Talk:Project Weber/RENEW

Just putting a little to add list in here for myself or anyone that would like to incorporate updated info:
https://www.thebody.com/article/rhode-island-first-safe-consumption-site

https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/politics/courts/2023/05/11/safe-injection-sites-in-providence-nyc-will-be-studied-using-5-8m-grant/70206972007/

https://www.brown.edu/news/2023-05-08/opc-evaluation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/05/08/overdose-prevention-centers/

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2023/04/project-weberrenew-codac-selected-to-open-countrys-first-state-regulated-overdose-prevention-center Elttaruuu (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Putting this source aside to be worked into later Graywalls (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/12/us/politics/rhode-island-overdoses.html

re-write
There is adequate significant coverage in various high quality sources for this organization to merit an article, but compared to the state of article a month ago, it needs a significant rewrite so its not written from the point of view of the organization or emphasizing on the voice and personal experience of their staff and clients. Graywalls (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am okay with your recent edits. I just cleaned up a bit of the language so that it flows better. Elttaruuu (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think "lived experience" is more of a social services jargon. I also took out some sources, because WP:RSP says medium isn't really that suitable, and an article in which Ndoye is an author is a rather obvious WP:COI and there's no reason not to avoid it unless there's absolutely nothing else that can be used and it is being used to support something the article absolutely needs. It is expected with any other company articles. Citing a journal as a source in which the president/exec. director is an/the author is just tacky. Graywalls (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

POV pushing
I’m concerned about the POV pushing you seem to be attempting to engage in again @Graywalls, changing language to prostitutes, adding in trivia about how Rich Holcomb stole (or as you said was a robber) of people he had sex with as a minor? At the end of a paragraph about how the organization formed? Feels very destructive editing to me Elttaruuu (talk) 15:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Citing reliable mainstream sources to improve contents and mirroring the wording they use is hardly POV pushing. However, I say differently about citing activist press to add contents. Graywalls (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Die-in based on primary source and questionable sources
Please know I checked other sources before removing. This activity appears to be part of organization's activism effort. Placing attention to the viewpoint desired by the organization is POV pushing when such view doesn't reflect that of general coverage in reliable sources. I didn't find any reasonable sources that covered it. If you see WP:WEIGHT, it will talk about devotion of coverage to different sources. Websites of others are primary sources. Talking about a group opposing fracking citing an environmentalist group, or a fellow like-minded organization, or even oppositional organization are not due weight. It appears to me UpriseRI.com is a radical activist press that shouldn't be used. Just as we don't use Alternet or Breitbart. Writing about how students at a certain school had a walkout because they didn't like certain school rules based on school paper or the website of activism group is equally undue. This all falls into WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There's not much info out there on UpriseRI, but when you search the journalist that authored the article, you'll find their profile which describes the site as "This is a local progressive blog where the majority of my writing is published." See that? Progressive blog. Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You can take that out but please leave in women engaged in sex work. It was already in the attached source. Adding your own source so you can change the language is not “due weight” Elttaruuu (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s also not even-handed because some of these women are doing sex work once or twice and then stopping when better stabilized, some of them have done it minimally but have other full time jobs. Prostitute is a criminalized word that makes a part of people into their full identity Elttaruuu (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * At the very least, do not change it until we have some consensus here on the word. Elttaruuu (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Sex work vs prostitution
I would like to start a conversation about the use of sex work vs prostitution. I will look into it but I have a feeling many sources on this subject are more apt to talk about sex work because that’s what the org identifies with. I think that just because the word prostitution is mentioned sometimes, due to it being a legal term, does not mean prostitute is what people getting services from this social service org should be called. Elttaruuu (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Two local new stations, the providence journal, the Boston globe all using the terms “sex work” and “sex workers”. Also talking about people leaving sex work, which is not easy to discuss when you make “prostitution” an entire identity for people associating with this org
 * https://turnto10.com/news/war-on-opioids/pawtucket-rhode-island-opioid-crisis-fentanyl-test-strips-epidemic-narcan-project-weber-renew-drug-addiction-
 * https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/courts/2021/08/31/advocates-hold-die-in-highlight-need-state-funding-narcan/5662386001/
 * https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/25/metro/200k-gift-is-project-weberrenew-largest-private-donation-ever/
 * https://www.wpri.com/news/crime/cold-cases/police-suspect-in-2003-providence-murder-shouldnt-rest-too-easy/amp/
 * https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/16/metro/paving-road-recovery-rhode-island/ Elttaruuu (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * does not mean prostitute is what people getting services from this social service org should be called. What is the basis for this? Viewpoint should roughly reflect the prominence in reliable sources, which is described in WP:BALANCE. Individual editors dislike or like for certain way of expressions should not use euphemism, weasel words or double speak to override expressions in prominent mainstream coverage in reliable sources. Graywalls (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So, if one version shows the wording you like, it's neutral, and if another version shows the wording you don't like, that's POV? I am not seeing why your version of wording trumps another variant. It's not like I worded it "prostitution" when the source I provided offered said as it. Graywalls (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Prominent mainstream coverage in reliable sources refers to the clients of this org as people engaged in sex work. Jamestown is a specific rich location in Rhode Island that has no harm reduction sites. The Providence Journal, Turn to Ten, WPRI, and The Boston Globe are news sources that cover and are engaged with by the whole region Elttaruuu (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You’re literally using what you do, which is providing versions that use the word you like, the difference is said versions are not as wide reaching in terms of audience and notability as those I provided Elttaruuu (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only is the providence journal maybe the biggest newspaper in RI and sold and distributed throughout the whole state, Jamestown has a population of 5,559 and providence has a population of 190,934. Elttaruuu (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, "specific rich location in Rhode Island" is not a disqualifier or considered as POV per our reliable sources evaluation. Look at wording here, in Providence Journal. https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/2017/04/13/ri-documentary-focuses-on-underground-world-of-male-prostitutes/21390917007/ What is the basis for this statement of yours and its relevance to encyclopedia building? Also talking about people leaving sex work, which is not easy to discuss when you make “prostitution” an entire identity for people associating with this org Graywalls (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So, can you elaborate why you're critical of Jamestown Press, a normal newspaper from smaller area while you have abeen citing atypical view POV papers like UpriseRI ("Frontline journalism dealing with social justice, human rights, and progressive politics in Rhode Island" ) and Liberationnews.org (The Party for Socialism and Liberation)? I am curious if you're simply unaware these sources are non-neutral or if it's intentional. Graywalls (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was adding new content into an article with the sources I found, whereas you are taking content already in a Wikipedia article and using an incredibly small source to justify changing the language that is widely represented in sources to the kind of language you’d like added. Elttaruuu (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is also that I’ve let you take those minor sources out. Tried to fight you on uprise because they cover a lot of the state but decided it’s not worth it and there are better sources I can use. Have conceded now with Uprise and LN Elttaruuu (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question if you were aware these are completely non-neutral sources. Your response doesn't answer if you were aware or not. Also, what do you mean by I've let you (underline mine) ? Please see WP:OWN. Graywalls (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * My guess is I made these inclusion decisions to the best of my ability at the time with what I knew about Wikipedia and sources. I don’t remember all of my choices on this website and what went into them. Elttaruuu (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What guidelines or broader Wikipedia consensus compels the use of politically correct double speak like "women engaged in sex work" rather than "female prostitute"? As you maybe aware, they call math instructors math instructors even if they're part time. They're not called "person engaged in mathematics instruction" simply because they may do something in their life or teach something other than math. Graywalls (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Call them sex workers then Elttaruuu (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Still does not adequately answer the key question. What precludes the use of generally accepted, common, neutral term "prostitutes", which is regularly used in mainstream press? Graywalls (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The use of sex workers in most mainstream press about this org, as cited above. Elttaruuu (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've also cited the use of prostitutes in mainstream press. One of which you infers shouldn't be used because it's from a "rich part" and one you removed. Graywalls (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/2018/06/04/seventeen-arrested-in-central-falls-prostitution-sting/12010389007/ Female police officers from Central Falls posed as prostitutes in high-traffic areas as part of the operation, police said. Fourteen men and three women were arrested. PROVIDENCE JOURNAL
 * who authorities said had been supplying eight wealthy men with young male prostitutes for more than two decades. https://apnews.com/article/sports-b3f09a77ce0b4a58b5b45ae00d713786 ASSOCIATED PRESS
 * Known by his nickname, “Shragie,” Mr. Schwartz not only owned four of the buildings where the ring’s prostitutes worked https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/nyregion/brooklyn-brothel-park-slope-police.html NEW YORK TIMES.
 * @Elttaruuu Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was curious what the AP Stylebook recommends and apparently there was a bit of a campaign around 2014 to get them to drop “prostituite” which was not successful. (They don’t talk about “child prostitution” anymore though). Either way it’s not a “neutral” choice. In an article about a social service agency I think it’s more appropriate to use the term that’s more frequently used in the social services field. Prezbo (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s wild to me @Graywalls that you opened a conversation about this in another forum and people basically stated what @Prezbo is saying (that neither term was superior and to go on with what was most popularly used in the sources) and you waited for me to be inactive enough just to change it to your own term, POV pushing and acting as though it’s neutral Elttaruuu (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Prezbo as far as I am aware, there's no precedent to adopt industry jargon. Even in some of the sources, plenty used "prostitutes" in reference to organizations named. I try to keep the language generic and oppose to tailoring it to the language as preferred by the industry unless there's a widely adopted consensus on Wikipedia that I am not aware of. You noted in edit summary Sex work is less stigmatizing term and more frequently used in newspapers these days. "Prostitutes" is a term used in national media meant to be appropriate for all audience (while other terms that refer to prostitutes that wouldn't be "FCC appropriate" for broadcast which I won't mention out of concerns for being labeled as repeating "offensive expressions")and it isn't so outdated like calling cars "horseless carriages". It is not patently offensive, biased language and your reference to "less stigmatizing" suggests preference towards euphemistic expressions, which isn't favored, per WP:EUPHEMISM, just as we avoid saying "passed away" and say "died". Graywalls (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Prezbo so, looking at the dailydot source you linked, those pushing for a change are clearly POV pushing advocacy group. Graywalls (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was curious what the AP Stylebook recommends and apparently there was a bit of a campaign around 2014 to get them to drop “prostituite” which was not successful. (They don’t talk about “child prostitution” anymore though). Either way it’s not a “neutral” choice. In an article about a social service agency I think it’s more appropriate to use the term that’s more frequently used in the social services field. Prezbo (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s wild to me @Graywalls that you opened a conversation about this in another forum and people basically stated what @Prezbo is saying (that neither term was superior and to go on with what was most popularly used in the sources) and you waited for me to be inactive enough just to change it to your own term, POV pushing and acting as though it’s neutral Elttaruuu (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Prezbo as far as I am aware, there's no precedent to adopt industry jargon. Even in some of the sources, plenty used "prostitutes" in reference to organizations named. I try to keep the language generic and oppose to tailoring it to the language as preferred by the industry unless there's a widely adopted consensus on Wikipedia that I am not aware of. You noted in edit summary Sex work is less stigmatizing term and more frequently used in newspapers these days. "Prostitutes" is a term used in national media meant to be appropriate for all audience (while other terms that refer to prostitutes that wouldn't be "FCC appropriate" for broadcast which I won't mention out of concerns for being labeled as repeating "offensive expressions")and it isn't so outdated like calling cars "horseless carriages". It is not patently offensive, biased language and your reference to "less stigmatizing" suggests preference towards euphemistic expressions, which isn't favored, per WP:EUPHEMISM, just as we avoid saying "passed away" and say "died". Graywalls (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Prezbo so, looking at the dailydot source you linked, those pushing for a change are clearly POV pushing advocacy group. Graywalls (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

adding comments, then withdrawing some time later
, the matter of sex worker/prostitute is a disagreement you're involved in. I noticed you added comments to discussion, then pulled them out a short while later. I've seen you do something similar in other discussions. Why are you doing this? I think it's rather disruptive to add comments to a discussion thread and withdraw them after some time has elapsed. Graywalls (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I do this because Wikipedia is a bad habit that I'm trying to quit. Apologies for any disruption. Prezbo (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For transparency, you can strike out comments you want to withdraw like this by putting around your text rather than blanking it especially if it's been more than a few minutes after posting it. Graywalls (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If there’s a guideline that governs this area of behavior, point me to it. Otherwise…your concern is noted. Prezbo (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , WP:REDACT Graywalls (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: The wording choice between "sex workers/sex work" vs "prostitutes/prostitution"
The usage of either wording is quite prevalent in numerous sources. For the purpose of this article, which wording should we use?: Graywalls (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Prostitutes/prostition
 * 2) Sex workers/sex work


 * Sex work, it’s more professional than prostitution. 31.161.156.71 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC) — 31.161.156.71 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Sex work. Great discussion below. Following the many resources of that discussion, it seems clear that "sex work" advocates WP:NPOV. I'll add this resource to the list from |Open Society Foundations: "The term 'sex worker' recognizes that sex work is work. Prostitution, on the other hand, has connotations of criminality and immorality. Many people who sell sexual services prefer the term 'sex worker' and find 'prostitute' demeaning and stigmatizing, which contributes to their exclusion from health, legal, and social services." Pistongrinder (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Depends Which word does the project use? Some1 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See below, it uses "Sex worker" Aaron Liu (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment
Is there any prior discussion about this subject? If so, please link. The Banner talk 16:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


 * In the section above this RfC, and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. Graywalls (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to clarify: are there any prior discussion about this subject without your involvement? The Banner  talk 00:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @The BannerNot to my knowledge. I spent a few minutes searching NPOV/N archives before posting the above discussion and I didn't find any discussion that establishes a clear prevailing consensus. Graywalls (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles is relevant. Prezbo (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a company/organization article, so while part of what they do might cross into health services, it's not really a medicine related like diabetes or cancer. Graywalls (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Signs of prevalence of both wording Graywalls (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4202943/ <- prostitutes appear many times in titles of the sources cited. sex workers in article title
 * https://www.providencejournal.com/story/news/2017/04/13/ri-documentary-focuses-on-underground-world-of-male-prostitutes/21390917007/ <- this source uses BOTH
 * https://turnto10.com/amp/archive/program-helps-ri-prostitutes-get-off-the-street <- uses "prostitutes with reference to RENEW
 * https://www.rimonthly.com/reporter-3/ <- uses both in reference to RENEW


 * The first link uses the term “sex workers,” not “prostitutes” Prezbo (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * corrected. Graywalls (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Sex workers" appears in the linked article itself. "Prostitutes" appears in three of the articles cited--both from the 90s. In general I think you'll find "sex workers" much more in the social work/medicine professional literature, especially more recently. For instance this NASW page links to a PFLAG Glossary of terms which explains that "sex workers" is the preferred term. The CDC talks about "sex workers" too. Wikipedia should follow the experts. Prezbo (talk) 19:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you linking a social services trade group and an advocacy group? My point is Wikipedia doesn't tailor language around the industry the article subject is part of.
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00206.x Journal of Forensic Sciences in 2006 says prostitutes.
 * https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_15-1 - uses both Graywalls (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think doctors and social workers have a better understanding of sex work than the average Wikipedia editor and we should follow their lead in our choice of language. Prezbo (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And DMD and DDS know teeth better than ordinary people, yet this doesn't mean we should be writing with terms like calculus and dentifrice in place of tartar and toothpaste following the word choices in journals. Graywalls (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Using terms like that would make articles harder to understand, that’s not the case here. And there isn’t an ethical question of talking about the clients of a social service agency respectfully at stake in that example. Prezbo (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Are there any indications that the use of these words differs between various countries? Would choosing one option be the best option for an encyclopedia that claims to have a worldwide view? The Banner talk 00:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't explore what global preferences are. Although, this maybe a situation where we stick with North American variant similar to how we do British vs American English depending on the topic being covered. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why the North-American preference? I think it should depend on the common coverage in the country described in the subject at hand. For instance (and I do not feel to start digging into it), in the Netherlands the term sex work is broader then prostitution and includes other services of a sexual nature. The Banner  talk 09:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment Not sure whether there is a question anywhere here, but reacting to this and the prior discussion. Why do we need a policy when there are two widely used terms for the same 'work'? The terms do carry slightly different connotations. 'Sex-worker' is relatively recent as a term, somewhat vague and generic and probably usually more 'objective', less judgemental and borderline euphemistic. It is obviously more apt in certain circumstances, such as when discussing sex as an 'industry' and is obvious why health workers etc would prefer this more neutral term to refer to their clients. But no matter how un-judgemental we might wish to be towards individuals engaged in this 'trade', there are circumstances in which the more direct term could be more apt. Child prostitution was rife in Victorian England, it may still be so in some Third World countries AFAIK. Why would we want to use a term like 'sex-work', which, in a sense, has been deliberately constructed to be non-jugemental and to imply a legitimate trade and legitimate 'career-choice' by those undertaking the work. It would be borderline insulting to imply that a 12 or 13-year-old had made any such choice and the more direct term implicitly condemns the trade, not the child. As I say at the beginning, why do we need a policy, both terms are used by sources and carry different moral, historical and legal connotations, so why confine ourselves to one of them? Pincrete (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better to go with the use by Project Weber/RENEW? Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oops I think I misunderstood context here, in asuming this to be a WP:MOS type question, rather than one about this specific article (Weber/RENEW). In general terms 'sex-worker' appears to be the term used by the project and mainly by sources discussing the project, therefore, in general terms we should use it also, though there is no need to do so pedantically, since the two terms aren't precise synonyms. Pincrete (talk) 06:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I would say the usage in sources is pretty evenly spread out between both variants, with some using one form in the headline and another in body.. The organiztion wasa formed through the merger of one organization called Project Weber, and another called Project RENEW, so I am taking sources from pre-merger into consideration as well.Graywalls (talk) 08:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see a good reason to proscribe or prescribe either word, but given that the two terms presumably have different meanings (as I understand it, sex workers includes strippers or online performers who have no physical contact with clientele), and one is used more by the organisation to describe their clientele(?) then I think we can generally prefer ‘sex worker’. At root though, we use the term most sensible for the context; if there is some outside source who describes the org’s dealings with “prostitutes”, then we use that term for that sentence or paragraph. If the org says they are “working with sex workers…” then we use that term for the article generally. This isn’t complicated stuff… — HTGS (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * You make a good point that sex workers would include strippers and online performers. The focus of the organization doesn't include those. Here are some sources you might find interesting
 * R.I. groups serving female and male prostitutes to merge
 * Effort aims to help prostitutes get off the street in Providence
 * 'Invisible' shines spotlight on male prostitutes "Project Weber-RENEW, a local nonprofit organization that helps male, female and transgender people involved in street-level prostitution."
 * Graywalls (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the issue there is that if the org says they work with sex workers, then we should presume that they will include more than “prostitutes” narrowly construed; I’m no expert, but I gather that some people doing some sorts of street sex-work may not identify themselves as prostitutes. Obviously context will help the reader.
 * In general I oppose any ban on words, and in this case, where independent sources have used ‘prostitutes’ we can certainly follow suit. — HTGS (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone was suggesting we ban any word? Graywalls (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just stating my standing attitude. And given the structure of these kinds of discussion it’s always a strong potential outcome. In short, it’s hard to seek any conclusive mandate and have that mandate say, “use both”, so on some level I am opposed to this very discussion. But you already have my recommendations above. — HTGS (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Following the sources sounds reasonable but I suspect it will lead interested parties to replace sources that talk about “sex workers” with sources that talk about “prostitutes.” However I suppose this is outside my control. Prezbo (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to WP:Use our own words. I'm not sure why anyone would feel like the article must pick one of the words and use it consistently throughout.  Using a variety of words is generally considered a sign of good writing (in English). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Close paraphrasing should be avoided to make sure we're keeping a good distance from copyright issues, but the use of same key words that are likely to be contentious isn't a bad idea. There are some wording within prose we can switch around and improve the aesthetics without affecting precision, but precision takes precedence if avoiding tedious/repetition of same words has to be done at the expense of precision in writing. MOS:SAID Graywalls (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)