Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
→Words that may introduce bias: new no-pe sec |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
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 [[WP:BLP|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 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 [[WP:BLP|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. |
||
==Puffery and hype== |
|||
{{Quote box4 |
|||
|quote = <big>'''Legendary, astonishing, visionary, outstanding, amazing, fantastic, classic, unique, genius, extraordinary, masterly, brilliant, staunch, bold''' </big> |
|||
|width = 80% |
|||
|align = center |
|||
}} |
|||
{{shortcut|WP:SUPER|WP:PEA|WP:PEACOCK}} |
|||
Words such as these are often used inappropriately to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to demonstrate the subject's importance. |
|||
==Words that may introduce bias== |
==Words that may introduce bias== |
||
| Line 40: | Line 49: | ||
===By editorializing=== |
===By editorializing=== |
||
{{Quote box4 |
{{Quote box4 |
||
|quote = <big>'''Notably, interestingly, it should be noted, fundamentally, essentially, basically, clearly, actually, obviously, naturally, of course, unfortunately, happily |
|quote = <big>'''Notably, interestingly, it should be noted, fundamentally, essentially, basically, clearly, actually, obviously, naturally, of course, unfortunately, happily''' </big> |
||
|width = 80% |
|width = 80% |
||
|align = center |
|align = center |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{shortcut|WP:EDITORIAL|WP:OPED}} |
{{shortcut|WP:EDITORIAL|WP:OPED}} |
||
The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as "it should be noted," to highlight something as particularly significant without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate a viewpoint, as can clearly, actually, obviously, naturally, and of course. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether something happened unfortunately or happily. |
|||
==Euphemism and cliché== |
==Euphemism and cliché== |
||
Revision as of 08:55, 4 April 2010
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 eliminate expressions that are offensive, flattering, vague, or clichéd, or that suggest Wikipedia subscribes to a particular point of view.
None of the advice in this guideline should be applied rigidly, or applied to quotations. What matters is that articles are well-written and consistent with the core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability.
Synonyms for "to say"
A point of view may be implied by using loaded synonyms for the verb "to say". For example, X noted, reported, and observed imply that X was correct so to note, report, or observe. Revealed, pointed out, exposed, and surmised carry similar dangers. Stated and argued usually 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.
Puffery and hype
Words such as these are often used inappropriately to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of telling the reader that a subject is important, use facts to demonstrate the subject's importance.
Words that may introduce bias
By expressing doubt or support
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, falsely named, or contentiously named and it can be difficult to tell these apart. It should be restricted to the first meaning when introducing words that may be unfamiliar, so long as it can be used clearly. Words such as however and although can imply that one alternative is less favoured than another, so use them with caution too.
By labelling
Words that label a group, person, or practice—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, or a sexual practice a perversion—need in-text attribution. Terms such as cult, sect, fundamentalist, and heretic are best avoided unless they are widely used by reliable sources to describe the group or person, in which case use in-text attribution.
The terms extremist and terrorist are particularly contentious and should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article. Generic words such as militant, insurgent, paramilitary, and partisan may be less provocative. But even with in-text attribution ask yourself what information is conveyed by adding such descriptions to the article. More descriptive terms are usually preferable, such as bomber, gunman, hijacker, or kidnapper.
Labels such as controversy, scandal, and affair can convey a point of view. The phrase "-gate" is often used in journalism to describe a controversial episode. Use these in articles only when the issue is widely described as such, with in-text attribution if in doubt.
By editorializing
The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as "it should be noted," to highlight something as particularly significant without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided. Words such as fundamentally, essentially, and basically can indicate a viewpoint, as can clearly, actually, obviously, naturally, and of course. Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether something happened unfortunately or happily.
Euphemism and cliché
The word 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. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. In many cases, they simply pad out sentences without conveying any useful information. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.
Ambiguous words
Template:Quote box4 Be careful not to confuse a theory with a hypothesis. A theory is a system of thought that has a degree of acceptance, often within academia. For less established ideas, use hypothesis, conjecture, or speculation, or consider using idea, which is more generic. As always, check the reliable sources.
Neologisms and new compounds
Neologisms are expressions that have been coined recently. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its use and meaning must be supported by reliable sources.
Adding common prefixes or suffixes such as pre-, post-, non–, anti-, or –like to existing words to create new compounds can aid clarity, but make sure the resulting terms are not misleading or offensive, and that they do not lend undue weight to a point of view. Adding –ism to a word, for instance, may suggest that a tenuous belief system is well established.
Article and section titles
Article and section titles should avoid implying a viewpoint wherever possible. For example, "John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy" is inappropriate because it suggests there was a conspiracy.