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

What words are "contentious"

I propose that the following words are unambiguously contentious and would need reliable sources before being used in Wikipedia's voice:

• racist
• perverted
• heretic
• extremist
• terrorist
• bigot
• -gate
• pseudo-

The other words I find are not so unambiguously contentious and our text either doesn't discuss them or is ambiguous about them (c.f. myth).

Comments?

jps (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree about all the terms in the list, but would add "cult" and "sect" and maybe a few related words. Calling someone a "criminal" might be problematic, for instance. John Carter (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This attempt to remove the word "Denialist" should be rejected at hand. Furthermore, this is the wrong way to go about such a change. Arzel (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This looks like exactly the right way to discuss a revision of the list of examples. For the sake of clarity, I'll note that jps's proposal would remove "cult", "sect", "fundamentalist", "denialist", "freedom fighter", "myth" and "controversial". You're free to argue that any of those should still be included. NebY (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

One way of proposing change that I have often seen and practised is first present the existing situation, then to present a proposed situation (or issue, set of issues) then perhaps to not any changes and present any related thoughts and arguments. This seems to been a contentious page and, although I will not judge whether an "attempt" was involved, Arzel is right to raise the issue. GregKaye 12:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

"Heretic[al]"/"heresy" in the context of Roman Catholicism (and its offshoots) isn't contentious, but a matter of factual record; either the church (usually the Pope, or the king in Anglicanism) declared something heresy, or not. Used in other contexts, these words would be a PoV problem, but this doesn't seem to be happening, so I don't see an issue to address here. Those Watergate-derived "-gate" labels are also a matter of fact; something has either been popularly termed that way or it hasn't, and whether we title the article that way is a WP:COMMONNAME issue, and whether we mention the label in the text is a matter for case-by-case discussion at the articles' talk pages about how prevalent it is in the sources, and whether they have an agenda to push. "Pervert[ed]" would be contentious in WP's voice even if sources did use it, since it's a subjective moral judgment. "Pseudo-" is simply Latin for 'false' and is not contentious in any way in many cases; it's a common element in various scientific names for animals, minerals, etc. We don't need to modify the guideline to account for obvious misuse of the prefix to impart value judgments. "Terrorism" is a specific set of tactics, generally mass murder and the destruction of public edifices, or the threat of such actions, to achieve political ends. While the word can be used in a loaded way, so can just about anything, and it isn't inherently judgmental. "Sect" isn't either; it simply means "religious group, especially one with beliefs that differ from those of other groups within the same overall religion". The fact that some people misuse it to mean "a weird cult" doesn't mean we can't use it. "Cult" almost always, in present-day English, conveys a negative connotation. While there is still some surviving use of the term in an anthropological sense (our own article Dionysus uses it in this neutral way in the lead, for example), it's a term of art in such cases and not apt to be understood as neutral by non-specialist readers, so the term is best avoided in such contexts, and replaced with "worship of", "a shrine to", and other more specific phrasing that fits the context in question. In reference to what we usually think of as "cults" (Heaven's Gate, etc.), yes we need sources, but we need sources for everything anyway. I would agree with adding it to this guideline, but there's nothing wrong with following the sources and using "cult" to describe Heaven's Gate or the Jonestown group. We even have reliable sources for working definitions of "cult" in that context and how to distinguish a cult (in that sense) from a religion. It's not WP's job to draw such a distinction ourselves, per WP:NOR, but it is our job to reflect how the sources treat these subjects. There is absolutely no doubt that a majority of reliable sources treat Scientology as a cult, for example, and our article on that topic properly reflects this. The problem is just using WP's voice to try to definitively label something a "cult" rather than report that specific sources have done so. "Denial[ist]" is a matter of fact, not opinion; either someone's published views do or do not deny something that is otherwise generally accepted. Similarly for "revisionist". "Racist" and "bigot[ry]" are obviously going to be problematic, but the former can be used without being an issue when the sources support it. There's no question, for example, that Jim Crow laws were racist, and it's not a PoV problem for WP to say so. "Bigot[ry]" is simply a loaded way of saying "racist"; it's an ad hominem personal label, like "jackass", instead of a description of a belief system or pattern of behavior ("-ism"). I don't see any evidence that it's being used in articles and needs to be addressed by this guideline. We don't need to list every single term in here that someone could conceivable misuse in an article, only those that are perennially problematic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment by NAEG There's a whiff of a proposal here, but it seems incomplete to me. Our section now provides an open ended list of examples (notice the ellipsis at the start and end of the list of sample words). Our text does not say that any of these ALWAYS are contentious; it only says they MIGHT be. This puts the onus on editors to use good judgment and cooperative BRD on case-by-case basis. Proposal sounds like a proposal to (A) keep an open-ended list of MAYBE words and our MAYBE text, while (B) adding a new section of ALWAYS-TROUBLE words and text that MANDATES criteria for their usage. This strikes me as very well-intended WP:CREEP. @Peter Gulutzan:, elsewhere you opined that the proposal would remove "denialist" from the list of sample words. I don't read it that way, first because the OP said nothing about purging the MAYBE words/text; secondly because the list of sample words is not exclusive, i.e., it is open-ended. So no worries, mate, you can keep citing this to keep saying we can't say "deny" derivatives at Anthony Watts (blogger) unless we also include sources, like that published report from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences mentioned at the talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

What I actually said is here. I don't recall that I cited WP:WTW at some earlier time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement that this proposal might "result in removing 'denialist' from the list of words to watch". I don't think that is what is being proposed for reasons stated above. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot depends on context of usage in RS, but generally speaking the list looks about right, with the possible exception of pseudo-, which is commonly used for legitimate descriptive purposes, like quasi-.

I would think that "cult" could probably be added, with caution, because it is often used legitimately in a critical capacity, such as "cult of personality", etc.; but probably not "sect", which is too commonly used for legitimate classification purposes in RS in religious studies. Wikipedia editors should not use these terms editorially to summarize critical RS unless there is a consensus as to the preponderance.

"Denialist" definitely should be removed, as there are extremely limited number of "value-laden" applications of that general term. The "climate change" related application is an example of misapplication of this policy for POV ends; that is to say, as a basis for excluding RS criticism of commentary on climate change denying that it is happening, or the extent, etc., which is the dictionary definition of the term.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that this is simply an exercise to remove the "Denialist" in order to call climate change skeptics "deniers". I am afraid you are wrong about the dictionary definition. Arzel (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[1] --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I have to concur with Ubikwit; too many of these words have non-contentious uses, in reliable sources. I also have to agree with NewsAndEventsGuy's analysis: We are mix-and-matching "maybe" and "always" contentious terms, and doing so in an unclear fashion, with the result that we do not have a clear proposal here, only the beginnings of one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the status quo worse, though? It indicates a number of words that are identified as "problematic" without explanation and then offers extended rejoinders for a number of others that it lists which seem to detract from the whole point of the section. jps (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. This entire extended thread seems to me not to be improving the situation (yet?) but adding to the confusion. The proposal still seems to be mix-and-matching terms that refer to RS-verifiable facts (criminal conviction, the existence of real-world controversy, definition as a terrorist) and terms that are nothing but opinional judgments (bigotry and perversion, etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Back on track

I think John Carter makes a good case for "criminal" to be included. As for cult and sect, I'm less convinced that they are perennially problematic as SMcCandlish puts it. A "sect" can be a very neutral designation and, until relatively recently, so was the term "cult". On the other hand, I think the current use of "cult" is pretty much always pejorative and it is eschewed in the academic literature, so let's include that one. I aslo think SMcCandlish makes some excellent points about some of other other words currently used. Let's try again. Here is a list of the most problematic terms, as far as I can tell that the consensus states:

• perverted
• cult [under discussion - see below]
• extremist
• terrorist
• bigot
• criminal
• crank

Are there others which are big red flags?

jps (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

_{Apologies for rejoining this late.} While the use of "cult" to describe existing religions and movements may be generally pejorative, "cult" is currently used by historians and others in a non-pejorative sense; current academic literature concerning ancient religions uses it freely. If we do include it, let's make that distinction. NebY (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and in the case of cult of personality it is used pretty widely. jps (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Sect" is pretty much the European variant for the recent American usage of the word "cult." I agree that in both cases the terms can be and reasonably are frequently used in a nonpejorative way. The "cult of saints" for instance is one of the standard ways to describe that form of veneration, and from what I've seen one of the standard names for encyclopedic entries on that form of veneration, and in the US the word "sect" is primarily used in a nonpejorative way to describe groups within a larger faith tradition. In neither case is the use of the word as a part of a broader term, like "Protestant sect" or "cult of saints," necessarily problematic, but if used as stand-alone terms they can be. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed "cult" just because I think that the discussion would be too long. Are there any additional words? jps (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion we've already had may show the way to retaining "cult" with little change to the existing wording e.g. "such as calling an modern organization a cult". NebY (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I added another one. While the word "crank" is often used in passing to describe pseudoscience proponents, it is not a word which should be used in Wikipedia, I'd argue. jps (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is just turning into a PoV-pushing exercise, "these are the words I subjectively don't like". "Criminal", for one thing, is a verifiable factual matter: either convicted or not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the proper term for such "convict"? jps (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I think using the unqualified term "criminal" can be very problematic. "Convicted criminal" is verifiable, but what about people who have their records expunged? What about people who were wrongfully convicted? What about people who are pardoned? Are they all verifiably "criminals"? It's best to avoid the term and describe the legal situation the person finds themselves in. Yes, the word "criminal" might be used, but it can't simply be a label, I think. This is very problematic. jps (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; I made the same recommendation myself, below, to use "convicted criminal", with reliable legal sources. We can also refer to someone's "criminal record", perhaps the most neutral approach (it's literally a reference to legal document sources). When it comes to organized crime, however, we'd still use it unqualified, e.g. "a criminal enterprise". "Convicted criminal" applies largely to specific individuals. PS: "Convict" is most commonly only applied to someone who has served time in prison for a felony, and again, it's a term applied almost exclusively to individuals, which is not true of "criminal" as an adjective.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Are we a go?

I think the list above is far better than the one currently being used in the sense that it includes a higher percentage of simply unambiguous problems. I don't think much (or anything really) would have to change in the text for this replacement. Please let me know your thoughts.

jps (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I dislike ambiguity and there were several comments. Please post a list showing strikeout and underline to indicate changes, and then ask the question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say we are not a go. The thread as a whole indicates a substantial lack of consensus not only with regard to what "the words" are but whether they're "maybe" or "always" not-OK.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm wondering, however, if maybe we could simply use the words above as a starting point for the box. E.g. I think this box is better than the current one:

... perverted, cult, extremist, terrorist, bigot, criminal, crank...

jps (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know to what extent anything might be done on this but I think that labels can work both ways. There are value-laden labels that may be considered to inappropriately discredit a person or group and there are value laden labels that may be considered to inappropriately exonerate a person or group. I do not personally see why a word like "extremist" should be kept on the list when all this long established word implies is taking things to extremes when "jihadist" is not on the list when this neologism has connotations of doctrinal justification for actions. On this it is important to note that there is a fundamental difference between Jihad and Jihadism with Offensive jihad arguably contravening the defensive intentions of the Quran based doctrine. I think that it also exerts POV when many of the groups so described may be most essentially being engaged in conflict with other Sunni, Shia and/or Sufi groups. Many of these groups describe themselves as Mujahideen which, according to article content, relates to the claim of being "engaged in Jihad" but, as mentioned, jihad may often represent something quite different from the expansionist, child abducting, aide worker killing, minority persecuting behaviours involved. GregKaye 13:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that box trimming down the list, with the addition of "controversial".

@Flyer22: You haven't even participated in this discucssion, and the edit summary claim against consensus seems questionable.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And why do I have to participate in this discussion to see that there is no WP:Consensus for this edit I reverted you on? Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Greg extremist assumes that there is a known extreme potion away from the normal one, of course most people believe that their own particular political positions and cultural norms are not extreme. In this I think that there is a lesson to be learnt from Charles James Napier:

"Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

Who was the extremist? Coming more up to date: is it reasonable to state that the Irish are extremists because they will not allow abortions, Or that the Irish are extremists because they allow same sex marriages? Are those British people who want to remain in the European Union extremists or are those who want to leave the union extremists? Are those who believe in free trade extremists? etc etc. The point is that using the term extremist in the narrative voice of the article, carries moral overtones: they are extreme, not "one of us" (the writer and the reader of an article)). -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

PBS there can be situations in which RS consistently and predominantly describe a group as extremist. Sure there may be other descriptive words that can be used but in this type of situation I think that Wikipedia editors should have the option, if in text attribution has been used elsewhere, to similarly use the description elsewhere in the article without the description having to be tied to attribution. GregKaye 13:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If it has been used elsewhere why use it again? Let me give you an example with terrorism. One the term has been in-text attributed, there is no need to state it again, that style way leads to really bad articles like 9/11 where there word terrorist or terrorism is used about 40 times (excluding uses in names such as "War on Terror" and "Terrorism Suppression Act 2002". If one wished one could replace all of those not in quotes with "extremist" and "extremism", without changing the meaning of the article one jot. With a little bit of of copy-editing one could eliminate all 40 usages, and turn a biased article into a non biased one -- which would make the article far more powerful in getting the message across about how terrible the attacks were ("let the facts speak for themselves") . -- PBS (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I agree that "criminal doesn't belong on the list either; of course, it shouldn't be used in a pejorative manner, and must be appropriately sourced.

On the other hand, I think a common word like controversial, somewhat counterintuitively, belongs on the list. In this case, a persons statements, etc., may be controversial, but rarely (if ever) would a person themselves be considered inherently controversial. Maybe the entire conceptual framing of this policy statement needs to be revamped. What we have is a list bloated with terms that should probably only be considered to be "value-laden" when used inappropriately by WP editors, as opposed to RS. I think that is the crux of the matter. Instead of words to be avoided, they are words that need to be handled with care, and not used in a summary-style manner by WP editors.

@GregKaye: I agree with your point on "extremist" as well, basically, though probably not about "jihadist", which is a different issue (social convention).

@Flyer22: It is not even clear that you are aware of what is being discussed here.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I know what is going on here. And you had no WP:Consensus for your change, as is clear above, and I reverted you. Yes, I object to you removing all of the words you did. Also, do stop WP:Pinging me. This page is clearly on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest this content?:

... pervert, cultist, terrorist, bigot, criminal, crank...

,

... perverted, bigot, terrorist, criminal, crank, cult...

or

... bigot, crank, criminal, cult, perverted, terrorist...

The first suggestion presents content in the form of personal descriptions.

The second suggestion was written just from personal view that "perverted, cult" read oddly and that cult made a pithy ending. Its just subjective opinion.

The last suggestion just puts content in alphabetical order.

GregKaye 19:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@GregKaye: "Terrorist" and "criminal" are easily sourced terms in common use. The other terms seem reasonable with the need to point out that "cult", though often used in a pejorative manner, has legitimate uses as well, such as "cult of personality". I think that "controversial" should be included, as it is a sometimes randomly applied label. I think that the "value-laden" aspect needs to be focused narrowly in terms of application, not in a manner as to constrain the use of well-sourced instances.

I'd suggest the following list.

... bigot, crank, cultist, pervert, controversial ...

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• We're still wandering right back into the same mire. I'm more and more beginning to question the raison d'etre of this guideline. It's turning more and more into "Words with which some Wikipedians seem to have a subjective, personal issue". If the preponderance of reliable sources say that Heaven's Gate was a cult, in that sense of the word (see above for anthropological sense, etc.), then it's not our job to force some "we just don't like that term" PoV on the issue. "Criminal" is a matter of legal record - either someone has been convicted or they have not. "Terrorist" is also a matter of definition and usage in reliable sources; if someone is a combatant or would-be-combatant using tactics defined as terrorism (i.e. mass murder, large-scale civic destruction, and/or the threat thereof, in furtherance of a socio-political end), then WP isn't in a position to contradict that terminology just because some people somewhere misuse the word. There is no word that some people do not misuse. I have no issue with "bigot[ed]", "crank", "pervert[ed]" being rejected terminology here. But they're not really "words to watch"; they're simply impermissible per WP:NPOV policy, except in a direct, relevant quotation. What's happening here is we're confusing words that have non-value-laden definitions but also some value-laden usage, with terms that always have a subjective, judgmental meaning. It's a huge can of worms. And the list of each kind of word are potentially very, very long.

  I think we need to take a step back, and look at actual cases of dispute. Do not adding anything to this list unless there's a record of a nearly intractable dispute that has arisen about it's use, and remove anthing from it that doesn't meet that qualification. Otherwise we're simply engaging in instruction creep and trying to "fix what ain't broke". This is a form of "terriblizing". Much of what I see above appears to be trying to pre-emptively address everything bad we can imagine; the problem with this, of course, is that there's practically no limit to our imagination of what maybe, possibly, somehow could lead to some sort of dispute some time in the future.

  And even an analysis of past disputes has to examine what the dispute was actually about. Just because there was some kind of dispute doesn't mean we have a "word to watch" on our hands. This is almost certainly the case with both "terrorist" and "criminal". It's not that the words are inherently PoV-laden, like "bigot", "pervert", and "extremist"; it's that who is labeling whom, in the real world, may reflect an external bias. For this reason, such labels should be qualified and attributed: "a convicted criminal", with legal sources; "defined as a terrorist group by" what specific sources. By way of contrast, we would never say "was a pervert according to ...", or "is a bigot organization according to ...". These two categories of terms are quite distinct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  PS: "Controversial" is in the first category; either we have sources that there's a controvery, or we don't. It's a purely factual matter, and we do in fact use the word quite frequently, often with section headings that use the word. Thousands of our article subjects (human and otherwise) are literally notable for nothing but the controversy surrounding them. It's absurd to think we can't refer to them as controversial, when the entire article will be about the controversy, what is controversial, and who's controverting what. "Controversial" isn't, well, controversial, here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Incidentally, here is the example (two threads related to a professor/author) I recalled that led me to discuss "controversial".[2][3]

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ubikwit: I agree that it's "poisoning the well" to label the authors of sources "controversial" like that (may also be WP:BLP violation). We can say a claim (hypothesis, etc.) is controversial, if we have reliable secondary sources that say so. We can kind of indicate, with due weight and if we're careful, that a claim is controversial without saying so outright, if the sources we have don't themselves quite spell that out, but the coverage in reliable secondary sources clearly indicates that a claim is not well accepted. But it's encyclopedically meaningless blather to say that someone is controversial, no matter what sources say it. It's like claiming they're pretty, or bad-ass.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm entirely in agreement with you, SMcCandlish. I think this whole page might be worth throwing away as this is what we might call a "content style-guide" which is a type of writing that Wikipedia has moved away from. Content is supposed to be verifiable to reliable sources. That's what makes it good content. You can't have blanket style rules to make that work. Either the sources say this is that or the sources do not. So what do we do? Should we demote this page? jps (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said in another thread (below, I think), we could probably rewrite this as a guideline on how to identify problematic wording, and give contextual examples that don't amount to a list that people feel a need to add their pet hated words to. If we focus on a methodology for identifying POV and other problems in wording, rather that on words some of us dislike, we'll probably produce much more useful results.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. I 100% agree with this. Should we start a sandbox for it? jps (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If created, it will need WP:Consensus before going live. I'm mostly fine with the guideline as it is. It's the quote (word) boxes that are sometimes a problem; that is, because of how people interpret and strictly apply them. Then again, different interpretations and applications of the rules are a factor for all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I too am fine with the guideline as it is. jps wants to label Anthony Watts (blogger) a denier or denialist; three editors (I am not one of them) have objected to the label citing WP:WTW; getting rid of "denialist" -- without of course consulting those editors -- will coincidentally help jps to get around their objection. I am not calling this WP:FORUMSHOP but the effect is arguably similar. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support rewrite--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• oppose I am also fine with the current formulation. There is more than a whiff about this of gaming the system to win a minor point at another article, in my opinion. I would be against changing the MoS for such transitory or illusory reasons. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Today an edit by jps in effect reverted an edit made by PBS in April 2010. The same subject of the edit -- removing "denialist" -- was discussed on this section of this talk page and there was no consensus, as jps knows. I reverted until jps can demonstrate that there's something new to discuss. Perhaps jps could also state which editors (quoting jps's edit summary) cited this page "as policy inappropriately around Wikipedia". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps) was Nelson Mandela a terrorist? Is Martin Mcguinness a terrorist? Was the Warrenpoint ambush a terrorist attack (it was launched against Armed British soldiers)? In all three cases there are literally dozens and dozens of reliable sources that state that they were so should the lead of each article mention in the editorial voice of the article that they were terrorists and the attack was carried out by IRA terrorists rather than IRA volunteers? If so then why did the American press tend to shy away from calling IRA gunmen "terrorists" and why did the British press inevitably do so? Reliable sources are not necessarily unbiased, particularly when national self-interest is involved. Eg the American government and most of the American media used to state that the Israeli use of the tactics the Israelis described as "targeted killing" were illegal assassinations until 9/11. After 9/11 when the US government found it expedient to adopt the same tactics, then the US government came up with lots of justifications both moral and legal for such tactics, with lots of support in the US media for the use of such tactics, (prior to the US use of "targeted killing" those in the US who wrote in favour of the tactic tend to be overt supporters of Israel). -- PBS (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at here. Do you object to including terrorist as a "label" or not? jps (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The wording of the guideline describes how to do it: use in text attribution. Now that I have answered question can you mine? -- PBS (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the precise wording that should be used to describe Nelson Mandela, Martin McGuinness, the Warrenpoint ambush, ot how to characterize the IRA attacks. It seems reasonable to avoid using an inflammatory term such as "terrorist", but I'm still not sure why you are asking me about this. jps (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Iconic"

I have added "iconic" to the list of peacock/puffery terms. It's still used quite often in senses where it should be avoided and where it contributes nothing to a sentence. Things that are truly iconic can always be described in terms that clearly state what the iconic thing "stands for" and why. Perhaps it's been considered before, as it's a very prevalent word, but it hasn't been mentioned recently on this talk page. Roches (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This was undone, and I undid the revert. Many of the words on the list are often used correctly ("landmark", "hit"), and the fact that "iconic" does have legitimate uses does not mean that it shouldn't be on the list. If there are "enough examples", do consider removing another word instead. At this point in time, "iconic" is being overused. It will go out of vogue eventually, and then it won't need to be on the list anymore. Roches (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted you here and here. There are indeed enough examples in that box, and I am tired of seeing editors coming along and adding words that they dislike (a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis) to it without any discussion. This is a WP:Guideline, and changes to it that affect how Wikipedia is edited should have WP:Consensus. The word iconic is commonly a valid and acceptable word on Wikipedia, especially when supported by WP:Reliable sources. If it's used in a non-WP:Neutral way, we have means to fix that. We should not be giving editors the impression that the word should generally be avoided. In other words, pointing them to this guideline and telling them "generally avoid that word" likely will not be what is best. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The section title, words that may introduce bias, implies that the words should only be avoided if they do introduce bias. The guideline itself is clearly a caution against using words when they promote a subject without imparting verifiable information, rather than a ban on the use of those words.

You raise a valid concern about the possibility of someone using the guideline to justify removing a proper use of "iconic," although the presence of any word on that list creates that same possibility. I added the word to the list without prior consensus because I did not think anyone would object to its presence. I certainly wouldn't have altered the text of the guideline without consensus. I also wouldn't have changed the contents of one of the lists of words that are generally to be avoided, such as the next list, which contains words like "cult" and "racist." I won't change anything in the future without prior consensus, however. Roches (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD is policy, and many regular editors make tweaks to guidelines and even policies without a big discussion first. More than nine times out of ten this leads to a WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, but that's fine. Editors should not be berated for making bold, good-faith changes. "You didn't discuss this first" is actually not a revert rationale by itself, or Wikipedia would still have only one article. Given the increasingly disputed nature of this erstwhile guideline, we need some bold editing here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I was not berating the editor. And as for "You didn't discuss this first," that is often a valid rationale, especially as far as Wikipedia policies and guidelines go; these policies and guidelines are clear, in their Wikipedia:Nutshell tags, that changes to them should reflect WP:Consensus. Particular care should be taken with policies and guidelines to avoid the very thing you complained about in the #Are we a go? section above -- WP:Instruction creep. Not to mention people using these policies and guidelines to shape their personal views, as is the case with this recent WP:Neutral dispute (see the edit I reverted and the previous discussion on that). You often state how certain things are just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter. Well, WP:Policies and guidelines usually expand beyond WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matters. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, Roches clearly feels berated and then some, and is now afraid to directly edit here ever again. That's a terrible outcome. This is the sort of unwelcoming reception that drives so many incoming editors right back out again. But I think we're talking past each other a little here. My point is that many bold edits do in fact reflect consensus. Many sensible changes to these pages, made boldly, reflect direct observations of the "ground truth" of what our editorial best practices are. (While probably most bold changes do not, enough of them do that WP:BOLD remains a policy that applies to all pages here, not just article content, and this is very important). Consensus is not always about debating on a talk page. Most consensus isn't actually, or this project would have failed almost immediately. I've made an enormous number of direct edits to policy and guideline pages without getting "permission" first, and the number of them that stick might surprise you. I think very carefully about them, and about what is best for the encyclopedia, whether it's my own ideal preference or not. (You'd likely also be surprised at how much of MOS I disagree with, but abide by and ask that others abide by because it is our MOS, and style matters are mostly pretty arbitrary when you get down to it.) "You didn't discuss this first" is not a valid reversion rationale by itself (highlighting a key clause in what I actually said), even if some people think it is and try to misuse it that way. A valid rationale is something like, "I don't agree with this change because X; please discuss". The need to discuss is entirely because there is some X to hash out. That X is the valid revert rationale, and the need for discussion is the cart that follows behind the rationale horse; it is the ship that carries the cargo, not the cargo itself. As I've said before many times here, the menu is not the meal, the map is not the territory. We need to avoid confusing a methodology for resolving a dispute, with the underlying dispute itself. I think what you think I'm saying is something like "you can't insist that people discuss things", but I've not said anything like that at all. PS: I made no such argument about the "localness" of anything under discussion here. I've also never said that "certain things are just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter"; that phrase doesn't even make sense to me. I do frequently point out that wikiprojects and other little editing cliques cannot, per LOCALCONSENSUS policy, make up their own wannbe-rules that defy site-wide policies, guidelines, or procedures; but that has nothing to do with any of this. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you should put words into Roches's mouth...or hands. In fact, I'll WP:Ping Roches now so that Roches can comment further. That is, if Roches is not watching the page/talk page. If I made you feel berated, Roches, then I apologize. As for how much of the WP:Manual of Style you disagree with, SMcCandlish, I already know; I see you often at the WP:Manual of Style talk page, and we've disagreed on enough things, including your WP:LOCALCONSENSUS feelings and how you feel about WP:Med (which is exactly what I mean about you stating that certain things are just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter). Needless to state, this "iconic" discussion is another matter we disagree on. Somewhat disagree on. I agree with you about being WP:Bold. But like I stated above, "Particular care should be taken with policies and guidelines." WP:CONLIMITED is clear about that. I don't believe in WP:Silent consensus as much as some editors around here do. I've seen WP:Silent consensus assumed in cases where WP:Consensus was not there at all, and then the case is revisited after the damage has been done, including with regard to some Wikipedia policies or guidelines, whether it's the WP:Burden policy or some other Wikipedia policy or guideline. I take changes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines seriously because I see how such changes affect the Wikipedia community on a large scale, sometimes negatively. There was also a big debate at the WP:Consensus talk page about having "silent consensus" material on that policy page; see Wikipedia talk:Consensus/Archive 18#Assuming consensus. What I was trying to get across to Roches is that I've seen the WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch guideline used as a page where people just dump things on because they dislike certain words and/or how those words are applied and want to enforce that view across Wikipedia, and I'm tired of seeing that. Too many editors use WP:Manual of Style/Words inappropriately, and as though it's the gospel. I'd rather see that there is a decrease in such behavior. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't feel like a world-class virtuoso editor, but "berated" is too strong. Roches (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I don't particularly disagree with any of that, Flyer22, including concerns about misuse of this guideline, and various PoV-pushing edits to it that don't reflect consensus but just don't get reverted promptly. This is actually a major aspect of the very WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem that I touch on frequently. But characterizing my views on that topic as "stating that certain things are just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter" is mischaracterizing them. There's no such thing as something that's just a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS matter. It's the very act of trying to take a WP editing matter and make it something local to a "special" subset of editors, that is the actual problem. Most such efforts are bound up in the WP:Specialist style fallacy and the broader idea that articles should reflect the values, not just expertise, of specialists in that topic rather than those of the encyclopedia project as a whole and its broad readership. But many LOCALCONSENSUS problems are not tied to the SSF, and are just rooted in highly localized editing politics, often simple matters of pride and control. Humans by nature seek power, even in games, and online forums, and informal parties. It's how we're wired. WP has been explicitly engineered to short-circuit this effect to some extent, but not quite enough.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Words labelled as labels

Amongst earlier Proposed changes to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels I proposed:

• Changing the text from saying "Value-laden labels ... are best avoided" to saying "Value-laden labels ... may be best avoided"

and SMcCandlish expressed agreement that this would be a beneficial change.

The text currently presents:

• Value-laden labels—... —may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option. ...

However this IMO prescriptive/formulaic wording has facilitated to dogmatic discussions on more related to the application of rules than the appropriateness of content. See: Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London#Move for an example. My contention is that the current wording of the guideline may be taken to judge a title such as List of terrorist incidents in London as not being the best and this is before the appropriateness of the title has even been considered.

I also see the "are best avoided" wording to be in general contradiction with the opening text of WP:W2W which begins: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, ...". How can we say that "There are no forbidden words" but then assert that some "are best avoided"?

I twice attempted to make the change to a "may be best avoided" wording with the changes being reverted by Flyer22.

GregKaye 09:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I explained why I reverted you, stating, "I disagree with changing 'are' to 'may be' because those are words that should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles, unless widely supported by WP:Reliable sources and used in a way that adheres to WP:Due weight. We need no softening of language in that regard." My opinion on the matter won't be changing. And as pointed out in the discussion where I explained, you've been trying to get this text changed for some time, and started a WP:RfC on the matter. That WP:RfC gained no traction. You can obviously start another one, and advertise it by alerting the WP:Village pump to it. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, as also noted in that discussion where I explained why I reverted you, I did my part to make that section better. Flyer22 (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 I really appreciate the part you played in the development of the text and consider this to go far beyond merely having tweaked the text as you had humbly described it. Thank-you.

I also completely agree with you that there are "words that should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles". What I am saying is that a prescriptive approach in Wikipedia that, to my mind, dogmatically states "are best avoided". This comes in the context where we have WP:PG on issues such as WP:OR, WP:SYSTEMICBIAS and, as you have also pointed out, WP:Due weight. Very clearly we are not going present contents that are not well presented. Obviously the problems within the discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in London#Move came prior to your excellent tweaking.

In line with your comment I would also think that it may be reasonable to present:

• Value-laden labels... —may express contentious opinion should generally be avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In some cases, in-text attribution might be a better option. ...

Still thinking of the mentioned example of List of terrorist incidents in London, say there is an attack in London that editors think fits into this content but, for whatever reason news reports chose to use a different wording than terrorism and terror, this should not necessarily mean that this story should be automatically barred from inclusion or, carrying this conjecture a little further, just because one theoretical story which had not been described in terrorist parlance had been referenced in the article, there should be no need, on this basis, to change the article title. However, most potential problems would seem to have been resolved by your edit and I am pleased to have drawn attention to the issue. Say, for whatever reason news reports chose to use a different wording than terrorism and terror, this should not necessarily mean that this story should be automatically barred from inclusion or, carrying this conjecture a little further, just because one theoretical story which had not been described in terrorist parlance had been referenced in the article, there should be no need, on this basis, to change the article title. However, most potential problems would seem to have been resolved by your edit. For my part I am pleased to have drawn attention to the issue. GregKaye 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I still disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, as noted here, PBS reverted me -- reverted to the stable mess of a text. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

President Reagan meeting with Afghan Mujahideen leaders in the Oval Office in 1983

I have reverted this edit by Flyer22 on 22 March. Let me give you an example of how to handle this see the lead to the Al-Qaeda

It has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, the United States, Russia, India and various other countries (see below).

Prior to a long debate on the talk page it used to say in the passive narrative voice "...is a global broad-based militant Islamist terrorist organization founded by Osama bin Laden" it now says "is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden" what was the advantage of including the word terrorist in the passive narrative voice of the article? -- PBS (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that sort of specific attribution is how to do it properly. There would be no problem including that "designated ... by" sentence in the lead; omitting it to try to hide the fact that the organization is generally considered terrorist, internationally, would be the problem. In essence, I think the "what was the advantage of including..." question is moot, generally speaking: The inclusion of the word wasn't the problem; rather, poor writing was the problem, and the word has been included in a different, more encyclopedic way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

PBS, that does not answer what I stated. What you reverted to is a poor change because that is telling editors that they have to use WP:Intext-attribution for those words in such cases. They do not. And it is silly to state that they have to, especially given the fact that WP:Intext-attribution can mislead. To give a matter WP:Intext-attribution in a case where WP:Reliable sources widely label a subject a certain way, with that WP:Intext-attribution making it seem like it is simply a matter according to one source or a few sources, is a misuse of WP:Intext-attribution. Since you want that "stable text" to remain, I will start a WP:RfC on this matter in a day or so. Flyer22 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

King David Hotel after being bombed by Irgun, July 1946

U.S. Embassy in Beirut caused by a after being bombed in April 1983.

During a war phrases often get used for diplomatic and propaganda reasons. For example the during the Falklands War British were very careful not to call it a war for diplomatic reasons to do with the UN Charter, as soon as it was all over bar the shouting, then British government politicians called it a war. Likewise during the troubles in Northern Ireland British sources always referred to the IRA as terrorists. Voices of "terrorists" like Martin McGuinness was banned from being broadcast in the UK. He is now a member of the Northern Ireland government. Is he still a terrorist? Was he ever a terrors? During the troubles American politicians and many American news sources shied away from calling the IRA and its members terrorist why? Politics obviously (did not want to loose the Fenian vote). What is more interesting was American court procedure before 9/11 see the Quinn v. Robinson case and political offence exception. It is interesting how quiet the American authorities have become on the political offence exception since Americans civilians have become the target of terrorism and the IRA have ended their military campaign.

• Systemic bias, if people are attacking the West and in particular the Anglosphere many English language sources will call them terrorists because as Bruce Hoffman pointed out "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore." It is only when opinion is divided in the English speaking world over a "terrorist" organisation such as the IRA that one tends to get a split in the sources. However that is no reason for Wikipedia to us the label terrorist in the passive narrative voice.
• The problems one runs into with your proposed changes is can Martin McGuinness be called a terrorist in the passive narrative voice of the article? If not Martin McGuinness then which BLP is it acceptable? It a person is found guilty of terrorist offensives better to state it that way. Eg see the way it is handled in the Martin McGuinness article. As the Telegraph points out in this article "Martin McGuinness: from convicted terrorist to political establishment" who shakes hands with the Queen.
• In the article on King David Hotel there is mention of people who do not think it was a terrorist attack. So are you really suggesting that it is OK to label the 1983 bombing in Beirut a terrorist bombing (because it is commonly referred to that way) but not the King David Hotel bombing because some people in Israel have argued the other way. If however you say it was a terrorist attack then is it ok to lable Irgun a terrorist organisation in the passive narrative voice of Wikiepdia? What about the biography on Menachem Begin? it is much simpler in all these case to write articles where the accusations of terrorist and terrorism are attributed to the sources making the claims.

Flyer22, you stated above "WP:Intext-attribution is clear that it can mislead. I have certainly seen it applied wrongly.". Where? (If was I bet it is easy to fix and use intext attribution) or you will run into the sort of bias problems I describe above.

--PBS (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Take for example Boston Massacre, which is the example used at WP:POVNAME. Should we attribute and/or avoid using the word "massacre"? I'm not sure that's possible while still being consistent with NPOV. The key point here for me is that as far as I'm aware, it's standard practice that we can use contentious labels where RS widely apply them, and that it is a broader consensus than just this page. Sunrise (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Despite what some people claim, there is no conensus that the MOS a style guide covers article titles let alone the wording of article titles. This is a MOS page and WP:POVNAME is part of the Article Naming policy. However if you look at the content of the Boston Massacre article it does not use massacre throughout the text or describe the British soldiers a murdering mercenaries , instead it uses neutral words such as "the incident" descriptive words such as "killing" (not murder). -- PBS (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. My point was that it is already established (as part of policy, not part of the MOS) that contentious labels can be used when the RS are sufficiently strong. That doesn't mean I think indiscriminate use is neutral, but I also don't think a neutral Boston Massacre article could be made without ever using the word "massacre," or only using it with attribution, given that (I assume) it's the name which is overwhelmingly used in the sources. Sunrise (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This "MOS doesn't cover titles" nonsense really needs to stop. It simply isn't true. WP:AT policy and its naming convention guidelines explicitly defer to the Manual of Style again and again. There's no "conflict" between AT and MOS; anyone who thinks there is simply does not understand WP:POLICY properly, or how policies and guidlines work together.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't even see why PBS is asking me "where?", when WP:Intext-attribution lists examples of how WP:Intext-attribution can mislead. It does that because WP:Intext-attribution has misled on Wikipedia countless times before. I don't see the need to go into my memory and pull out examples. But like I stated in my "15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)" post above, I'll get back to this later. I don't want to spend my Saturday or Sunday debating. On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since it's on my WP:Watchlist. And since I know that PBS and some others are watching, I won't WP:Ping them to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sunrise: That's an important point. Per WP:BIASED, etc., RS are expected to make "value-laden statements", Wikipedia editors are prohibited from doing so by WP:OR, etc.

This list is being used to exercise and artificial constraint on core policies.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaning more and more toward this view myself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Re: "I disagree with changing 'are' to 'may be' because those are words that should generally be avoided in Wikipedia articles ...." (toward top of this subsection) – This is just another symptom of the fact that we're lumping together two clearly distinguishable kinds of terms; those that are verifiable with and need to be attributed to reliable sources ("cult", "terrorist", "criminal", "controversial"), and those which are inherently nothing but judgmental opinions or aspersion-casting labels ("pervert", "bigot", "extremist"). If we're going to list specific terms, we need to split them into two separate lists, and one of those should be prefaced with "are best avoided", the other to something more qualified. It probably isn't "may be best avoided", after all, but something else, like "should only be used if supported by the preponderance of reliable sources", or something like that. We were converging on "may be best avoided" because the munged list included terms that should always be avoid outside a direct quotation, and terms that are not problematic at all when we write carefully, and properly source what we're writing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  PS: I've interspersed various responses above; if you care to see them, just diff my recent edits; they're all back-to-back.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish the division not that simple. As is mentioned in the Bombing of Dresden article the historian Donald Bloxham considers "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 [to be] a war crime". He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation". The problem we have here is that while a word may have a specific meaning in certain contexts "in the popular mind" some of these words have a "moral rather than a legal categorisation". As an example see the furore in America when Reuters did not describe those who destroyed the World Trade Center towers as terrorists.(Moeller, Susan (2009). Packaging Terrorism: Co-opting the News for Politics and Profit. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-1-4443-0605-7.). In the case of criminals it depends on the political circumstances surrounding the use of the term. In simple cases under a citizen's domestic jurisdiction the use of the term criminal is usually none controversial, but as soon as politics gets involved and particularly if there is disagreement between jurisdictions, then the term criminal becomes controversial and probably ought not to be used in the passive narrative voice of the article. For reasons like this is is often cleaner to write "John Smith was convicted of the murder of ..." rather than "The murderer John Smith ..." or "John Smith murdered ..." -- PBS (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: I can concur will all of that, I think. And I know the division isn't that simple, but we have to start somewhere. Maybe a restart is a better idea. Your summary analysis there could be rewritten into instructional/example material for this page, actually. Aside from confusion of terms that can have judgmental connotations with those which innately do have them (a real distinction, even if there's a grey area), what has mired this discussion, and full acceptance of this as a real guideline, is the very idea of coming up with some list of "words to watch", rather than a principle and methodology, if you will, for critical editorial thinking that identifies such terms on the fly and in context. The title of this page is misleading for another reason, since terms or labels are not always single words, but are often phrases. E.g., "terrorist cell" is problematic for more reasons that some people attaching emotive weight to "terrorist". "Cell" is dehumanizing, as well as diminutive, and the phrase has become a conceptual unit, frequently depicted fictionally in a "here comes Jack Bauer to kick their asses" way; it's a pat trope, and what it conjures in many readers minds may not relate closely to the reality of the subject. I just a few days ago saw an RM debate on this very phrase, being used to describe people who were not even acting as a "cell". Anyway, I think this erstwhile guideline needs to be rethought as a guideline on how to identify "words to watch", not a list of words some editors have issues with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

In Britain there is a charity called The Donkey Sanctuary working all over the world to stop people maltreating asses. -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it seem the basic thrust of the guideline should be methodological, given the terminological "gray areas", for example.

Perhaps the word "preponderance" should be avoided as a potential source of wikilawyering, as with the case of "climate change denialist/denialism/denier". In cases such as that, in-line attribution should sufficiently cover the use of the "gray-area" term in context, and not transgress NPOV with respect to DUE/WEIGHT.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Trying to avoid "climate change denial", however, is itself a WP:UNDUE problem, though. One side of that debate has science backing it up, and the other has largely just a bunch of indignant fist-shaking. They are not comparable. The only reason we're not lumping climate change deniers in with other denialist kooks like Holocaust deniers, is because American Republicanism has been sympathetic to climate change denialism for short-term economic reasons, increasing the popularity of that nonsense, and a significant number of editors are Republican Americans. This is really no different at all from WP being bent by largely the same editors to favor literal interpretation of the Bible as the truth. We don't permit that kind of extreme POV mongering from them on that topic, so why would we permit it on this one?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: This issue continues to be under discission, now at AN/I.[4]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Placeholder; I will continue this matter later. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Are adjectives the enemy?

Is this to Emmy Noether a good edit?

It's undiscussed. Perhaps 109.158.49.196 would care to comment here? I assume it was done on the basis of WP:PEACOCK, specifically as interpreting this to mean "no adjectives of comparison whatsoever". Yet we cover the major and notable topics here, so sometimes a topic subject is the major work on a subject or a "leading mathematician" of their time writing "seminal papers" with "elegant" arguments and "profound" influences on others.

This was not a trivial article, it was already a FA and had been widely reviewed by others. These adjectives were justified in their use. Exceptional yes, but sometimes we're describing an exceptional subject and we need glowing praise with which to do it. That's appropriate accuracy in a narrow context, not hyperbole.

Or are all adjectives inherently subjective, unencyclopedic and to be removed on sight? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Somewhere between 'Live Free or Die' and 'Famous Potatoes', the truth really lies." – George Carlin. Proper encyclopedic writing lies between the two extremes outlined here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar fix

 Fixed

The second sentence uses nonparallel construction in "expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view." An "or" should be added before "clichéd", or (preferably, IMHO) the "that" before "endorse" should be removed. Simple fix, but I can't edit this page 2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, ignore the "preferable" fix above as it doesn't actually fix the problem. The phrase needs either the additional "or" or a rewrite.2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Only

There has to be an entire class of words to watch similar to "only," a perfectly good word when used npov. "Nebraska is the only state to have a unicameral legislature." But not, "Texas only emits 3 x 10 to the ninth bushels of carbon monoxide daily." We don't really automatically have an idea whether carbon monoxide expressed in bushels is a small figure or a large when when used in the context of a fairly large, populated state. There should be a separate subsection that warns users from using this class or words in a pov manner. One "class" is words used to qualify data. Data should be "qualified" using other data, not adjectives nor adverbs. And maybe even providing a short list of common words, of which "only" ranks in the first 10 or 20 IMO. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, another example that indicates the entire raison d'etre of this page is questionable. There was a "let's redo this from scratch" proposal a few months ago, not sure what happened to that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Denialist/denialism

Someone recently removed this word from the list, noting that the archives indicate no consensus to have added it. I concur. Some threads above this one (possibly archived by now) indicate a lack of consensus on this. My own view is that this word has a clear definition, is not inherently POV, and is used in reliable sources, including academic ones. Ergo, if RS tell us that a particular subject is denialist, we can repeat this. We should probably attribute it, especially in the case of a WP:BLP. This is true of any term that, in the context in which it is being used, could be taken as pushing a POV. It's a general principle. The term itself is not an automatically suspect "word to watch".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't "someone", it was jps again. I reverted and we can continue the discussion on the appropriate section of this talk page, see [in this thread above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Everyone is someone. My very point in being inspecific was the address the content not editors. Note discretionary sanctions warning at top of all MOS talk pages (though, in fairness, the one on this page was missing for some reason).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JPS and SMcCandish, which makes for an emerging consensus to remove the term.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with jps, SMcCandlish, and Ubikwit. In addition, the notion that the presence or absence of a "word to watch" in this guideline would prevent us from including a well-sourced description of a person or their work in a Wikipedia article is troubling. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish has accurately described the situation—reliable sources use the term "denialist" for good reason, and articles should reflect sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up comment: I'm no extreme "separationist" when it comes to MOS and content (see thread at MOS:SAL about something in it allegedly wandering into content policy territory), but, well, we shouldn't wander into content policy territory. There's a thread above where we were talking productively about an approach to rewriting this page to focus on how to identify words to watch in particular contexts, why particular sorts of things can be problematic, and illustrating this with examples, instead of our present approach in listing words, which people keep taking as some kind of banned word list. We need to return to that idea. It really is a content policy conflict when those policies tell us to base our work on reliable secondary sources, and this guideline interferes with our ability to do that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this removal and it appears to be an awkward "Gaming the System" approach to winning a multi-month argument on another page. This is, as previously discussed, an improper reason for making such a change. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

But there was no consensus to add it to begin with. We're having a consensus discussion right now, and it does not appear to favor treating the word "denialist" as automatically suspect.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is undeniable that I am tired of seeing the insipid WP:LABEL, WP:WTW, etc. being used as an excuse to excise the word "denialist" from Wikipedia as if it was some sort of magic spell of evil. I am further appalled that the word was added without any discussion and there is no explanation in the text for why it is a "word to watch".

It may very well be that there are instances, maybe even many instances, where the word should not be used. I think that the discussion should rise or fall on the merits of the arguments for why. However, Wikipedia culture problematically assumes that when something is on a Wikipedia-space page it holds a level of magical argumentation. That's a nice shorthand, but it leaves much to be desired and it is abundantly clear to me that there has never been a consensus to include the word here. Removing the word from this page will not automatically "win" any argument and I, personally, don't really care all that much about whether the word is found anywhere in Wikipdia. But I don't like the way this page is being used to derail discussions. Removing the word is a nice way to get people actually talking. jps (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

People are talking incessently about this at multiple articles and have been for months. The idea that this is "derailing" converstaion of any sort is...inaccurate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it has been roundly discussed means that the current formulation is working precisely as it is intended at this page, that is to say these words are controversial and when used in a BLP must be carefully considered. Which is exactly what is happening. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not what is happening. Editors have been tendentiously ignoring consensus regarding the use of the term by making recourse to the "banned word" modus operandi described above. That is not "discussion". With regard to "climate change", the discussion reached consensus that the term was not controversial and its use policy-compliant. Only tendentious recourse to "WTW" has prevented the edit warring and talk page disruption from ending.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

My attempt to move this to the already-existing discussion thread hasn't worked. Okay, but there has been discussion, and as far as I can tell there are seven editors whose stated opinions are being ignored by starting this new thread. (1) User:PBS initially added the word "denialist" five years ago here; (2) User:Arzel said to jps "in order to back up your use of a contentious label you decide to just change the MOS to fit your needs" here; (3) User:Flyer22 may be neutral but reverted Ubikwit's premature change here; (4) User:NebY said words including "denialist" "in general use all are frequently intended as or read as inherently critical, derogatory or condemnatory" [5] (5) User:A Quest For Knowledge referring to jps's earlier attempt said "No need to dignify this proposal" here; (6) User:Capitalismojo objected in the earlier discussion and is objecting in this one; (7) I objected in the earlier discussion and am objecting in this one. Of course some editors may have changed their minds and of course I may have missed statements made later -- if so they can correct me -- but the point is: Ubikwit's claims about "emerging consensus" are incorrect according to what I have seen to date, just as Ubikwit's claim about consensus elsewhere (if the reference is to Anthony Watts (blogger) talk) is incorrect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish you write there is "clear definition, is not inherently POV, and is used in reliable sources, including academic ones. Ergo, if RS tell us that a particular subject is denialist," See denialism#Prescriptive and polemic. If for example I state that "Cromwell committed genocide in Ireland" is anyone who disagrees with that statement a denialist? There is also a serious BLP issue here. See Genocide denial (and the Lipstadt and Penguin Books case with David Irving who is a denialist according to English court judgement). Therefore there is a need to use inline attribution to a source. -- PBS (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

'I state that...' isn't the proper analysis, though. WP doesn't care what your personal opinion is. Do a preponderance of the reliable secondary sources, not closely tied to the subject (i.e., not just Irish sources) state that Cromwell was genocidal? WP probably should not use the is of identity (how do we not have an article on that?) in any such case, to begin with; not in WP's voice. It's not really WP's job to declare that Cromwell, or Hitler, or whoever, "were" genocidal; it's our job to report, e.g., that views differ, and that X source(s) conclude(s) they were, while (if it wouldn't be WP:UNDUE weight to mention them in the same breath, as it might be in Hitler's case) that others feel differently. WP:FRINGE has a role to play here. The idea that Hitler and the Nazis were not genocidal is clearly a fringe view. That fringe itself is notable, the neo-Nazism movement and the Holocaust denial camp, and we should treat them as a subject in their own right, but without skewing perception of the generally accepted view by treating the fringe view as non-fringe. With regard to Cromwell, the case is less clear, as is the case against Truman and the United States for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Serious historical scholars who don't have a patriotic bone to pick either way, converge more and more over time on the view that the A-bombs the US dropped on Japan should be viewed as a genocidal war crime, but this view is not yet the widely accepted one. Same goes for Cromwell's policies in Ireland. The very concept of "genocide" wasn't even formulated until 1944, so we have cultural relativism to deal with, too. Trying to eliminate "the enemy" entirely was standard operating procedure throughout much of world history, and is still the modus operandi is many places today. I don't mean to lecture about this; I'm just indicating that it's a complex set of topics, and "don't use 'genocide' or 'denial'" is not the solution.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying that this guideline states "don't use 'genocide' or 'denial'", it say attribute them. The UN charter on genocide has in its preamble "at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity", so while Cromwell can not have been guilty of a crime, he could have participated in a genocide. The point is that is is a matter of political and historical opinion, and like all opinions the correct way to deal with them is to assert who holds them rather than making the claim in the passive narrative voice of the article. FYI actually the legal position over the last 15 years has moved away from the atomic bombings possibly being a genocide because of the international tribunals focus on what constitutes a significant size for "in part" and more importantly the "mens rea", If the American administration had intended to biologically destroy the Japanese nation as a group under genocide act the then the bombing would not have stopped on unconditional surrender. This is why guilty verdicts for crimes against humanity were far more common at the ICTY trials than findings of genocide, because there was no need to show "mens rea" of wishing to destroy the Bosniacs as group (needed for genocide), just that the perpetrators were involved in crimes against humanity (whatever their motivation). -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@User:Akhilleus and user: Johnuniq the guidance says "Value-laden labels ... 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." There is nothing there that says do not use the term Denialist/denialism it simply says use in-text attribution. With the exception of those genocides found to be such by international tribunals, there is a lot of debate which other alleged genocides were genocides, and as the section denialism#Prescriptive and polemic points out the label causes the author to take sides. In a Wikipedia article we ought to be writing in a style that is neutral: see WP:ASF and WP:MORALIZE. -- PBS (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: Yes, on some topics (i.e., in some contexts) the term presents more valid reasons to be concerned than on others.

On the Anthony Watts BLP mentioned above, the term "climate change denialism" has been used with attribution, but editors have been revert warring that out making reference to WTW.

Meanwhile, there is an entirely other dimension to the question there, as it involves a conflation of scientific skepticism with environmental skepticism. Climate change denial is generally based on pseudoscience, whereas legitimate scientific skepticism is not, and therefore WP:PSCI applies. Accordingly, in the "climate change" topic area, there may even be cases where the use of "denialism" in Wikipedia's voice, that is to say, unattributed, may be warranted. A number of scientists and social scientists have addressed the conflation of climate skepticism with scientific skepticism, decrying it as deceptive, etc. Scientists and scientific publications represent the mainstream view in this case (where there is a scientific consensus), while pseudoscience has to be presented as FRINGE, not a "minority view".

Ideally, the guideline should be rewritten in a manner such as to accommodate the full gamut of contexts in which terms are used, some contexts legitimately a cause for concern, others not so much, if at all.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem we run into here is summed up in a posting I made at 23:39, 26 April 2015 and Donald Bloxham comment "this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation". One can add denialist to that list. People are willing to call someone a denialist, but tend not to want to use the term to describe themselves (see the comments of why in the section denialism#Prescriptive and polemic). It is assumed in the popular mind that denialism is linked to the "Freudian sense of deny" and that the person making the accusation believes the person accused of being mad or bad or both. -- PBS (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the blanket assertion regarding "in the popular mind". I don't think that many people think in terms of Freud in regard to climate science, at any rate.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't argue against the fact that denial carries a negative connotation in "climate change denial", but that is what it is intended to do and why it is used as a term for criticizing people that deny the scientific consensus on climate change. That is to say, in the context of "climate change denial" it indicates an irrational refusal to accept the scientific consensus. There is nothing Freudian about the "iraationality", though. For example, it is often pointed out that many deniers are funded by industries seeking to avoid regulation of CO2 emissions, and such remuneration represents a rational motivation. Using moralistic terms like "bad" is somewhat pedantic here. If a high-profile blogger that is not a scientific skeptic about climate change but receives funding through the Heartland Institute, for example, and denies the scientific consensus, it can be assumed that they have some (ulterior) motive for doing so, and are not doing so on the basis of a Freudian psychosis of some sort. The ulterior motive may be rational to them in terms of making a living (funding from industry sponsors), but it is not rational with respect to the scientific consensus, and that is where WP:PSCI is relevant on Wikipedia. Whether it is moral or not for them to make a living that way is not a question directly related to the term "denial".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing moralistic about any of that. It is simply the concrete set of real-world circumstances that have led to climate scientists characterizing those that deny the scientific consensus on climate change "climate change deniers".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"Can be assumed"? That sort of original research in order to slap a derogatory label upon the subject of a BLP with whom one disagrees is precisely why this is in fact a good and solid piece of the words to watch list. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you find any place where the inclusion of this word was agreed upon in the archives? jps (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It is certainly no more WP:OR than the case of assuming that "the popular mind" associates the term with Freudian psychosis.

FYI, here is a sentence from the lead of the Wikipedia article, denialism

Several motivations and causes for denialism have been proposed, including religious beliefs and self-interest, or as a psychological defense mechanism against disturbing ideas.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:47, 14:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I would support removal of the words denialism/denialist from this topic. Yobol (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? -- PBS (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In my view it is not a term that is inherently loaded language, as there is a clear definition of what it is and not inherently biasing. Note that I am not involved in whatever content dispute that spawned this particular exchange that many editors seem to be involved in, I am only commenting as this popped up on my watchlist. Yobol (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

user:Ubikwit you write "I wouldn't argue against the fact that denial carries a negative connotation in "climate change denial", but that is what it is intended to do and why it is used as a term for criticizing people that deny the scientific consensus on climate change." then it is not a neural point of view and it ought to be used with intext attrition (Per the policy page WP:WikiVoice) which is what this guideline says. -- PBS (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: I'm not sure that we have the same understanding of NPOV and WP:BIASED.

Secondly, the term has been used with attribution on the Watts BLP, so that is not an issue in this case, but it hasn't stopped edit warring to remove it with recourse to WTW.

Meanwhile, my reading of NPOV only is that the Wikipedia articles are required reflect the views in reliably published statements according to prevalence (WEIGHT). In other words, if "denialist" were the most prevalent view, i.e., the mainstream view, I don't know whether there is a policy that would require it to be attributed in that case.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The section in the NOR policy page can be accessed by the link I have already provided "WP:WikiVoice". You have stated "I wouldn't argue against the fact that denial carries a negative connotation" and the policy is clear on this issue -- that such opinions need intext attribution (if you do not think it is obvious then I will go through the policy section point by point with you if you like). It is not clear to me when you state "the term has been used with attribution" what you mean. Do you mean with intext attribution of footnote attribution? -- PBS (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

All you have to do is look at the lead of the article, where you'd find the following statement

...[Watts' blog]...is described by climatologist Michael E. Mann as having "overtaken Climate Audit as the leading climate change denial blog". Watts has rejected claims that either he or WUWT are climate change deniers

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me; in both cases we're quoting or paraphrasing primary sources and attributing their statements, not making claims in WP's voice. I'd have to read the entire context (maybe more than once) to be certain that inclusion of this primary-source back-and-forth is actually encyclopedically relevant, but it's pretty routine for us to allow two sides of a controversial topic speak for themselves, with attribution, especially if we do not have a preponderance of reliable secondary sources indicating whether one of these views is not widely accepted.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In this case, there is an additional factor in play in that the topic relates to science, and the denialists are denying the scientific consensus on the science, often with recourse to pseudoscience, which brings WP:PSCI into the picture.

Presumably, that changes the status of the "controversy", because there is none regarding the scientific consensus. I'm getting a little out of my element here, so I'll leave this to the science people that deal with pseudoscience on a regular basis. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's take a step back. Several editors have claimed there is consensus to remove "denialist". A few others have claimed there is no consensus. Whichever of these positions is accurate, there is clearly not consensus to keep the word, and there appears to not be prior consensus to have added it, either. I don't see anyone even arguing this point. We can continue discussing the addition of "denialist", but the status-quo should not be to maintain a contentious addition to our guidelines, as though it reflects the community consensus. I'm going to remove the label for now, but there's nothing stopping us from establishing consensus for its addition and reintroducing it in the future.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's take two steps back. For five years this article contained the word denialist, and I'm unaware of controversy until Arzel in late March mentioned WP:LABEL and shortly thereafter jps tried to remove "denialist". Several of the names on this talk page (jps and Ubikwit and Akhilleus and Mann jess and Capitalismojo and Peter Gulutzan) are the same as on the talk page of Anthony Watts (blogger) and Watts Up With That, where Mann's "denial" claim is being used without attribution in the lead. What I want to find out is how the editors who want "denial" in those articles are defining "consensus". If five placid years are not enough, why do those same editors, in the articles that these arguments are really about, make changes and declare "consensus" after only a few days despite stated opposition? And why are (according to Mann jess) several editors still claiming there is consensus to remove "denialist" in this article, when that has been shown to be false? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You are edit warring in WP-space to include content which is disputed, and your best argument is that there is "no consensus" about whether it should be included. That is insanely disruptive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Just because no one noticed when someone slipped a word into a manual of style subpage doesn't mean that this somehow indicates that there is a consensus to keep that word in. That's like saying if some petty vandalism goes unnoticed for five years, we shouldn't revert it because of WP:SILENCE. Deal with the fact that this is the only discussion that we have had so far as to whether to include the word and realize that there is clearly not a consensus to include it. jps (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There's a big difference between something being stable in the main MOS page for years, and something going unnoticed for years in a dis-used subpage, about which there's substantive discussion whether it even really qualifies as a guideline. Even aside from that consideration, consensus can change anyway. There doesn't appear to be consensus to keep that word in there, probably because experience has shown us that it isn't actually being abused, but being used correctly, with reliable secondary sources. Deniers that modern climate change is happening are in fact demonstrably deniers. I don't see any articles claiming that people who disagree with this or that particular partial explanation of modern climate change are being mislabeled "deniers". But really, I think this takes us right back to the idea raised several times earlier that this page should be rewritten in a sandbox to focus on how to identify problematic use of language, and moved away from being a "list of words I don't like". Doing that successfully would eliminate most arguments of this sort about the guideline, as well as concerns that it's a wanna-be content policy trying to masquerade as a style guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the word "denialist" should not be listed, as it is applied in our most reliable sources in an accurate fashion to describe those who are not merely skeptical of interpretations of data but have taken an actively negative position against the data. A skeptic is weighing the pros and cons of all the data while a denialist is actively ignoring unwanted data. There are certainly people like this, and the descriptive word "denialist" should not be disallowed in those cases. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Binksternet, no one is saying that it is disallowed, but that it ought to be attributed in the text to a source. This is because the word carries intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. Use of the term implies a moral judgement; and if one party can successfully attach the label denialist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its viewpoint. Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization denialist becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. (the wording starting "This is because..." down to here is closely paraphrased substituting denialist for terrorist from Bruce Hoffman (1998). "Inside Terrorism". Columbia University Press. p. 32.)

Binksternet if a person disagrees with the position put forward by Carlos Rozanski's analysis that the dirty war was a genocide are they a genocide denialist? The ICJ disagreed with the proposition put forward by the Bosnian Government that the genocide in Bosnia was wide spread and not limited to the Srebrenica massacre, is the ICJ a denialist organisation? Organs of the Ukraine government state that the Holodomor was a genocide the Russian state disagrees, does that make the Russian state a genocide denialist state? Genocide denial is a political minefield (particularly with the possibility of state compensation). It is a criminal offence in much of Europe to deny certain events were a genocide. So given the political and legal issues surrounding accusations of genocide denial the term ought always to be intext attribution. -- PBS (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, PBS, there are people who are claiming that inclusion of the word "denialist" in WP:LABEL means that the word is disallowed even if it is an in-text attribution. The wording of the current page is currently vague enough and the construction awkward enough that it causes problems. I am definitely in favor of SMcCandlish's argument that the entire thing should be rewritten without reference to particular words. Until such time, I think it is important to remove words that don't have proper explanation on the page. jps (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

"there are people" diffs please. -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll give you one: [6]. You can go find the others. jps (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That talk-page comment by User:Capitalismojo is in a thread which Capitalismojo starts by saying "... If it [i.e. the Mann quote saying the blog is a denial blog] is to be included, I suggest that it should be in the section on Watt's blog." -- i.e. it's about moving not disallowing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Disallowed from the lede, apparently. jps (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (jps) AFAICT that diff does not provide an example of a user stating that this guidance does not allow denial with intext attribution. Is that the best example that you have? If not please provide a more explicit diff. -- PBS (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That dispute is centered around the addition of a link to climate change denial with intext attribution ([7]). If you look into the dispute, several editors indicated their opposition to the content based on WTW.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

At the David Irving biography, long-standing consensus is to label him a holocaust denier in the first sentence. There is no in-text attribution at that point. The label is explained in the second paragraph and in the article body. This is an example of not needing in-text attribution at every instance of the word "denialist" or its relatives. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is obviously no shortage of reliable sources that label Irving that - to the point that requiring intext attribution would be futile and could become tendentious by suggesting that the label has only limited support when it is in fact ear universal.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

But the same lead does use intext attribution "The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite, and racist" and it does it in the best possible way in that it selects the most authoritative source (for an English speaking readership) without listing others that could be used (from in the body of the same article) "After Irving denied the Holocaust in two 1989 speeches given in Austria, the Austrian government issued an arrest warrant for him and barred him from entering the country. In early 1992 a German court found him guilty of Holocaust denial ..." etc. So using intext attribution in this case is neither "futile and" is not "tendentious by suggesting that the label has only limited support". -- PBS (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that the inclusion of the text referred to by Maunus is predicated on the text you are referencing. However, it seems to me that you are proposing that they are somehow connected. No one is saying we should stop using in text attribution, only that there are a variety of situations where we might use different constructions and it seems that this style guide as currently written gets in the way of meaningful discussion on how to do that. jps (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

despite

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Expressions of doubt

I think despite should be added to this section, please comment Govindaharihari - WP:EDITORIAL - (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, despite is usually a perfectly fine word, almost in the same vein as although. I stated "almost" because it can be used in POV ways. Flyer22 (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)