User:Yahya Talatin/sandbox/2

Widespread use of biased terminology
Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. However, this concept is widely misunderstood and ignored. I think there has been a collective failure to enforce it and embed it in the culture of editing. By way of demonstration, here are the number of search results for a number of terms which should pretty much never appear be used in the voice of the encyclopaedia, but are nevertheless widespread:


 * famously: 12,962
 * infamously: 18,446
 * impressively: 35,707
 * fortunately: 7,576
 * unfortunately: 35,789
 * notoriously: 25,685

There are of course many more such terms. Obviously these numbers include legitimate uses of the words, but if you check you'll find thousands and thousands of articles which use them in violation of NPOV. Sadly, removing these biased terms from articles is never met with any appreciation. Far more common is the aggressive restoration of the terms. Regularly seen also is talk page discussion in which editors decide they have a "consensus" to use such terms, ignoring the inviolable consensus of the core policy.

So, I have two questions. 1. Do you agree that there is a problem here? And 2. If you do, what can be done about it? 217.67.60.67 (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming those are not in direct quotes, then yes, I agree those words should almost never be used in good encyclopedia writing. What can be done about it is you can edit the articles to remove those words or replace them with better words.- MrX 15:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Words to watch certainly agrees with most of these. --McGeddon (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * MrX: I am one person. I identified here at least 100,000 problems that need fixing. Telling me to go and fix it is patronising and unhelpful. If you had read what I wrote, you'd have noticed that I have tried to fix these problems, and encountered resistance, which was the entire point of my posting here.  I am glad that you agree there is a problem, and if you do have any helpful ideas about how to tackle it, I'd like to hear them.
 * McGeddon - indeed it does, but that doesn't stop people furiously objecting when these biased terms are removed from "their" articles. Any thoughts on what can be done about it?  217.67.60.67 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you see a problem, just fix it yourself. I think that in most cases those who insert invalid wording just don't realize the problems with that wording, and will not object if it is clearly explained what the problem is. The guidelines on appropriate wording are out there and are fairly clearly worded and can be linked or quoted if there are objectors. The only dangerous furious objectors are those who are administrators with article ownership issues. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In the comment to which you responded, I said the following: I am one person. I identified here at least 100,000 problems that need fixing. Telling me to go and fix it is patronising and unhelpful.  Either you didn't read that, in which case why comment on something you haven't read?  Or you did read it, and thus saying exactly the same thing again is obviously trolling.  What did you get out of that? 217.158.174.226 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi IP, problem is that it is difficult for those involved to not contaminate articles with their own thoughts or position. It is not all to only cite guidelines, because guidelines are reinterpreted to endorse such actions. This is not necessarily deliberate, but a human tendency to unconsciously project our views elsewhere. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you're saying. It's very easy to write from a neutral point of view.  If an article is contaminated by an editor's thoughts and opinions, another editor can, in theory, easily remove that contamination.  The problem is that in practice, people resist the removal of the contamination.
 * That's what everyone say, until they start contributing editing articles too personal for them. And even if not, you seem to forget this. Milgram experiment :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 21:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

To User:217.67.60.67, can I ask what tool you used to obtain these statistics? This could be very useful in searching for similar problems. Thanks - Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I simply searched the encyclopaedia for the relevant words and quoted the number of results. And as I said above, that obviously then includes legitimate occurrences.  But if you search for any of these words you'll find thousands or tens of thousands of instances that violate NPOV.
 * I did expect that people might have an idea of what to do about widespread ignorance of NPOV. I did not expect to be told to "fix it yourself" and trolled.  This has been extremely disappointing. 217.158.174.226 (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't expect to be informed you can fix errors yourself on the encyclopedia anyone can edit? I suspect I know who the troll is here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You think I didn't know that I can edit articles? You think I haven't already edited thousands of them?  Obviously, you didn't understand a word of what I wrote.  I didn't expect to be accused of trolling for noting that there are hundreds of thousands of deficient articles here about which serious and coordinated action needs to be taken.  Your premature attempt to shut down this discussion was a further act of trolling.  217.158.174.226 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are people attacking me here? I do not appreciate personal attacks. 217.158.174.226 (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you appear to be unable to follow simple instructions at the top of this page. This is a noticeboard for reporting neutrality issues with specific articles. Unless you actually format a request, this is not a forum for your rants about wikipedia's lack of neutrality, nor hosting your personal attacks against others (hint, calling people trolls without evidence is a personal attack). If you want to have a general discussion about neutrality, your own talkpage would be more appropriate. If you want to suggest changes to the WP:NPOV policy then its corresponding talkpage would be appropriate. Or perhaps you want to propose a significant change in how Wikipedia deals with neutrality, then the Village Pump is available. On the other hand as a user who has clearly extensive experience in wikipedia (hey you managed to post a personal attack template on my talkpage pretty easily, well done!) you know perfectly well all of the above. So I doubt you want anything other than to troll for attention. So unless you can manage to actually format a legitimate request as per the instructions at the top of this noticeboard, I will again be closing this shortly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I have two main logs of articles I keep tabs on - BLPs with the phrased "best known for" in them and BLPs that cite The Sun (ie: the British tabloid). The former is about 34,000 articles, while the latter is just over 100 (I did think I had it down to zero but made a mistake in the query). I'm happy to give filter writing a go (at least to log) if there is consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)