whereas it would not be appropriate to use the word in the title of an article about homosexuality.

A non-neutral title can make an article hard to balance. For instance article titles of the form "Criticism of..." should be avoided where possible. For critical reaction to a work, consider instead "Critique of..." or "Reaction to...".

See also

• Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
• Wikipedia:Elements of Style improvement project
• Wikipedia's NPOV tutorial