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

"Served"

Is "served" appropriate in the context of government or military jobs? For example, "Bill Clinton served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001" or "George W. Bush served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009". Why not just "was" (e.g. "Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001")? "Served" implies that by holding public office someone "serves" their constituents, or is doing it out of some sort of selflessness. I don't think the encyclopedia should be implying that in its everyday language. According to dictionary.reference.com, definition 1 of "service" is "an act of helpful activity; help; aid". We don't see it used in the government/organization sense until definition 7. By using definition 7, we are actively implying that someone's term in office (or in a job) was a net benefit, which is non-neutral. Thoughts? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"served" in this sense is standard English--1) check the dictionary [Webster Unabridged: to hold an office: discharge a duty or function: act in a capacity *served on a jury* *served as mayor for several years]. 2) It's used worldwide: Lentz (2014) says "Kolisevski was a member of the Collective Presidency of Yugoslavia from 1972 and served as vice president from 1979 until 1980. He succeeded Marshal Tito as president on May 4, 1980." 3) The American Counties: Origins of County Names Page viii (2005) states: "Of these, there were 175 counties named for 66 men who served as both senator and representative including the 30 listed in the governor group who served as senator, governor, and representative for whom 59 counties are named." 4) it's used by opponents: Red State/Blue State by Justin Cord Hayes (2006) writes: Republican Martinez has served as senator since 2005. You can vote him out of office in 20l0. Martinez served in Dub-Yuh's cabinet as the Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban ... Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I see where Faceless Enemy is coming from and the user brings up a very good point but "served" is used universally. It does come off a bit promotional but as a public servant, these individuals are "serving" their constituents. The term "served" is used on every politicians page so replacing each use would be a daunting task. Meatsgains (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be daunting, in volume and in scornful opposition from page-watchers and editors adding new content. Besides, we'd lose that careful distinction between a person and the role or office they fill(ed). "He was a soldier" defines and subsumes him in a way that "he served as a soldier" does not. NebY (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

NebY, if it gained consensus here that "served" was an idiom, euphemism, or puffery (I feel it's a bit of all of the above), then we could simply point any objectors to the relevant section of this page. I don't think I agree with the point about subsuming identities though. I don't "serve as" my job title - I just "am" my job title. It's understood that I'm more than that, just as I am more than my gender, religion, or ethnicity. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Meatsgains, if it's worth doing on one page, then it's worth doing on all of them. Tools like AWB would make it easier to do. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Rjensen, good point, especially about the opponents' use of terms. However, I think where it really gets iffy is that we wouldn't say someone "served as a bank teller", but we would say that they "served as mayor" or "served in the military". Wikipedia should not implicitly argue that being a bank teller is more or less of a public service than being mayor or being in the military. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

We need to follow the RS and the dictionaries are unanimous in supporting to hold an office: discharge a duty or function: act in a capacity *served on a jury* *served as mayor for several years Rjensen (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it appears in a dictionary. The whole "words to watch" page is full of words that appear in a dictionary with the definitions they would presumably be used for. The question here is whether it introduces bias. In this case, we imply that "serving" on a jury, or in elected office, is of some selfless benefit to someone else (presumably society as a whole). Moreover, by not using the word "served" for certain professions or positions, we imply that those professions or positions are somehow less valuable. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Standard English. And WTW isn't for "words that can ever, possibly be inappropriately used", it's for words that are usually problematic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I'm trying to make the point that its use is just about always problematic; it always conveys a small, positive bias towards certain jobs or positions, the people who work in those careers or positions, and their tenures therein. We don't say that "John Doe currently serves as a Walmart greeter", but we do say "Pat Robertson serves as chancellor and CEO of Regent University and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network." It's not the encyclopedia's place to make a value judgment as to whether it's more admirable to be CEO of Regent University than to be a Walmart greeter. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it clearly isn't usually problematic. So, there's that. It's problematic when it's used, as in the example you provide, to liken an entirely civilian job to a non-civilian one. When it's used for non-civilian jobs (the standard usage), it's not problematic. Note that this thread is 'Is "served" appropriate in the context of government or military jobs?', not 'Is "served" appropriate outside the context of government or military jobs?'. If you want to ask the latter question, it's a different thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

If it isn't appropriate outside of that context, doesn't that point to its inherent bias? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see it. It's just a standard construction when used in reference to military work and a few other fields, just as "appointed" and "named" are used in others. If I say I was appointed as the janitor at a local high school, or named to the position of burger flipper at McDonalds, obviously that's PoV/peacock wording. The words are not "inherently" problematic, it's the out-of-context usage that's off-kilter. If I was appointed to the Supreme Court or named as the new US ambassador to Russia, these terms would not be out of place. No words are "inherently biased"; they're just arbitrary symbols. What their use in a particular context implies is what may carry bias. All that said, I don't feel very strongly about this one. I do feel strongly that this page doesn't exist for blacklisting words that someone can sometimes abuse if they try really hard. It's to advise caution regarding terms that are consistently likely to be controversial (to the extent we actually want it to serve any kind of "word list" function at all; several previous discussions have leaned toward rewriting this whole page as an actual guideline, advising the type of situations to look out for and including some contextual examples, instead of the present form as something like a censorship checklist of "wiki-dirty words"). Speaking for myself, I would normally not use "served as", even in reference to military work/service in writing an article here (and "elected" makes more sense for political offices) but I'm skeptical this rises to the WtW level. It's more a matter of poor word choice than evidence of a desire to snow the public. It has a résumé-like tone. But lots of words do, and we don't list them here, and arguably should not. That's all, really.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, I've mulled your response over for a couple of days. Is there any case where "served" is the most appropriate and neutral word? (Other than "the waiter/waitress served them food" or something.) And I agree that certain words on the WtW list are fine in context (such as "alleged" for legal issues), but by and large to me this does make sense to use as a "no go" words list, if only because better alternatives usually exist. Perhaps it makes sense to have a "words that are probably replaceable by a better alternative" list? Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It's an entirely subjective matter. WP doesn't have any rules about, or methods for determining, the "most appropriate" way to phrase something. Seems a bit like deciding the best ice cream flavor. :-) I do agree that this page needs to be re-focused, but having it in the form of a list of words we don't like is probably never going to be effective. It should probably be a list of problematic uses of language as a context and implication matter, using in situ examples. A paragraph on negative implications of words that are often seen as loaded. A paragraph on usage that was once common/normal but now often seen as offensive. A paragraph on puffery. Etc. If the types of problems are identified instead of specific words being maintained in an add-this-and-remove-that-one shitlist, disputation here would be a lot lower, and the page would be more useful. Think of the way WP:AADD is organized. There is not a separate line-item for every possible poor argument; they are grouped into general classes of poor argument, and common examples within each class are listed, from which people can reason and extrapolate. We don't need to list "Irishman" and "a Chinese" if we have a section that already shows how "Chinaman", "Negro", and "Jewess" can be used in offensive ways, as an example. This page would be much easier to digest and apply if it were a catalogue of faults, not of every imaginable example of the faults.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• We Want Was! This has long irked me, but never quite enough to speak up. Now that you have, I'm outraged. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" revisited

The inclusion of "ethnic cleansing" as a euphemism for genocide seems out of place. I realize the archives contain several other proposals to remove this phrase, but in the absence of consensus nothing changed. Ethnic cleansing is not euphemistic; it is one of the most serious international crimes, and although similar to genocide, these are distinct terms with their own meanings. Is there a compelling reason to continue to include this term? TheBlueCanoe 22:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Um ... Reword opening statement of this section for clarification. TheBlueCanoe, you seem to be saying that you would prefer to have the technical (/true/proper/etc.) definitions of genocide and ethnic cleansing followed on Wikipedia, except you then throw us a curveball question that is essentially asking for the removal of one of the two terms as if they are the same, despite your post having just stated that they have different meanings. Could you please clarify if that was your intent, i.e. to remove the usage of one of the two terms, or if the question is (at time of writing) misleading in its intent. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, my proposal is to remove the text that reads "nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide" from the list of euphemistic language to avoid.TheBlueCanoe 18:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Any objections to this proposal? TheBlueCanoe 03:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. They are two different issues (like manslaughter vs. murder). Obviously one shouldn't be used in place of the other, but it's not a euphemism; it's a different crime altogether. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree Ethnic cleansing can include expulsion as well as murder, whereas genocide refers to murder. I do not feel the term softens the impact of what is referred to at all; it is not a euphemism and cannot simply be replaced by "genocide" as they are not the same thing.-- Joren (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. The section is a bit bare without this example, so if anyone can think of other common euphemisms that should be added, that would probably be a helpful addition. TheBlueCanoe 00:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

 Comment:: Ethnic cleansing as a term was coined in the 1990s and was originally coined as a euphemism to obscure the sinister facet of expulsion. Although no different from earlier notions such as "population transfer", the term soon gained notoriety when it shifted from informal to formal through measures such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 780. As such, now it is a real thing. One legacy of the "euphemistic" element, and one that may indeed cause people to think before using it when "expel" will suffice, is that one needs to ask who or what is being cleansed. The answer is: the land. So it is wrong to make human beings the object of the verb "ethnically cleanse". Instead, those people were the victims of ethnic cleansing. But then what does it mean to "cleanse"? It means to sanitise, sterilise, to make something cleaner than clean. So for a victim to admit he was the subject of ethnic cleansing is just as good as admitting that he was the "vermin" that dirtied that land which had to be "cleansed". With me originating from Mostar, and having first hand experience in the wars of the 1990s, I would think before I applied the term "etničko čišćenje" when talking to somebody there (the town is mixed Bosniak/Croat with a small Serb population). As regards "genocide", just make sure what you claim to be genocide is genocide, and make sure it is not referred to anywhere externally as "ethnic cleansing" because there are times when that what one source considers "genocide" can be referred to as "ethnic cleansing" in another source equally reliable. --OJ (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Fun Fact: Indiana used to have Indians. Seriously though, "cleansing" is a filthy word, like OJ says. If it involves mass killing and deculturalization/relocation, just say both things happened. Easier than making a survivor feel like shit or finding a source for "genocide" that somebody won't call unreliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the question here shouldn't really be "is it a euphemism" - it's clearly not, and as your experience demonstrates, the question might well be "is it a racial epithet". My first exposure to the term was reading about that very atrocity in the '90s, and my childhood memory is of "cleansing" being used with the nuance of getting rid of undesirable people, hence the use of the word almost forces taking the point of view of the people perpetrating it. I had the same thoughts regarding the word "cleansing", and I'm wishing I'd brought it up in my initial reply, but the word is so standardized now and I couldn't think of a synonym that is both accurate and not seeming to take the POV of those perpetrating it.

Population transfer, IMHO, would be a euphemism, as it obscures the typically forced nature of it, and could technically apply to voluntary migration or a host of other processes (it also doesn't encompass the killing of people based on ethnic identity). Even words such as "purge" have issues similar to those of "cleansing". Would value your opinion on a word both accurate and non-POV, though I wonder if there is one with enough notability to be understood widely :( I suppose it's possible the existing terms have been in use long enough that they may well have lost the POV quality by now... in any case, your perspective is greatly appreciated. Thank you for sharing. -- Joren (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ethnic cleansing is a standard term of art in political science. It's not a claim that some ethnicity was unclean and were cleansed away, it's a claim that some mass-murderous group treated another as if they were unclean and needed to be cleansed away. Its turning the language and views of the mass-murderers against them. The term was originally given in "scare quotes", like "politically correct", which are no longer needed because the term is not being used as its originators used it, but in mockery of their use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

If the term was created by a perpetrator and not a victim, and that perpetrator as you say "treated another as if they were unclean and needed to be cleansed away", why would a victim embrace the same term? It is obvious why, people heard the expression, totally misinterpreted it, applied it negatively and eventually, the victims came to use the term. My own great aunt fled Drniš in Croatia to live in Split for the 1991-1995 war there, though given no harm came to her neighbours, she probably didn't need to escape; either way, she hated the term čišćenje which in English translates to "cleansing". She considered herself expelled, or forced to evacuate. --OJ (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well said, User:SMcCandlish. This is my understanding as well.TheBlueCanoe 01:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thx. Another way of thinking of this: When we speak of "objectification of women" we don't mean that women are in fact being converted into objects, but rather than the objectifier is mistreating/labeling/viewing them as if they were. It's a parallel construction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

CLAIM query

Out of interest, I see the word "cite" is not on the list and yet I feel this is by far the best for neutrality since it is irrelevant whether what is being "cited" is truthful, dishonest, careful or careless. In fact it is just that bit more formal (i.e. encyclopaedic) than the common "said".

Additionally when it comes to courts, especially controversial establishments such as international criminal tribunals (often rejected by prosecuted parties, and invariably some scholars from outside affected region), I personally believe that rather than a person being "found" guilty, he should "ruled" guilty, or at most "deemed" guilty - since deem and doom have the same origin and denote fate. My concern is for the first point though. Any opinions please? --OJ (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Could you give us some examples? I don't see where you could replace "said" with "cite"—e.g. "Alice Cooper cited his latest farewell tour would be 'the most awesomest'" (?). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In your example, neither "said" or "cite" are good, I would have said "hyped"! Not encyclopaedic, but if we are using the term "awesome" you might as well go all the way. I generally meant in place of "claim". --OJ (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

OJ: Okay, but I thought you'd get the point that you can't just substitute "cite" for "claim". Alright, then: "Alice Cooper cited that he his latest farewell tour was the shortest". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who's saying what, but "Alice Cooper cited that he his latest farewell tour was the shortest" make no sense. EEng 00:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

(even without the he) EEng 00:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Good, so someone got the point. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I was slow but the penny has dropped. In that case, "hold/maintain" will definitely be a good solution to "claim" for much of the time, (the opposition holds that the figure does not exceed 10,000, this surmises they claimed it in the first place but to "hold" it reaffirms that whilst they may not be correct, they are not disingenuous. --OJ (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?

(Added a link to this discussion on the Suicide talk page DanBCDanBC (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC) )

I believe that it does and that "committed suicide" is the generally accepted term. However, there appears to be no consensus on the matter so far. ⁓ Hello71 15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Died by suicide" is very clear. There's no hint of euphemism there, unlike for example "took their own life". Further, while "committed suicide" is common in the US it's less common outside the US, and worldwide the usage is changing away from "committed suicide". The "committed suicide" phrasing is strongly rejected by many people - the Wikipedia article on suicide has some useful links. Here's the link to that page's definition section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Definitions and here's the cited link from that section: http://www.psychology.org.au/Content.aspx?ID=5048 Here's a link to (English) The Samaritan's guide to reporting suicide: http://www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide/advice-journalists-suicide-reporting-dos-and-donts Here's a link to the UK National Union of Journalist's PDF guide to reporting mental ilness and suicide: https://www.nuj.org.uk/documents/nuj-guidelines-for-responsible-reporting-on-mental-health/ Page 8 of that guide says "Remember suicide is not a crime so it is inaccurate to use the word ‘committed’. Describing someone as having ‘committed suicide’ reduces the person to the type of death or implies criminal or sinful behaviour. An alternative term is "died by suicide"". Here's a link to the BBC Editorial Guidelines http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/harm-and-offence/suicide I believe these three independent international sources show the move away from the phrase "committed suicide" towards the phrase "died by suicide". It's important to note that I am not trying to prevent people from using "committed suicide" on Wikipedia. I'm not purging all (or even most) uses of "committed suicide". But once per article it's useful to introduce the internationally accepted modern language of "died by suicide". I'm not searching out the phrase on WP, but when I find an article that uses it I change one instance from "committed suicide" to "died by suicide". --DanBCDanBC (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I posted a link to this discussion on the death/suicide project talk page. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Death#RFC_.22Does_.27Died_by_Suicide.27_constitute_a_euphemism.3F --DanBCDanBC (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• A good argument might be made for committed suicide being the opposite of a euphemism because (as mentioned above) the committed bit refers to the notion of suicide being a sin or crime, though I don't think it's commonly perceived this way anymore, except in certain religions circles. Personally I think killed himself, committed suicide, and took his own life are about equally acceptable, but each has its own negative: the first is a bit blunt, the second carries the slightly negative connotation mentioned, and the last sounds slightly poetic. Died by suicide sounds... I don't know... like died by his own hand, which is definitely slightly euphemistic. EEng 19:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Killed himself" lacks the connotation of intent; it is possible to "kill yourself" by doing something dangerous. Suicide has a definite meaning, which includes intent. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No, "Killed himself" (like, I suppose, "filed a lawsuit") lacks the denotation of intent, but it certainly carries that connotation, just as "broke his leg skiing" lacks the denotation of accident, but certainly carries that connotation. EEng 04:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sonny Bono tried to end his own suffering with pills before killing himself skiing. The implication? Most foul. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, March 1, 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, Hulk. EEng 01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Good evening. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

Have you visited the museums lately? They bring murder back to the userpage -- where it belongs. EEng 05:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Keeping the past alive, like Night Gallery, but for the weird stuff. Good work. Presented for your consideration, this modern portrait of a man who shot himself to death while shooting himself for posterity. Accidentally, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

Hah! I can beat that one! EEng 08:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that'll take the cake, but for completeness, here's an accidental/incidental homicide. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, March 5, 2016 (UTC)

• "Died by suicide" is clearly descriptive, not a euphemism. "Committed suicide" has PoV problems; it's the Judeo-Christian view that it's a sin/crime being committed. If I'm dying slowly in agony of pancreatic cancer with no qualify of life, just unending torment, I'll happily give myself relief; I won't be "committing" anything [in my agnostic reality tunnel]. Re: "commonly perceived": So, why did my Facebook page get hit with a meme-pic the other day ranting about how suicide attempts are not a plea for help or anything but a crime and should be prosecuted as one? I think that pic had 17 mil. shares or something like that. It definitely is a judgmental PoV, a conservative religious one. Anyway, "killed him/herself" can be used in a way that doesn't imply accident just by writing clearly; it's rarely taken to imply accident, and we would not normally use it that way. And "Died by suicide" is clear, it just does not always flow well in every sentence. I don't even think "committed suicide" is necessarily a PoV problem, just often one; depends on usage again. "Died by his/her own hand" isn't really a euphemism, it's just archaic, like "spoke unto thee". "Took his/her own life" is also descriptive and not particularly euphemistic, but I gather that some here think it's euphemistic for some reason. I would think there must be a thesaurus of such terms somewhere in a death-related resources. Given a clean slate article, I think I'd use "died by suicide" in the lead, and then "killed him/herself" in the body.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

As should be apparent, I really don't care much. Let me add one more phrasing to the mix, and y'all can duke it out: "died by self-inflicted [gunshot, poisoning, etc]". EEng 04:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That's an unhelpful addition. Self inflicted poisoning could be an accidental death. This discussion is not about the use of the word "suicide", but about the use of either "committed suicide" or "died by suicide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBCDanBC (talk • contribs) 11:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Think twice, Mr. Know-it-all. This discussion is clearly about appropriate and inappropriate ways to refer to suicide, and the suggestion of "self-inflicted" is a helpful addition to this discussion since, whether it's a good or bad choice, the thinking about that should be memorialized along with the rest. EEng 20:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Suicide is by definition self inflicted. Including the phrase self-inflicted is redundant. You don't appear to be aware of how this RfC started, you might want to look at that before you tell me I don't know what this RfC is about. Again: since you don't care much either way, you might want to stop adding unhelpful, uninformed, off-topic opinion to an RfC that has a narrow focus. Or alternatively if you actually do care you might want to start a broader RfC somewhere else. DanBCDanBC (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, NPA. DanBCDanBC (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. Despite this RfC's over-narrow opening formulation, clearly more is being discussed whether you like it or not. Throwing in other related phrases for consideration as either good or bad makes sense. Also, COMMON SENSE. EEng 16:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You're the only person bringing in pointless distractions. For someone who doesn't care you make many comments. A gentle reminder - "Blah blah blah" is a personal attack, and it's not a constructive contribution. DanBCDanBC (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You're the only person fussing that it's a distraction. Can't you just let others decide for themselves whether they care to discuss it? Please do be my guest and have the last word now. Blah blah blah blah blah blah. EEng 12:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Died by self-inflicted [gunshot, poisoning, etc]" is a descriptive phrase that might be useful in some contexts; it's not a substitute for a note that someone died by suicide, for the reason DanBCDanBC gives. It's additional information.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"a note that someone died by suicide" -- that would be a suicide note? EEng 15:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• No policy recommendations should be made about stylistic details like this. Get a consensus for what is appropriate in a specific article. Just say no to micromanagement and instruction creep.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. This entire page, as has been discussed many times before, needs to be re-done as a guide to how to avoid wording problems, using contextual examples drawn from the present list, instead of trying to serve as a "banned word and phrase list".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah². EEng 21:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC) P.S. Hi, Maunus!

Died by suicide is okay but if we know if they shot themselves or poisoned self then we should put that as this is an encyclopedia where the facts should be not censored from the article, see Censor Policy. RFC Volunteer Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, there was an RfC level consensus that "committed suicide" was perfectly acceptable back in 2013. See here. If the intention here is to reconsider that finding then I believe a notice of this discussion should be posted at Talk:Suicide. If not, carry on! DonIago (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That discussion is useful. Some most people in that thread don't mind if "died by is used" (even if they prefer "committed"), and the use (or not) of "died by" is what's being discussed here. So, it seems consensus from 2013 is that died by is not euphemistic. DanBCDanBC (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, for Christ's sake where have you been for the last 30 posts? EEng 01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I like to let these things build up for awhile before I make an appearance. More dramatic that way! DonIago (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well played, then. Can someone close this? EEng 01:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Whatever other issues there may be with the phrase, "died by suicide" cannot possibly be taken as a euphemism. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I think "committed suicide" reads better, but I wouldn't call "died by suicide" a euphemism. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Reading info Suicide and Language - Robert Olson, Librarian, BA, MLIS, Centre for Suicide Prevention, 2011 -- Moxy (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Died by suicide is a simple description of what has occured. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: "Died by suicide" is not a euphemism, but it is awkward wording; this may be because it's not as common as "committed suicide." I prefer "committed suicide" because it is the standard terminology and I'm used to it. I could not care less about the "criminal" implications some people have with it. I'd never read a religious POV argument regarding it until SMcCandlish's comment above. Note: Issues with "committed suicide" was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (with WP:Med editors also weighing in); see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160#Wording on articles about suicide in line with recommended best practice based on research. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That discussion also shows that SMcCandlish had a different take on the matter in 2014, but, hey, opinions change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Committed suicide is only the standard terminology in the US, and even there it's losing ground among researchers and health professionals. But this discussion is not about preventing anyone from using "committed", or abut replacing all occurrences of "committed", but about whether it's okay to change "died by" to "committed". DanBCDanBC (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no evidence that "[c]ommitted suicide is only the standard terminology in the US." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

And this discussion is about whatever people are discussing. The opening question was whether "died by suicide" is a euphemism. The consensus clearly is that it it's not. Others are also raising PoV questions about "committed", and whether DanBCDanBC wants that discussion to happen or not, it is happening.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but going off topic is unhelpful where two editors are trying to work out whether "died by" is euphemistic or needs reverting. There are plenty of places for you to talk about the general topic. This tiny little thread started with a nicely defined, tight focus that arose from an actual interaction between two editors. DanBCDanBC (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: "Died by suicide" is not a euphemism, but it is a bit blunt. It is not my perception that this is in normal use in the local media coverage. Whiteguru (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• No. It seems OK to me. It's a little wordier and less familiar, but it's not a euphemism. A euphemism would obscure what happened, but this is still clear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Summoned by bot. No not a euphemism. Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Attempt to summarise: "Died by" is not seen as a euphemism by most people in this discussion, and previous discussions have said that "died by" is acceptable. So long as people aren't replacing all instances of "committed" with "died by" there shouldn't be a problem. I don't care about the rest, other people can summarise that. DanBCDanBC (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Since" editwarring

There's ongoing WP:EDITWARring about including the word "since" and providing an example of its use ("president since date"). Our section on dated statements is already festooned with instances and examples, and the resistance to this addition seems to be based on this fact, not on the word itself. It's actually highly dubious that all, even most, uses of "since" are "words to watch", and this yet again points out the the problem with this guideline trying to serve as a "bad word list" instead of guidance on implications in particular contexts that should be avoided. I'm of the mind that the entire section on this can be rewritten in a way that conveys this about statements that will not age well, but without trying to list every possible construction that could lead to such a situation, since that is what has inspired this edit war, and will just inspire another one and another one as someone else comes along and thinks of a differently worded case that suffers the same problem, mistaking this section for a list of constructions that can lead to the problem instead of a concise explanation of what the problem is no matter what exact wording is used to cause the problem. <sigh>  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Regime

Many of my recent edits have focused on cleaning up passages where the word "regime" has been used not for its primary meaning of system of governance but for its secondary meaning where it is used to editorialise: a substitute for "government", "rule", "administration" or even the name of the country itself, chiefly in cases where the government in question is not in favour with mainstream media (typcially referred to as authoritarian in these cases but not always strictly so). Obviously if it is used in sources then there is no crime in introducing it into text, though when an editor changes it to a word also used in sources (e.g., "government") then problems can arise when an editor reverts him to the "regime" display. My belief is that "regime" is politically loaded and one-sided but I would like to hear the views of others, especially anyone who favours its usage. In due course, I'll explain why I believe it to be one-sided (violating NPOV) but for now, let's have some thoughts and we can cross-examine each other and give examples as we go along. Regards. --OJ (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion it definitely has negative connotations. I don't see any reason to use it at all when "government" is plenty usable and far more neutral, whether or not the sources use "regime". Our job is to present neutral, balanced information backed by reliable sources, not parrot loaded language. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am taking part in a related conversation on Talk:Apostrof#Regime. --OJ (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree; this is a rhetorically loaded term.Wikibearwithme (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Depends. There's no PoV problem in referring to Pol Pot's regime, Idi Amin's regime, the Italian Fascists' regime, Franco's regime, etc., as regimes, because RS routinely do so. Referring to Thatcher's UK government as a regime would raise an eyebrow or two or a million, because of how the word's day-to-day meaning has shifted. "Regime" is also a term of art in various contexts, especially legal/regulatory ones; e.g., "post-Internet changes to the U.S. copyright regime"; here it means "system of rules", in lay terms. It's also part of the French loan-phrase Ancien Régime, often not capitalized, and anglicized as "ancien regime", when used metaphorically (with the same meaning as "the old guard".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

RS often use lots of other loaded words or phrases, but we should avoid using them if we can convey the same meaning with more neutral language. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

There is not a consensus that we should always do this. It depends on what the propensity of the sources say. To fall back on the stock example, if most sources say that the Nazi regime murdered millions of Jews and others, we say so, we don't use euphemistic language like "resulted in the deaths of".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I am aware there is no consensus, that is why I began this thread. My question is not on the propensity of the sources but whether the term is loaded (i.e. is it a label or is it actual?). Authors, journalists and reporters are free to use whatever language they choose; here we are required to be formal and non-controversial. Your response to Faceless Enemy states that if sources say "the Nazi regime murdered millions of Jews" then we should not say, "resulted in the deaths of". That was not his point, nobody said "use the passive and not the active", the question here is, what would be wrong with saying "government"? Take the following passage: In all, about 12 million men, women, and children were murdered by the Nazi government of Germany and its followers. Six million of them were Jews - the only group specifically targeted for complete extermination. - do you see a problem with this kind of presentation from here? Do you believe that this would be improved if an editor switched "government" for "regime", and if so, why? --OJ (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

If you think my point just had to do with passive voice, you're missing it. I'm not sure I have opinion on your question, and it doesn't strike me as relevant. No one ever suggested that every possible of use "regime" would be ideal. The discussion is about whether it's ever permissible. An obviously permissible case would be that "Hitler becoming chancellor was a regime change that was [something about the press coverage of the day could go here]".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

In the above post, it is a perfectly acceptable example of how the word should be used. In the first place, the word is used in its primary non-loaded context (ruling system) and in the second, the word "change" distributes the term equally between outgoing in incoming entities. I never meant to oppose its usage 100% as you can see, and I certainly accept that when it is used in the source that there is no guideline breach when inserting it onto mainspace. My question pertained to the other context whereby the term is viewed widely as a label - and I say widely because there is no question that authors and politicians alike (on all sides of political fences) are fully aware of this which is why they fail to apply the term to themselves, allies or to any favoured state. CNN knows the "Putin regime" even though it is highly unlikely Nemtsov will have used the term when working alongside Russian government, while at the same time Novorossia knows the "Obama regime" although this never declared war on Moscow (yeah, I'm laughing at the two articles this end as well :-) !!). But the issue here is when an editor such as I should make the relevant tweak such as here, I am interested to know if anyone believes that I should not have done this, is my edit in itself loaded (and if so why), and does anyone feel inclined to revert on any principle. My belief is that I replaced a loaded term with a neutral term which is also used in sources. (Thanks in advance to anyone who deliberates here) --OJ (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorist" or "Conspiracy Theory"

I don't think it is much debated that conflicts of interest and insider trading are a widespread problem in modern society. Conflicts of interest typically require some form of collusion. However, at any point that there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, whether collusion is apparent or not, such concerns are readily dismissed rhetorically with the lable "conspiracy theory." This is obviously a pejorative, and should be recognized as such by Wikipedia.Wikibearwithme (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone brings this up here pretty much every other day, and the answer is always the same: The phrase is not problematic when used correctly. Your argument is not cogent at all. Conflict of interest has nothing to do with collusion; see wikt:conflict of interest. Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists have nothing to do with conflicts of interest. Sometimes the alleged conspirators have some kind of conflict of interest, but so what? They also sometimes involve people with brown eyes, or Europeans, or people under the age of 45. A conspiracy theorist is someone who theorizes (technically, hypothesizes) a conspiracy. That's not pejorative. IT would be pejorative in some sense to incorrectly label someone a conspiracy theorist without any reliable sources suggesting this, but then it's a matter of an unverifiable claim being made about that person, not something pejorative. There is no "ban" on pejoratives. If someone's proven to be a murderer, WP will say so, not euphemise around it with something contorted, like "alleged to have and found guilty of having taking a life unjustly."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)