Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 1

Thought
I wonder if we need to explicate in the lede that the guideline is not intended to apply to direct quotations and descriptions of attributed opinion. That's self-evident to you and me, but is it to the average neophyte?—DCGeist (talk) 01:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Dan. Tony   (talk)  02:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts
General - this really is verbose in the extreme! I got so far and ended up going "tl;dr"... It could say all the same stuff in a quarter of the words. Good luck with finding the ah... correct words. :) --Jubilee♫ clipman  18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Words that may introduce bias - this does not give any positive examples, it simply tells us that most words we might use for these situations are best avoided. "Alleged", in fact, is often the best (and most concise) word to use when discussing an apparent or perceived crime or other wrong doing that is under investigation.
 * Words that label: "Pedophilia is a paraphilia."  - Not sure that's not much better than the original, actually, as you have to click through to get the explanation (if you even do understand after reading that article)...  and the first word is linked anyway!  Do we need this example, for that matter?  Isn't it a bit extreme?
 * Extremist, terrorist, or freedom fighter? - huh?
 * Noting what is being noted: "If a fact appears in an encyclopedia, it is presumably noteworthy." - I'd scrap that sentence as being both obvious and condescending
 * See and saw: "...any other noun without visual organs..." - actually no noun has visual organs... "entity" is probably intended here?


 * OTOH, having just looked through the diffs, I must admit the tightening of the bias section was 100% necessary and very well done (apart from not having positive examples). If the rest can be cut down that way, great!  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jubilee, what I'm going to do is tighten the whole thing right down, but I won't be removing things I disagree with, unless they're clearly wrong. I'll leave that for a second phase. For now, the aim is just to make it readable. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 05:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Pretty much what I'm doing with the music stuff (though at the moment I am just making notes for myself).  Great work from all working on this!  DCGeist scrapped that sentence second bullet point up, BTW, thank God!  Cheers  --Jubilee♫ clipman  00:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good things come to he who waits...
Slim, I see you've added a couple words to the box of Words that may editorialize (terrific design concept, by the way) that are unmistakable, quintessential, definitive peacock terms! That's a legendary move, destined to be a classic.

The peacocks are undoubtedly "words that may editorialize", but I'm wondering if the degree of consolidation suggested by the current format might be just a bit too radical for our fellow editors when it comes to this issue. What do you think of having two boxes under WtME--creating a new one with "legendary" and classic" to which we could add, say, a dozen more, and one more mega-terse graf, this one devoted to the peacock issue? Or, for consistent design, we could do exactly the same thing, but with its own section header distinct from WtME.—DCGeist (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds fine. I'm wondering if you want to try merging peacock and the others into this now, as I think we have this page fairly tight. That's assuming you're still planning to do that. I suspect there will be objections, but we can see.


 * By the way, if you like the boxes, that's good, but if not feel free to remove. I'm not wedded to them. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll attack peacock now.
 * I think the boxes are great. I think we could use examples of euphemism and cliché in a couple more categories: sex? illness and injury? disability?—DCGeist (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, expand as you see fit, and I'll see if I can think of some too. There are no shortage of examples. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Peacock image
I dig the images, too, but the peacock one is cutting off too much of the right side of the box, at least in my viewer. We'd want to have an image aficionado free the pea from his rectangular white background, like our weasel, who overlaps his box a little in much more attractive fashion.—DCGeist (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove in that case. I wonder whether we need so many shortcuts too. Perhaps we could trim these a little? If you don't mind, I'd like to use the weasel image in the lead, because it's cute and it does sum up what we're talking about. I'm not keen on the lead image I added: looks a bit too close to censorship. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree on all points. We can certainly impose a limit of two shortcuts per section.—DCGeist (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or what do you think about using the peacock in the lead? There's no overlap problem up there, and that way we get to keep both him and Weezie. Just a thought. If you've got a strong vision of how our little vermin will work in the lead, go for it.—DCGeist (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The thing I like about the weasel is that he includes "some people say," which deals with another point. But that's very minor. I'm happy with the peacock too. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 10:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a MOS not a children's book. The images should go Gnevin (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin - Please stop removing the images just because you personally think they are "childish". I happen to think they both help to illustrate the points raised in the guideline. If we get consensus to remove one or both, then by all means remove; until then please leave as is. Thank you --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As per my edit summary per talk they look childish in a MOS however if they are re-added again I'll consider the matter closed Gnevin (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Astounding
The progress here is incredible! I particularly like the boxes used to contain the questionable words: I might use that for the music MoSes. Whatever else is true, this gives me pointers as to where we are likely headed overall and where I need to take those that I'm am working on. (I, too, am working in userspace: see main MoS talk page under the Music section.) --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice!! - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Definetly. Am strongly in favour of this change which will make it easier for editors to learn best practice in one place. (without overloading MOS) As a minor point it would be good if the neo section could explicitly say that while neos should be avoided in the text of an article, its okay to have articles with a neo as the subject. Some editors try to use neos as an excuse for deletion, it would be absurd not to have an article on Sovereign Wealth Fund or Chimerica! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Weasel word
Gotta love the ironic aptness of the second tag found in this section! How come templates aren't required to follow the MoS? Or are they? --Jubilee♫ clipman 10:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Profanity
I'm wondering what these sentences refer to: "In certain cases, it is necessary to employ expressions that some devout readers will find blasphemous. Special care should be taken that such use is never offhand and that alternative expressions are considered to determine if they might be equally informative substitutes. However, Wikipedia is not censored, and the use of such expressions when appropriate is fully supported by policy."

I tried to remove the first, but then the rest made no sense, and when I tried to copy edit it, I realized I didn't know what it was saying.

SlimVirgin talk  contribs 06:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Profanity covers a broad range of expressions, including those with the potential to be regarded as blasphemous. My Merriam-Webster's Collegiate defines blasphemy as "the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God" and "irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable". Potentially blasphemous expressions should never be used glibly, but must be defended when encyclopedically appropriate.—DCGeist (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I worry that by mentioning it we give credence to the concept of "blasphemy." I also can't think offhand of a word that might cover. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps no single word, but many expressions. "There is no credible evidence that anything like the biblical Garden of Eden ever existed or ever could have." That's a plausibly encyclopedic sentence that many devout Jews, Christians, and Muslims would consider blasphemous.—DCGeist (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'd want to see that in a section about profanity, or in this guideline at all. I feel it's quite close to saying, "We may often have to use words that imply women, gays, and blacks are equal in the eyes of the law. Although that may offend our misogynist, homophobic, and racist readers, it is fully supported by policy." :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 07:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On whether it belongs in a section about profanity, I disagree: I think it's a significant issue, perhaps the issue, of profanity in an encyclopedic context. (Ideologically, I am very much inclined toward your position, but the fact is that profanity means what it means, which goes beyond mere offensiveness. Mainstream religious belief, however noxious its attributes sometimes are, is still conventionally accorded a deference that non-religious creeds are not.) I am not devout, and I know the vast majority of Wikipedia contributors are not, but the issue of blasphemy is very important to many of those who are devout, countless numbers of whom are our readers. That said, I do not think it is necessary that this page directly address the issue, and I would be happy to see it relegated to a See also link.—DCGeist (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Though, as I read what I just posted, that smacks of passing the buck. I guess, a bit unhappily, that I believe it should be addressed here. Perhaps we should seek other opinions.—DCGeist (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, good idea. As for a title, what do you think of Words to watch? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As noted on the main Talk page, I think it's goddamned fucking brilliant.—DCGeist (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, you just used some words to watch! (But I'm glad you like it.) :D SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Back to blasphemy: I cut out the long clause in the middle of the passage, which reduces the tone of deference and, I think, makes it more focused, mo' better.—DCGeist (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest renaming WP:Words and Imagery to Avoid and move Profanity here Gnevin (talk) 08:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DCGeist why did you remove the part about images? I thought the goal here was to bring common MOS together . With a few tweaks this MOS could include Profanity also Gnevin (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Other pages
To what extent are the other pages (neologism, weasel, and peacock) now incorporated here, or is there work still to be done to bring in their key points? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 03:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Their key points have been incorporated here. In communication with Tony, I expressed my belief that this page is ready to go "live." Optimally, that would be in place of the existing Words to avoid page, followed after !brief discussion by a retitling to Words to watch. It occurred to me that alternately we could bring it online directly as Words to watch and argue from there that it should supplant Words to avoid. The latter process might be more politic, but the former is much more efficient.


 * As an obvious corollary, once this page is brought online, I believe it will be time to edit no-ne, no-we, and no-pe so that they are no longer marked as part of the Manual of Style.—DCGeist (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or we redirect those pages to Words to avoid, but that could be harder. What's your instinct about how to proceed with this page? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 03:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That either way, it will help a great deal if Tony's around. It looks like he's online. I'll solicit his opinion.—DCGeist (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be ideal to incorporate them now. In a few hours' time, I'll compare all pages to see where we lie in terms of rationalisation. (Got client right now.) Tony   (talk)  07:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, this page is going to get quite a deal longer if we are to incorporate those other pages. I've made a start with the peacock page, tweaking and trimming it down. Is this going to work? I'm perfectly amenable to reversion if Slim and other editors here don't think it will. The gleam in my eye is to remove three MoS pages so that editors can go to the one W2W page, nice and simple. It would encourage synergy between these closely related areas and bring together editors with interest and expertise in the whole field of appropriate expression in WP articles. I guess one of my concerns in a more expansive approach to integrating these pages is that editors may be more willing to see the others taken out of the MoS if what is seen as useful guidance is included here.  Tony   (talk)  14:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to start working them in if there's material in them that's not already in here. Not sure what Dan's thinking is on that point. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 22:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, need regular feedback on how much is too much. I thought, for example, that long list of words to "watch out for" at the Peacock page was useful; I trimmed it down a bit, though, and made it running text rather than the verticalised whole page it is at Peacock. I like the explicit freedom it gives (kind of ... "just watch these ones, they're not exactly banned, but they flag the need for care"), and have repeated that message here, I hope. There's more from Peacock I plan to bring here. Again, please comment or revert if this is becoming too big.
 * Actually, I had expected the page to be fairly large if it's to encompass three or four existing ones. Tony   (talk)  03:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS I removed "freedom figher" from the puffery list: it's not really puffery, but is an excellent example of what to watch out for WRT POV, and I'm sure I've seen it exemplified on one of the other pages. It would be good to retain here in the right subsection. Tony   (talk)  03:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also
This is a fact about the subject. Also, this is another fact about the subject, also, the subject did this.

One of my own bugaboos -- the overuse of "also". "Also" is pretty much implied for every list of facts, and is generally unnecessary; it makes the prose seem childish and perhaps over-eager.

Is this just my own personal take? I'm not sure where or how I'd place this. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not alone. More often than not, "also" is redundant. Not sure if this fits into any of categories in WTW, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't it used similar to "In addition", etc. and is sometimes useful to make a paragraph flow better? That's the way I see it. Gary King  ( talk ) 01:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * jpgordon, you took the words out of my mouth! Tony   (talk)  03:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gary: sometimes. Compare "Like Temple Sinai's previous rabbis, Broude also passionately supported liberal causes" (taken from this version of TFA Temple Sinai), where the also is redundant, to "On 26 July 2000, Manchester United opened their Trafford Training Centre training ground and Academy[46] on land formerly owned by Shell.[43]  Manchester City also have a training ground on Carrington Moss" (from tomorrow's TFA Carrington Moss), where the also adds meaning (Manchester United has a training ground there, and Manchester City does too). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This page is (quite rightly) about words to watch not because they're unnecessary or poor style, but because they damage our neutral point of view. While overuse of "also" is a problem for a well-written article, it doesn't belong in this guideline.  Happy ‑ melon  18:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, indeed, the primary focus. More generally, this page draws attention to words that may be entirely unproblematic in other contexts, but must be used cautiously on Wikipedia. The overuse of also is a problem everywhere in English writing, and thus does not bear special consideration here.—DCGeist (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

On images and profanity
Gnevin has made two related proposals, which I'll take up here:


 * Renaming the page Words and imagery to avoid, or perhaps now, Words and imagery to watch, and expanding coverage in that way.


 * I'd argue against this primarily on the basis of focus. There's a conceptual integrity to "words to watch" that would, I think, be lost if imagery were to be included. However, I'd be interested in seeing a detailed breakdown of how the treatment of imagery could be consolidated and summarized along the lines we've established here.


 * Eliminating the discussion of profanity here if imagery is not covered, and simply providing the mainlink.


 * I'm simply opposed to this. It seems natural and necessary to cover profanity in a page surveying "words to watch". And, as I noted on the main MoS Talk page,


 * I think WP:Profanity is viable as a stand-alone page. It deals fairly well with issues more or less outside the newly focused purview of Words: (a) images, (b) prohibition of disclaimers and bowdlerization of quotations, and (c) alternative means of referencing strong language. However, there is enough overlap to merit a brief section in Words ... and a main link to Profanity.


 * This continues to strike me as the best way to deal with the topic.—DCGeist (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

These are 2 separate issues from my point of view but the second issue only arises if we agree see also shouldn't be done as I am now suggesting. The see of see also can be viewed Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style and it would be great if you could take a look Gnevin (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It took me a bit of effort to understand what you're suggesting in the chart/discussion you linked to, but I think I've got it.


 * If I understand its relevance to out present discussion, what you're suggesting is that a condensed WP:Profanity/core be created and transcluded here in place of the Profanity mainlink and dedicated text. While this would promote consistency in the way that your plan generally promises, it would also bring the content of this page into areas well outside of Words to watch. I think that might be a problem with your plan generally—that gains in consistency would be offset by loss of focus. But perhaps solutions could be found for that. I'll be interested to hear what others think, and will keep an eye on the main MoS Talk page thread.—DCGeist (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well for Profanity core would be something like "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not"


 * Which is generic enough to work in several places, we could even get smart and use a  . Which would allow us to say words here rather than words and images  Gnevin (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A very interesting proposition. Will others please look at this, both on our Words to watch page here and the transcludable (?!) core page (User:SlimVirgin/Profanity/core), and weigh in?—DCGeist (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly does do exactly?  If I remove NOWIKI it just becomes, which is exactly the same as typing Words and images.  The transclution is quite good, but I wonder if we need to reproduce it in multiple places: I thought the point was to avoid multiple places...?  Confused.  :/  --Jubilee♫ clipman  01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1 allows you to overwrite Words and images with more apt text. So gives Words that would be considered vulgar rather than Words and images that would be considered vulgar. The point is to avoid multiple places but there will always be a need to point to other MOS and we need a way to keep it consistent Gnevin (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! I always wondered what that  thing did!  Thanks.  I see your point about the usefulness of this method, also  --Jubilee♫ clipman  08:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Article title
Words to watch - Although I can can see the rationale for avoiding "avoid" (as it were), I am not sure the new title is much more helpful: how do you "watch" a word? I could watchlist word or perhaps write the word on a piece of paper and wait to see if anything happens (probably not much unless someone comes along and rubs it out or adds more, or a poltergeist decides to frighten me...) I know that there is a colloquial use of the word "watch" that means "be wary of", e.g. "watch your language". However, by using the word in this context we seem to be using one of the very words we should perhaps watch... Unless that's the point, of course...  I did see the comments on this at WT:MOS, BTW, and especially note (!) Tony's comment, so I guess this is probably settled. I thought it more useful to ask this question here though so that my thoughts could be more easily spotted --Jubilee♫ clipman  20:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, "to watch" is used in the sense of "to be wary of" or "to be careful with". Our style guidelines concern article space (and, if you really want to stretch a point, file space), not the other namespaces. We can and must use all sorts of expressions here that we counsel caution with in article space. A style guide is all about "subscribing to particular points of view".—DCGeist (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Words to watch" should mean just that, and not necessarily "Forbidden words." A good test of such a guide as this is to test it on some featured articles and see if they fail it, or if they would seem flat and insipid when it was applied. Ditto for generally respected recent publications such as the New York Times, Time magazine, or Britannica. We should not be seen as the "political correctness police" or as Bowdlerizers of good writing. Some degree of elegant variation may be needed such as alternatives for "said," "stated" or "wrote." I do not see "reported" as implying correctness or authority more than those three. "Claimed" is sometimes appropriate, in cases where something is likely to be doubted, and respected sources often use that term. "Words to watch" brings to mind a joke from years gone by: The English teacher tells her class "There are two slang words I never want to see in your writing. One of them is 'grody' and the other is 'bitchin.'"  A student excitedly asks "But teacher, what are they?" Edison (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)DCGeist - That makes sense. I support the move in that case. Any word on going live? --Jubilee♫ clipman 20:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Edison's points are well taken. I've spent most of my time at Wikipedia writing Featured Articles, and I've certainly tried to help craft this guideline so it passes the test described by Edison. I know, as well, that SlimVirgin, who has done more work than anyone in bringing the page to its current state, is very sensitive to the point that it not be viewed as a catalogue of "forbidden words". I believe the language we've arrived at goes as far as reasonably possible to ensure that the title is taken to mean just what it says.


 * On a somewhat related point, I believe the peacock image we have had off and on in the lede, as accompanied by the caption Slim wrote for it, is fairly professional in quality and a worthwhile mnemonic for the page as a whole. I'm restoring it.—DCGeist (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Have restored the weasel: see above section where the images are discussed --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a vote for the images of the Peacock and Weasel (sounds like a great pub). Edison (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial"
Can we add the term "controversial" to this list somehow? As I've said elsewhere, "controversial" is a fairly meaningless well poisoning term. You could describe every 20th and 21st century American president as "controversial", but we wouldn't describe them in the leads of their bios that way: "William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton was the controversial 42nd President of the United States...", "George Walker Bush served as the controversial 43rd President of the United States...", "Barack Hussein Obama II is the controversial 44th and current President of the United States..." Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind you, those numbers are controversial, so it might work in that context... :P That said, the point is well made.  However, I would hesitate to add words that were not already in any guideline: after all, this stage of process is only about rationalising the present guidelines, not adding things to them...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline already has the word "controversy" - perhaps it could just be modified to "controversy/controversial". Actually, I think "controversial" is more problematic than "controversy". Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the intent of the guideline is sufficiently clear that readers will understand the caveat about controversy and scandal similarly applies to controversial and scandalous. We're trying to get away from lists that vainly attempt to be exhaustive and succeed only in being exhausting; we want just enough examples to clarify the fundamental philosophical point of each section. 'Cuz the point is the point, 'ite.—DCGeist (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In theory I agree with you. In practice, you'd be astonished at how literally people view these things. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I know you're right. There's no approach that will guarantee success. So, I'll cast my !vote for holding the line on the number of featured examples in each section at where we have it now—around 15. A lower number runs a greater risk of insufficiently exemplifying the point(s) of each section; a higher number runs a greater risk of having the box read as a blacklist: "on it—bad; off it—good." That said, I wouldn't mind replacing controversy with controversial—a little variation between the box and the following narrative is actually good, I think; having both in the box, however, strikes me as overkill.—DCGeist (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Peacock words
Why has the longish list of peacock words I transferred (and trimmed) from that page been removed? The edit summary didn't seem like an adequate explanation, Gnevin. Tony  (talk)  11:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't and won't want to list every possible peacock word. We have enough examples and should leave it up to our users as to what is and isn't a PEA term Gnevin (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not every possible peacock word, but I thought the list was useful. I presume no one will object to the significant reduction in guidance. It's not a big deal for me, so perhaps it's the case that peacock words aren't a big problem on WP nowadays. "Staunch" is in the box, but does not immediately bring peacockery to my mind. Tony   (talk)  12:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NEO
I think the shortcut WP:NEO should point to the bits of WP:NEO that were more like a notability standard, since that's how it was widely used in AfD and AfC discussions. I've been trying to find a home for it, but it looks like it'll probably end up in WP:NOTDICT. Some discussion here. Gigs (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Euphemism/cliché
I have a problem with this entire section. Whilst terms like 'lion's share', 'gave his life' and 'tip of the iceberg' should obviously be avoided, that is simply because they may introduce bias. The other terms may greatly vary in their usage and acceptance from country to country and from dialect to dialect. I for one, don't consider 'hard of hearing' and 'visually challenged' to be euphemisms, their use in Australian English is nearly ubiquitous (to the point where deaf and blind may be considered unnecessarily blunt). An American body's recommendation on the US English usage of the terms doesn't apply here in the slightest, and I can't see why it ought to apply to an international encyclopaedia. — what a crazy random happenstance 04:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Who would ever consider a neutral, factual, simple word "unnecessarily blunt" in the context of an encyclopedia? Answer: those uncomfortable with direct expression and good writing. That's exactly why this guideline is necessary.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't proposing that the use of the simple word be banned, but I do question the need to depreciate equally valid and widely accepted alternatives. 'Black' is also a neutral, factual, simple word, yet we prefer 'African-American' for black Americans. 'Homosexual' is likewise depreciated in favour of 'gay'. 'Blind' and 'deaf' don't have quite the baggage that 'black' and 'homosexual' do, but banning 'hard of hearing' and 'visually impaired' is a solution in want of a problem - rule creep at its finest and least necessary. — what a crazy random happenstance 05:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreement is not universal on those terms. Maurreen (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Move to main space?
Time to move to main space ,mark as proposed and mark the others for merge ?Gnevin (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is that not enough of the information in these outlying pages has been included here to launch it yet. Do people not agree that this page needs to be a lot longer? A prime reason for launching this page, surely, is to remove others from the MoS category, simply listing them here as "See alsos". If that is to happen, we need to capture more than just a very brief summary of those pages. Tony   (talk)  09:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the length is perfect. What do you think is missing? Gnevin (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So can we remove the other pages from the MoS when this one goes live? Tony   (talk)  11:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we've to move this to main space and mark as proposed and the same time we need to propose a merge at each of the MOS.If con is in favour then we merge Gnevin (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But the obvious thing to do is to include MORE of the pages to be merged. I don't think you appreciate the level of local resistance to removing pages from the MoS category. This is not going to work unless a good deal of the text—or at least the concepts and points—is already merged. It is not wise to move this anywhere until the product is properly prepared, and at the moment it is just a very bare summary. In addition, the editors at outlying pages will probably be more supportive if a "see also" is included at this new page. I am reverting. Tony   (talk)  15:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is intended to replace WP:PEA,WP:NEO etc why would we see also to them? This makes no sense. Also as per the discussion below we've agreed not too see also. If you think more should be included edit but I don't see the need for bloat Gnevin (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Length is not a virtue. Being simply an amalgamation and rewriting of the separate pages, is not a virtue.  Efficiently consolidating these overlapping guidelines into one page which covers all the necessary concepts, without so much bloat, is a virtue.  I agree that the absence of any key concepts or principles would be a problem.  There's no point in needlessly adding examples and fluff from the other pages; the clean and fresh presentation of this page is a significant advantage.   Happy ‑ melon  16:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I suggest moving to the main space now is we as a group of editors have reached a stability which I don't see changing. We need the community's input now Gnevin (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My perspective—substantially shaped by Slim's progressive, and I think, highly effective approach—on how this new page would represent a significant advantage over what exists is very much in agreement with Happy-melon's. While there is additional material in WP:NEO, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:WEASEL that could be brought here, I believe the most important principles addressed by those pages are all now addressed here. And the more concise we keep this page, the more the focus is kept on what's most important. (I note also that efforts are being made to merge the significant, but non-style-guideline material in WP:NEO into WP:NOTDICT.) If you do identify any key concepts that are missing, Tony, by all means introduce them. (I do see that you revised and expanded the box of peacock terms—looks great.) But if there's a need to add on for purely political reasons, well, that's why I didn't pursue a career in politics.—DCGeist (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no hard-and-fast boundary between politics and utility, in this case. Yes, we need to keep outlying editors on board, if possible. Yes, we need to get rid of fluff. But I do look at those pages and see things that are useful, but are not here.
 * The second issue is: what do people propose to do with those pages, once this one is launched. The options, I guess, are (1) delete them; (2) remove them from the MoS category, with the option of leaving them in WP space as they are, or tagging them as essays. Could we have some input on this practical matter? Best to do this in a planned fashion, don't you think, rather than have to deal with reverts and grumpiness from others while thinking on our feet. Tony   (talk)  11:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The best thing would be to redirect those pages to the new Words to watch. Is there anything else on those pages, Tony, that could be usefully transferred here? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 12:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So we have a go? Gnevin (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Slim, I apologise for neglecting this page: I'm a bit-player in writing a $34 million application due tomorrow and I'm involved in a huge kerfuffle at WT:NFC.
 * I see resistance to change at the Neologism page. But I've no in-principle objection to going live at this stage. In fact, it might make us all sit up and move the task forward. Tony   (talk)  15:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Resting place
Admittedly the dead are not literally "resting" (although I'm sure there are some cultures where the dead are perceived to be) and the phrase "resting place" can generally be avoided by being more specific (e.g. "J Doe was buried in Fooville Cemetery" rather than "J Doe's resting place is Fooville Cemetery"), but there do seem to be certain circumstances where it is the most appropriate choice. I can't think of a synonymous general purpose term in English for talking about the location where the remains of a person are kept or were disposed of. "Place of burial" only works if the person was actually buried, for instance, and there are a variety of other options for the disposal of a body (e.g. scattering of ashes; an urn stored above ground; Tower of Silence). In a column heading in a table, or in a category, where many people are being covered and therefore it may be impossible to use a more specific term, "resting place" remains a sensible catch-all option. I think the section on avoiding euphemisms would do better to focus on examples where the euphemism is clearly to be avoided and can be replaced (possibly with the help of a little rewording) by a more neutral and direct term, which the guide should list. TheGrappler (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * An interesting observation. But I think for those rare instances where it is impossible to avoid a catch-all, you've actually indicated what the Wikipedia-appropriate expression would be: location of remains (or site of remains). I believe the figurative resting place is, in fact, clearly to be avoided. We could certainly list location of remains as the preferred catch-all in the brief narrative.—DCGeist (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think "location of remains" actually works for towers of silence or similar means of body-disposal; of course "resting place" doesn't work literally for that either, but it isn't literal in the first place. I remain unconvinced that "resting place" is a serious enough problem to pick out for special treatment in a short summary, particularly when there is no clear recommendation made of what to replace it by. It is a normal English phrase, albeit not one that should be read completely literally - but it's hardly alone in the English language on that count. Unlike some of the other euphemisms on display it is neither misleading nor egregiously presumptuous. TheGrappler (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's hear some other views. Anyone?—DCGeist (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Resting place" and "passed away" are too coy for neutral writing, IMO. There's a possibility of a faint POV in the personification of the dead (not everyone believes there's life after death—these seem to be specific cultural constructions). Dan's solution seems very sensible. Tony   (talk)  06:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If the place and method of disposal the corpse it should be stated such as x was buried in...,y ashes where spread over.... However how do we deal with someone who's method is unknown z was ?? in Gnevin (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the rare case that an encyclopedia should ever need to address such a situation: "The manner in which X's remains were disposed is not known." Simple and straightforward.—DCGeist (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer "location of remains" or similar. The current Template:Infobox person uses "resting place". I wonder whether there will be resistance to changing that. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The terms "place", "location" etc are actually only useful if we know a single specific place/location/etc. Otherwise, how do we deal with people whose ashes are thrown into the sea (?location = Atlantic Ocean), people whose relics reside in various religious buildings, homes etc (?location = various), or people who were drawn and quartered and whose remains were scattered to the four winds (?location = everywhere)? Assuming, therefore, that the information will be offered when known unequivocally, location of remains seems best, IMO, since it avoids the ephemistic word "resting". The change should be made to the infobox to reflect the advice given in this guideline once it has been accepted by the community --Jubilee♫ clipman 17:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous comments

 * 1) Intro -- The better version is at Words to avoid. That is intro is more focused on POV issues; this intro gives too much emphasis to style.
 * 2) Statement characterizations -- I don't see how insist, protest, contend, or  feel are perceived as better than other words in that section.
 * 3) Expressions of doubt or support
 * 4) Alleged and accused should be used when wrongdoing is alleged but not definitive, such as with people on trial for crimes.
 * 5) So-called should not be used to mean commonly named. The same meaning can be indicated with called, for example.
 * 6) However and although are not loaded. They are normally used just as transitions between contrasting points.
 * 7) Negative labels -- I changed this (in two instances) from labels, because words are labels, whether the meaning is good, bad or neutral.
 * 8) I disagree that terrorist "should not be used as unqualified labels in the voice of the article."
 * One man's terrorist and all that. Where would you have Nelson Mandela, Bobby Sands or Che Guevara Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or Paul Watson. There are continual fights about Sea Shepherd, with some people using the invalid short cut "Sea Shepherd is eco-terrorist" & "eco-terrorism is terrorism" => "Sea Shepherd is terrorist". This ignores that the term "eco-terrorism" was coined for political reasons as a term that sounds like terrorism but which in many definitions applies to banalities such as beating up your neighbours for playing loud music in the middle of the night. Hans Adler 08:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Controversial is more likely to indicate just that something is controversial than it is to promote contentiousness.
 * 2) I doubt affair promotes "a contentious point of view."
 * 3) Editorializing
 * 4) Actually can be useful to contrast perception with reality. In noncontroversial matters, this should not be discouraged.
 * 5) Fundamentally and essentially are not inherently problematic. Their use in noncontroversial matters should not be discouraged.
 * 6) Vague attributions -- This section should be clarified to refer to unsupported attributions or something similar. The expressions are not inherently bad. The problem is only in not following the expressions with examples.
 * Not sure what your saying here Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Euphemisms and clichés
 * 2) Organizations for disabled people have varying views about euphemisms. Let's leave their views off the page.
 * Surely the NFB is a reliable source? Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Visually impaired is not a euphemism. It describes both people who are blind and people who have other vision problems, such as near-sightedness.
 * The section says if the person is blind say so. It doesn't say you can't use Visually impaired for others Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Hard of hearing is not a euphemism; nor does it describe people who are deaf. Hard of hearing describes hearing problems of lesser magnitude than deafness.
 * The section says if the person is deaf say so. It doesn't say you can't use Hard of hearing for others Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Some examples to consider including are collateral damage and ethnic cleansing.
 * No issue adding them Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Cliches don't fit with the rest of this page, which is mainly about NPOV. If cliches are going to be listed here, we might as include redundant phrases. And so forth.
 * Is there a MOS for redundant phrases? Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Profanity -- A smallish matter, but there are differences between profanity, obscenity and vulgarity. Of the three, vulgarity is probably the broadest. Maurreen (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The MOS is at WP:PROFANE so we used profanity rather than vulgarity
 * This is still very much are proposal, if you can, I'd suggest be bold and fix some of these issues. Gnevin (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be wise not to make any potentially controversial changes at this time. A merge of guidelines can easily be shot down if some editors get the impression that unwanted changes to what the guidelines say are part of the deal.
 * As to "affair" not promoting a contentious point of view – does that mean I can refer to this section as the "Maurreen affair"? (This is of course just an absurd example to show what the use of "affair" does.) Hans Adler 08:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - As far as #1 is concerned: this is meant as part of the Manual of Style (AFAIK), therefore style is the issue addressed rather than content, per se. OTOH, perhaps this page should be a general guideline given that most of these terms can be used to create POV statements, as pointed out in the lead: "or that suggest Wikipedia subscribes to a particular point of view".  "Style", in this sense, goes some way beyond the mere appearance of an article on the page, e.g. layout of sections, usage of templates, or capitalisation of particular words.  We seem to be discussing semantic meaning as well as stylistic points, in other words, e.g. "terrorist means x to some and y to others".  Then again, maybe advising the use of better phrasing to avoid vagueness and ambiguity is a point of style?  I have a similar conundrum with the Music MoS's, BTW...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  17:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Big and bold!
The lines as they are currently are as big as the section headers underwhich they reside, and are easily just as bold, suggesting that they are each as important as their subject. That hardly makes for an "effective presentation": I'm certain that our message here is that all such words are inappropriate (and not just these specific examples). I'll also make an appeal that consists more of opinion: It just looks worse with the h3 and the boxes in such proximity. As a set of examples, compare the following:


 * An h3 heading:
 * Birds, and the bees, and the flowers, and the trees


 * Big and bolded: Birds, and the bees, and the flowers, and the trees


 * Big, only: Birds, and the bees, and the flowers, and the trees


 * Bold, only: Birds, and the bees, and the flowers, and the trees


 * No formatting: Birds, and the bees, and the flowers, and the trees

Now, I see the appeal in the emphasis. But bold and big is too much here. And now that I see the comparison of big to bold and big, I'd have to say I'd remove my support to have the messages use big at all. Bold is enough weight to get the message across. --Izno (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Euphemisms
We now have: "Contributors should be aware that euphemisms for disabilities and disabled persons are often rejected by organizations representing those directly affected. The National Federation of the Blind opposes terms such as visually impaired and sightless in favor of the straightforward, neutral blind; similarly, the group argues that there is no need to substitute awkward circumlocutions such as people with blindness for the plain phrase blind people. It may be accurate to describe someone as hard of hearing, but if the person is actually deaf, just say so."

The main problem is that the first sentence is misleading. Views about euphemisms and circomlocutions vary more than is suggested here.

The (U.S.) National Center on Disability & Journalism has a style guide that includes: "It is best to use language that refers to the person first and the disability second. For example: “The writer, who has a disability” as opposed to “The disabled writer.” More examples: ,

The second problem is that "visually impaired" and "hard of hearing" should not be conflated with euphemisms. "Visually impaired" is a general description that can include any visual impairment, such as near-sightedness. "Hard of hearing" correctly describes hearing problems that are less than deafness.

Here are some examples of real euphemisms:
 * "Special needs".
 * "Challenged" or "fill-in-the-blank-challenged."
 * "(Disease) survivor" instead of "victim" or "patient".
 * "Developmentally disabled" instead of "mentally retarded."
 * The shift from "crippled" to "handicapped" to "disabled" (and for some people, "differently abled"). Maurreen (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * These are just some loosely-medical-related euphemisms. We probably could explore a number of other areas. Maurreen (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hell. Honestly, on the evidence you present, I think the National Center on Disability & Journalism doesn't have a dang clue about good English. In many cases, it is entirely irrelevant if writer X has a disability; this is an encyclopedia—if it's irrelevant, we don't mention it. If it is relevant, we express it as concisely and directly as possible. To heck with the National Center. Ultimately, what we want to get at here is preferring, say, "the law mandated accommodations for blind people" to "the law mandated accommodations for people with blindness". That's how the National Federation of the Blind rolls, and that's direct, concise, nonjudgmental, better prose.—DCGeist (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try to clarify. I'm not supporting euphemisms or circumlocutions. My main point is that views about them vary.
 * To say "euphemisms for disabilities and disabled persons are often rejected by organizations representing those directly affected" is misleading if we don't also indicate that euphemisms for disabilities and disabled persons are often supported by organizations representing those directly affected.
 * But there's no need for either.
 * Let's be concise and drop any mention of the NFB or similar organizations. Maurreen (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are, in fact, euphemisms for disabilities and disabled persons "often supported" by organizations representing those directly affected? The National Center on Disability & Journalism is certainly no such organization. It's a small operation at the Arizona State University J-school with a full-time staff comprising two grad students and a fabulously grandiose name. The National Federation of the Blind, the authority currently adduced, is an actual national organization of blind people, with a claimed membership of over 50,000. A search on Google News for 2005–9 for the latter gives 3,040 hits. For the former? Zero. There's no comparison here.—DCGeist (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've given three sources to your one. I'll work on more supporting material. In the meantime ... (Maurreen (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Forgot sig earlier)


 * I'm sorry I didn't notice the other two. I believe that I've demonstrated that, for our purposes, the National Federation of the Blind is an authoritative, notable source and that the National Center on Disability & Journalism is not. Can you provide supporting evidence that the (awful, terrible, ridiculously PC counsel of) ADA National Network Coordination, Outreach and Research Center at Virginia Commonwealth University and the Texas Council for Developmental Disabilities are authoritative, notable sources worthy of consideration as we assess the content of our style guideline?—DCGeist (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Disability groups supporting euphemisms
More than 30 organizations, listed here, have supported "Rosa's Law, a bill to eliminate the terms "mental retardation" and "mentally retarded" in U.S. law. The bill calls for replacing those terms with “intellectual disability” and “individual with an intellectual disability”.

The organizations include Easter Seals and the American Association of People with Disabilities. Maurreen (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. My Webster's does mark retarded as "sometimes offensive". And governmental prose is so benighted anyway, this hardly feels like a direct attack on the English language.—DCGeist (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that you've adjusted the section, and I agree with the spirit. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know anyone without an intellectual disability. Mi biggest one is ballet. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC).

We need better examples of euphemisms
The page now uses a couple of examples that aren't necessarily euphemisms: "visually impaired" and "hard of hearing". As I've said before, these have meaning distinct from any real or perceived euphemisms.

These should be replaced. One option would be to use "mentally challenged." Maurreen (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The section makes perfectly clear that hard of hearing is fine when accurate, and not fine when a euphemism for deaf. That's a very useful distinction to make. The National Federation of the Blind makes a precisely parallel point about the use of visually impaired ("undesirable when used to avoid the word blind, and acceptable only to the extent ... reasonably employed to distinguish between those having a certain amount of eyesight and those having none"). Let me say, right here, !God !bless you National Federation of the Blind, for your pride, your power, and your love of that great gift we share, the English language.


 * Mentally challenged would be a fine addition to the roster of euphemisms to avoid. What do you suggest we offer as the preferred term(s)? Sincerely (and, obviously, passionately), Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't want to replace, and I'd prefer to keep this list short, so ... :)
 * I just tweaked the "blind" part. Maybe that will be OK for both of us for now. Maurreen (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * On reflection, mentally challenged/X would clearly be a more useful example than hard of hearing/deaf, which essentially duplicates visually impaired/blind. But what do you think X should be?—DCGeist (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "X" could be "mentally retarded". But some people will probably object to that.
 * There's also "gay"/"homosexual", which would also likely engender objection. Maurreen (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How about your (disease) survivor/victim, patient idea?—DCGeist (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's good. Maurreen (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as I'm thinking on it. Do you actually see survivor being used for people who are currently victims or patients? If so, y'know, "great". But if it's largely used for people who have recovered from a disease, then—though it's still namby-pamby English—it's not an ideal example. Just checking, as I realized I don't know. As an alternative, if we want one, I thought of living with (disease)/has (disease).—DCGeist (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are fine, too. Maurreen (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Query about the opening section ("say")
OK, as a science writer, I'm thinking of the data-reporting context, but maybe there are wider implications. My question is: are there not two types of "loading" in the examples provided? The first is whether the verb involves an internalised process: "X noted, observed, surmised" are internal processes. But "reported" seems entirely different: it's an external and often verifiable communication with the outside world (whether orally or in writing), like "stated". One can "report" something neutrally or in a POV way, just as one can "state" it, but the word doesn't seem to carry WP's pre-judgement per se—acceptability in WP text depends on the context and the wording.

There's another class of "say" words here: "revealed", "pointed out" and "exposed" all carry a sense of narrative judgement (i.e., WP's judgement) in reverse, as it were: X "revealed" something conveys the sense that the fact was there in the first place, in the narrator's opinion; WP asks the reader to assume the existence of a fact that was initially unrevealed, and "collaborates" in the text with X, who formally expressed it. There lies danger, of course. So do "admit", "confess" and "deny", and especially "claim", but I think they should all be treated together, rather than a separate para for "claim". These words are not by default internalised, as the first group are.

I can't help feeling that it's an oversimplification at the moment. Are my hunches right? If so, is there a way of neatly and succinctly reorganising and explaining these two quite different dangers underlying the exemplified "say" words without blowing out the brief packaging style that is so attractive about the page?

Finally, is it worth making a one-sentence distinction between the reporting of data, scientific results, etc., and the more directly socially constructed contexts surrounding BLPs? Tony  (talk)  12:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree in general. I think several items on the page are fine in noncontroversial matters. Maurreen (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a major edit to that section; please check it and let me know here if there are problems, or make improvements to it directly. Tony   (talk)  12:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if "noted, observed or surmised can give credence to an internalised and unverifiable process within that person's mind" will leave readers scratching their heads. I gather the concern is that the first two convey the sense that the person took special care, and the third conveys the sense that the person arrived at a notion based on scanty evidence. Whether I've understood correctly or not, I think it would help to spell out—briefly, of course—the nature of the process(es) to which we want to avoid giving credence.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is hard: I will have another go, taking your comment into account. I may not succeed. Tony   (talk)  11:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nicely said. I wasn't left scratching my head, and found it elegant, but I think a lot of readers would be. I wonder if find could be added to the group Revealed, pointed out, exposed. It is problematic in the same way. Postpostmod (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I took a crack at it, Tony. Don't hesitate to revert if what I did was too reductive. (Ppm, I added "find" in the preceding edit). Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I reflect on it further (while reading a good science book), I'm wondering how much of a problem surmise really is. Perhaps we're working from different definitions, but if surmise means "to form a notion of from scanty evidence" (as my Webster's says) than surely that is (roughly) verifiable in many cases. It's possible to know how much evidence/data a scientist had when she surmised something. Maybe there's a connotation I'm not familiar with?—DCGeist (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest "surmise" should be retained, and is really no different from the others (remembering that this is not a blacklist). In many cases it may indeed be verifiable, but we need to be sure it is before using the word, or we will introduce bias by hinting at speculation. PL290 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, took another shot. I'm still not totally convinced, though. This resides under the rubric of "loaded synonyms for the verb to say", but surely surmised isn't "loaded" as are noted and observed, which are more suggestive of a value judgment...—DCGeist (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Or then again, perhaps the fact that "surmise" only has one connotation disqualifies it here. Using it when no inference or speculation occurred is simply a lie. That blatancy puts it in a different category from a word that might merely hint at something allowed by one of its connotations. PL290 (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Rationalizing the page title
The following is the text of a thread I just began on Wikipedia Talk:Manual of Style. As it bears on the titling of this page, I'm including it here as well:


 * Rationalizing MoS page titles

For a while, I'd been glancing over at our template that runs along the right-hand side of the page, thinking, "Gee, the distinction between the twenty-odd pages that appear under the "Manual" header and the twenty-odd pages that appear under the "Guidelines" header seems pretty damn arbitrary." It finally dawned on me—I can be slow—that this was a result of the different titling paradigms that had been applied to the different pages.

Of the 24 pages listed under "Guidelines", Accessibility, Captions, Lead section, Linking, Make technical articles understandable, and Trivia sections are bannered as part of the Manual of Style (as is one loaner, WikiProject Military history/Style guide). If they are part of the MoS, should their titles not be adjusted accordingly? Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions), and so forth...

The distinction raises other questions: By what logic is Manual of Style (infoboxes) an MoS subpage, but Tables and Lists are not? (For that matter, why is Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) under "Manual" in the template, but Manual of Style (road junction lists) under "Culture"?)

The conclusion I draw from this confusion is that the system is badly in need of rationalization. Either:
 * (1) Every style guideline page should be titled as a Manual of Style subpage.

or:
 * (2) A clear system needs to be established for determining (a) which style guideline pages will be titled as MoS subpages and bannered as part of the MoS and (b) which style guideline pages will be titled as standalone guidelines (and if they have MoS banners, lose them in exchange for the existing generic style guideline banner, or perhaps a new one we create).

It looks like we will soon be admitting Words to watch to the style guideline pantheon. Let's start by getting this new entry right. Should it be retitled Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)?—DCGeist (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. Editors need a clear structure, and inconsistent page names is not helping. This will mean moving the pages judged to be appropriate for MoS status. Do we need an RfC at WT:MOS? Tony   (talk)  03:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably a good idea. At the moment, I don't have a strong preference between the basic approaches (1) and (2) I outlined above. Should we put that question to the participants in an RFC? Or should we simply present one or the other, if you have a clear preference?—DCGeist (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Overall title
 * Food for thought, as long as we're retitling things -- "style guide" is more concise than "manual of style". Maurreen (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Style guide": this initially struck me as too radical a change, but why not? Maurreen has a point here: it's not only more concise, it's clearer. Wikipedia:Style guide.
 * Parentheses: this worries me. The principle aimed for is sound, but parentheses have more than one use. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) risks losing clarity that "words to watch" is a section or topic title (rather than, say, an explanation of what "Manual of Style" means). A colon is hovering before my eyes, but the Wikipedia: prefix (I assume) necessitates one, and having two is (I assume) unacceptable to some? Perhaps we can come up with alternative renderings? Say, Words to watch (style guide section), or Wikipedia:Style guide. Section: Words to watch. Those can probably be bettered, but may serve to stimulate further discussion. PL290 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style is moving the other way. Gnevin (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I thought it would helpful to launch the thread here as well, given that this page is about to be anointed as part of the MoS, but it's probably best we centralize the rationalization discussion on the main MoS Talk page, where Gnevin has tagged the parallel thread as an RFC. So we have everyone's thoughts on the general issue at that centralized spot, I'll copy Tony's, Mo's, and PL290's comments above to it. Gnevin, your point below is specific to this page, and probably deserves its own header. Feel free to change it is as you see fit...—DCGeist (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Profanity 2
Apart from the line  With the discussion of words as words the limited exception, nonquoted article prose should not use foul language. being counter to the core system we agreed to trial this sentence makes no sense and is already covered by But material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available Gnevin (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) It is not counter to the core system. If the core system is to work, it requires a certain amount of flexibility. The more pages you wish to transclude the core into, the more flexibility you have to accept. Flexibility was already built into the design with the ability to substitute words or phrases in the transcludable core depending on the target page. You must also recognize that the core alone will not always express everything that needs to be expressed about the topic on each target page, so an additional line or two may be warranted. If you can not accept that degree of flexibility, I guarantee you that your concept will fail and fail quickly.

(2) No, "With the discussion of words as words the limited exception, nonquoted article prose should not use foul language" is not satisfactorily covered by the preceding sentence. It is necessary to (a) point out the significant exception and (b) clarify the bottom-line distinction between quoted and nonquoted prose—that's called serving our readers. There is some conceptual redundancy, but it is there because you continue to insist on transcluding the Profanity/offensive material core into this page despite my repeated attempts to explain to you that it is not the most natural fit, as that is essentially a content guideline and this is a style guideline.

I have accepted the continuing transclusion, despite my concerns. If you continue to resist the additional sentence, I am quite ready to work toward terminating the trial I initiated.—DCGeist (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you at least fix With the discussion of words as words the limited exception? Gnevin (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not broken.—DCGeist (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MS word flags it's as poor grammar and it makes no sense to me . What does words as words mean? Gnevin (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gnevin, I can imagine, for example, a need to use "foul" or "obscene" language in WP narrative to comment on a quotation. Tony   (talk)  10:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So can I ,to paraphrase the first sentence. You should use profanity when, if by not using it you would lower the quality of the article . The second line says nonquoted article prose should not use foul language. which means Fuck is in violation of W2W Gnevin (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see a reason to mention swear words in non-quoted text, but where and why would you actually use them? ― _ _ _ A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 12:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link,how is the new version? Gnevin (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. ― _ _ _ A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 14:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need '' Except where words themselves are the topic, nonquoted article prose should not use foul language.  we have should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative''Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

End of core test
I'm ending the test of Gnevin's concept of transcludable "core"s that was initiated on the sandbox version of this page on April 8. Aside from myself, the concept has attracted no discernible concept.

After working with the system—even after it was adjusted following discussion in MoS Talk—its inveterate flaws have become evident and I am now opposed to it as well. The concept was worth testing, but it has failed. I've restored the Offensive language the inline text for ready editing.—DCGeist (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The system, per Gnevin's insistence, lacks adequate flexibility to address the needs of multiple target pages, and thus produces poor results in terms of content.
 * It makes normal editing unnecessarily difficult.
 * The adjustment I referred to has made the system less stable, and more prone to producing major problems on target pages such as this if the core cording is imperfect in any way.
 * There is no ready way for editors of the master page (i.e., the core's source) to see where the core is transcluded and thus to know if their edits to the core are producing beneficial or detrimental results on those target pages.
 * Really and I'm ending your ending . I suggest WP:TEA for you Gnevin (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This test was the one thing I objected to in this page's otherwise cheering development. I had always believed that it is a foundational ethic of Wikipedia that it is an open system. Not perfectly open--what is?--but very open. The rampant, kudzu-like growth of transcluded templates for tables and tags and whatnot has subtly undermined that spirit. But transcluding narrative text should have absolutely no place here. The ability to freely edit and improve text is the foundation of Wikipedia--not the ability to edit text if you can find where it actually exists through some game of hopscotch. Sure, this is a guideline page and not an article page, so the content itself is not central to our mission--but the principle is. Exceptional circumstances aside, if a reader sees text, they should be able to edit that text. Period. The needless easter egg hunt demanded by this concept was a mockery of how Wikipedia is meant to work. DocKino (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah because templates are just so hard to edit. It's a click away, how that changes wiki to a closed system is beyond me, yet you've somehow managed to figure how this editing nightmare  Gnevin (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Easy for you or me, sure. But Wikipedia isn't about just you and me. It's about anyone in the world who wants to contribute. Remember? DocKino (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, so they edit the main page like the 1000's of templates they've encountered on every article they've ever edited. You'd have to look hard to find one article with no templates. Anyway clearly DG wants his wording and isn't willing to give this idea time even though discussion on this page had CONGnevin (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where's this consensus? A. di M. writing "looks good" does not constitute consensus for your position. It also appears that Dan changed the wording to satisfy your objection to the "words as words" as phrase. Guess what, it's perfectly good English. If you're learning the language from MS Word, no wonder you're having such problems. DocKino (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Be civil ,if you can do that I will reply to the rest of your post Gnevin (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently you disagree that the system "makes normal editing unnecessarily difficult". I gather you see no difference between templates that accumulate nonnarrative generic information, data fields, or link farms, and yours template, which incorporates what looks like normal narrative text that can be edited immediately, but in fact can not. OK. We have very different positions on that. Settled. Please respond to the other three points raised by DCGeist above. DocKino (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Crossover question
I've been watching the development of this page with great interest--it's a vast improvement over what's come before, not only "Words to avoid" but "Peacock" and "Weasel", as well.

The question I have is how this page is meant to relate to the primary Manual of Style page, and what amount of repetition there should be between the two. Right now, there are two subsection of the Manual that more or less cross over with the content and/or concept of this page: MoS and MoS. The former seems to glance at the neologism problem (words "that are not widely accepted"); it also suggests that a section on "words and phrases that give the impression of straining for formality" should be considered for this page. The latter clearly echoes both "Statement characterizations" and "Editorializing" here. It seems odd to mirror just two (or three, if you count neologisms) of this page's sections in the Manual. All or none is the stylish choice, right?

Thanks again for all the hard work that's gone in to what is now a very useful page. DocKino (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Text of offensive language section
The concluding sentence, "Except where words themselves are the topic, nonquoted article prose should not use foul language" seems very useful to me. It offers clear guidance on two related points very efficiently, just as a style guideline should. In the context of the brief section, it also makes clear that our perspective on vulgar and obscene words is different depending on whether or not we are dealing with a quotation. That's important. Mysteriously, Gnevin seems appalled by this sentence. DocKino (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Play the ball . I just don't see why if we say in the sentence before to paraphrase only use vulgar and obscene words if not using it would harm the article . Surely an article vulgar and obscene words is a case where its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available Gnevin (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your inability to communicate clearly in the English language makes it impossible to respond to this. DocKino (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then leave the discussion or stop being rude and ask me to rephrase or clarify a point . I've no problem in doing so. No one else has had to resort to being ignorant on the rare occasion they've had an issue understanding me Gnevin (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Gnevin has recast the sentence "Wikipedia does not censor quotations" to read "Wikipedia does not censor quotations and words". There are two problems here: First, it simply reads as poor, redundant prose. Gnevin means to refer to the fact that we don't alter curse words by substituting symbols for letters, but that is fully covered in the main Manual page. There is no need for this awkward repetition here. Second, in fact Wikipedia does exercise a degree of self-censorship: editors' freedom to add foul language to articles outside of quotations is severely restricted in practice, as the final sentence of the text makes clear. Gnevin's addition of "words" to the earlier sentence muddies this point. DocKino (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was "Wikipedia does not censor quotations or words" but sure don't let that get in the way. Everything is fully covered in the main Manual page. With or words the last sentence is more redundant than it currently is. Gnevin (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Difficult to be sure whether that answers the point about the redundancy of specifying both words and quotations. And the same issue is ongoing at WP:PROFANITY. I don't understand. Gnevin, why do you want both "words" and "quotations"? PL290 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because adding or words allows for the usage in articles like Fuck. Its allows for words in that article that are offensive but the  omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Where as quotations on it's own limits it to " X said fuck off to the Police officer" Gnevin (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, "or words", not "and words". That does not alter in the slightest the two points I raised: it results in an awkward, repetitive sentence and it muddies the final point, which is otherwise quite clear. I assume you were being sarcastic when you wrote "Everything is fully covered in the main Manual page". Well, the main Manual page is focused on different aspects of style than this page does. This page focuses on word choice; that page focuses on how to present the words chosen. The issue you seem to be concerned with--of how curse words are visually represented--falls within the orbit of presentation, rather than word choice. DocKino (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If your a programmer like me or and and make a major difference and I'm concerned with articles like Fuck not how words like Fuck are visually represented Gnevin (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a little programming back in the day. I appreciate what a major difference there is between or and and in programming. But this isn't programming. It seems to me that the current language of the section makes unmistakable that we offer protection for articles like the one you're concerned about: where "words themselves are the topic", the use of foul language is acceptable. "Wikipedia does not censor...words" doesn't make that point nearly as effectively, I think. PL, if you're still here, you see this any differently? DocKino (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I concur. In the case of WP:PROFANITY, the phrase in question is, "However, words, quotations and images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." In that example, the word "quotations" is redundant, as another editor pointed out, but his correction was reverted. I've restored it. In the current case, the issue of redundancy is the same, but the phraseology is different: here, I concur that the current wording is preferable, while I would also go further and suggest a third choice, namely, to reproduce the standard phrase associated with the linked policy element, "Wikipedia is not censored". I will propose to make that change presently unless there are objections. PL290 (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PL, I like that as a simple strong sentence. But I think we do, here, in this guideline, need to articulate the difference between how we handle vulgar/obscene words in quotations vs. regular text. Consider--if you'll excuse me--the word shit. Here, laboriously, is the difference;
 * When part of a quotation, shit should be included if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative to including it in the quotation is available.
 * Where not part of a quotation, shit should be included if and only if the word shit is the topic of discussion (and omission of the discussion would cause...etc.)
 * The current text gets at that distinction. I'm certainly in favor of the shift to "Wikipedia is not censored" as long as we edit elsewhere in the section to make sure the distinction is clear to users. DocKino (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

''Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia does not censor words. However, language that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.'' Whats wrong with this?
 * As explained numerous times already, it does not do nearly as good a job in offering the clear guidance on "words to watch" that we expect from this style guideline. DocKino (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Quotes contain words so quotes are covered equally as well by this phrasing as the current phrase Gnevin (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, in practical terms, they are not "covered equally as well". Your proposed phrasing is much less clear on several counts, as described above. As a style guideline, this needs to go beyond simply reiterating the principles of our content policy. DocKino (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

''Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia does not censor, quotations should appear as in the original source. When not quoting, language that would be considered offensive by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available such as where offensive words themselves are the topic.''
 * 1) My suggestion, it explains what to Wikipedia does not censor means in practice
 * 2) Removes the hanging bit about words
 * 3) Clarifies offensive words in the bit words themselves are the topic.
 * 4) Uses offensive in all cases but I'm open to anything once its constant
 * 5) Moves nonquoted article prose should not use foul language into the bodyGnevin (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The current text clearly has the support of PL290, DCGeist, and myself. PL and I have clearly demonstrated our readiness to further improve it (see above), but it is fine as is. Thank you for presenting your proposal here.


 * Yes, we should focus to the degree possible on what "Wikipedia does not censor" means in practice. Taking into consideration PL's observation about the policy above; the couple of worthy turns of phrase you've offered above; and the need to clarify that it is "vulgar or obscene" words that this "Words to watch" guideline is specifically addressing (the triple use of "offensive" proposed above is both unattractive and makes the text less clear than it could be), I propose this:


 * Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia is not censored. Quoted words should appear as in the original source. However, language that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Outside of quotations, foul language should not be used except where offensive words themselves are the topic.


 * DocKino (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it with the exception that foul language should be offensive words or vice versa. Gnevin (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, we're close then. I don't believe duplicating either "foul language" or "offensive words" would make the passage any clearer; it would only make it sound a bit clunkier. Let's see what PL's take is. DocKino (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks close. How about Outside of quotations, offensive words should not be used except where they are themselves the topic. PL290 (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize I don't like the overbroad implications that result when "offensive" directly characterizes "words". Using your sentence structure, how about: "Outside of quotations, vulgar or obscene words should not be used except where they are themselves the topic". DocKino (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why we are changing from offensive to vulgar or obscene and back again. Surely consistency would be better Gnevin (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Consistently using the same adjective over and over again is not better. Also, in this proposal we do not "go back again". We introduce with "offensive," which encapsulates the general concept we're addressing, which also relates to policy and content guidelines. And then we get more specific with "vulgar and obscene", which are the particular sorts of "words to watch" that this part of the style guideline is focused on. That's a natural, sensible shift from the relatively general to the relatively specific, both of which have their place. So:


 * Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia is not censored. Quoted words should appear as in the original source. However, language that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Outside of quotations, vulgar or obscene words should not be used except where they are themselves the topic.


 * DocKino (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go with it Gnevin (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. We made real progress here. It looks like PL has gone offline, so I'll make the change, and look forward to his reaction when he returns. DocKino (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's good. PL290 (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alternative title idea: Choice of words
Any support for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (choice of words) Gnevin (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the point of any title change is to provide consistency, I think a list of similar pages should be developed (it doesn't have to be exhaustive, but I gather that some editors have at least a partial plan of what to develop next, so some list should be possible). Considering a list of page topics should give valuable ideas for what name would be suitable here (and would form a basis for choosing names of other pages). Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggested that myself earlier, when we were trying to better "words to avoid", but I think "words to watch" beats it hands down. PL290 (talk) 09:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Choice of words" is too broad for this page. Maurreen (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Mission to include offensive material
As I noted at WT:Profanity, the Vulgarities and obscenities section is unfortunately worded. The text currently says Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. That wording incorrectly suggests that part of our mission is to seek out offensive material in order to document it. It should say that Wikipedia has a mission to document encyclopedic material, and information compliant with that mission is not omitted due to concerns about its offensiveness. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Content compliant with our mission is sometimes replaced with equivalently informative content due to concerns about offensiveness. For the master guideline page (Profanity→Offensive material), how about...
 * Information that serves Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission is not omitted simply because it may or does offend.
 * Or...
 * Information that serves Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission is not omitted merely because it is potentially or actually offensive.
 * On the other hand, for this page, well, the fact is that it is part of our mission to seek out and describe everything deserving of encyclopedic documentation. That includes some very filthy words with long, fascinating, edifying histories. And it is words that we are ultimately focused on right here in Words to watch. Seeking out the information that will someday raise each of the individual articles on the seven dirty words to Featured Article status is absolutely part of our mission. I see nothing in the current language quoted from this page that incorrectly suggests anything.—DCGeist (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the second of your above options, however, after more thought I have reworded (diff) the section to show how I think the emphasis should be placed. I don't like the original because we don't have a mission, and the content policies we do have give no suggestion that our purpose is to document offensive material (we document suitable material regardless of whether it is offensive). Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem conceptually with what you were getting at with your edit, but it doesn't work expressively. Most readers won't know what the "content policy" is and that first sentence has to be clearly, coherently meaningful on its own, without necessitating a jump to another page. Care to give it another shot?—DocKino (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, on a second look, I have several problems. I was just focused on the first sentence, which is what you talked about. But the rest of your edit messed up several points that PL, Gnevin, and I went through great pains to nail down. I won't repeat them all here--you can easily access the thread a short distance above. You seem concerned that the wording of our style guideline will offer encouragement to those wanting to inundate the encyclopedia with naughty stuff. i imagine anyone with that predilection doesn't need encouragement, and certainly won't be searching out our style guidelines to find it. I've restored the language we arrived at above, with one major exception. With your concern in mind, I've essentially reversed the structure of the first sentence (and reworded it a bit along your lines) to reduce the threat you perceive. I'm not sure the guidance is improved by this change, but it won't hurt to look at it for a bit. DocKino (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like what you all have arrived at here (including PL290's final "tweaklet".) It ties to policy and principle in an effective way, while providing the clear guidance we expect from Words to watch. Very strong section now.—DCGeist (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Technical words used for colloquial meaning
Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and note worthy sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. I think the passage above used to be in WP:NPOV, but got lost somewhere. Not sure whether it would fit into an existing section, or would be better in a new one. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Myth
The policy includes WP:LABEL ("words that label"), which mentions "cult", "sect", and "heretic" already. I submit that the term "myth" also carries loaded baggage; "myth" should be used only when its academic/"technical" sense is plain, or when quoting a work which uses the term. Discussion? --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree in as much that I think the word "myth" should be used as sparingly as possible. We can squable about informal/formal definitions for "myth" but the basic fact is that in most peoples' minds the word is attached to an element of falsity.  Titles such as this "Genesis creation myth" are wholly inappropriate on WP.
 * I propose a section on WtW read like this "The word myth has multiple definitions. In a formal/academic sense, the word is not necessarily associated with falsity.  It should however not be assumed that the average WP user will be familiar with the formal sense of the word.  Hence, it is innappropriate to use the word "myth" to label any event or story where a significant viewpoint exists that that event or story is litterally true.  Under this logic, calling Hercules "Greek Mythology" is OK as asserting the stories surrounding Hercules's feats are litterally true could be considered WP:FRINGE.  On the other hand, labelling almost any belief or story from a living religon as "myth" is inappropriate as there will likely be a significant contigent of people who take the story to be litterally true."
 * Anyone think I'm on the right track here? NickCT (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that the word "myth" has potential for abuse and potential for misunderstanding. It is not just about not hurting people's feelings. I have heard the argument against that, primarily that Wiki is not censored. But the topics being labeled "myths" (or "creation myths") are subjects Wikipedia should be agnostic on. It is for the reader to decide if the given subject being covered is true or false or in-between. "Myth" has the potential to put a particular "spin" on subject matter that conveys an "editorial view" on the part of Wikipedia. This is unfortunate. If "myth" is used it should be accompanied by an explanation as to the sense in which it is being used. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is the Wikipedia guidelines on the term itself. Significantly lacking is the meaning of "symbolic narrative."EGMichaels (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand Wikipedia is not censored, and that we don't change our wording to avoid hurting feelings. But I feel this misses the point.  I see this more as an issue of using a word (i.e. "myth") whose meaning is somewhat ambiguous, and whose nuances are lost among the general population.
 * I think being clear and concise trumps all policies. Frankly, "myth"'s academic meaning is just not "clear" for many people.  Hence it should be avoided. NickCT (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I oppose both the wording and premise of the proposal, which imposes an absolutist prohibition based on subjective evaluations and vague, unsubstantiated assumptions about "the average WP reader" and "people" in general. Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources: if reliable sources use "myth" in a particular instance, then so should we. We should not avoid using a term merely because it may offend people who don't know or don't care to check the definition. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The matter is not one of offense, but of clarity. Reliable sources plainly state that the word "myth" connotes 'invented, imaginary, fictitious, false' or 'parable, allegory' or 'a fiction or half-truth'. The word "myth" can easily be replaced by a word which does not imply falsehood and which does not imply truth, such as "tradition", "narrative", "account", etc. As I mentioned in this thread's first post, the term "myth" is appropriate when its academic/"technical" sense is plain, or when quoting a work which uses the term. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to comment at WP:VPM. --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice link! It's going to get a ton of people to look over this new Guideline!  Great!!!   --Jubilee♫ clipman  19:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Go
Do we go ? We've near only one oppose. Should we start merging ? Or at least set a deadline? Gnevin (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Set a deadline, let the community know and if the deadline passes without comment then go for it --Jubilee♫ clipman  22:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words poorly explained
I think WP:AWW is a common enough problem that it deserves its own page with a full explanation. What is on this page is (ironically) too vague. -- Kendrick7talk 23:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? You bring that up on talk, mister.
From the history of this page: user:DocKino "Excuse me? You bring that up on talk, mister."

Such a civil comment!

If this is a merge then the wording should be copied over from WTA. If it is not a merge then why is it being advertised as such. I also find it hypocritical of you user:DocKino  to argue on one page that no conversation is needed on the talk page or WTA for a change of the page to a redirect., but putting the same text as appears in the page to be merged from, needs to be discussed here. -- PBS (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The point of the merger was to streamline.
 * A number of people worked on the merger. It was not hidden. If you want to make major changes, those would best be discussed first. Maurreen (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't image why people would oppose the merge; let us hope there is not much delay. Tony   (talk)  04:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Maurreen if it is is a merge then it is I am not making changes, as the text I have put on the page is a cut and past from WP:WTA. So it is not I who is making major changes. If you think that I am putting in major changes then someone has made major changes under the guise of a merge. Which is it? -- PBS (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We previously had several pages saying the same thing in a very wordy way, to the point where they were hard to read. There's therefore no point in cutting and pasting that material onto a new page, because the point is to make the new page more succinct. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 06:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which other page had a specific section on Terrorist and Freedom fighter? -- PBS (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, but having one section to deal only with those terms would be an example of the problem. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 07:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cross posting. Having looked at this section I just posted to your talk page and not seen a reply. There still is one specific section to deal with those terms! The terms the wording of the section has been debated phrase by phrase, and if there is to be a merge then the wording should be incorporated in full and then changes debated changes phrase by phrase here. If that is not done then there can be no consensus for the changes. Making changes and then claiming that there is consensus for the changes is the major reason why WP:ATT failed. If there are no substantial changes to the section then there should be no objection to placing the original wording (as I did) into the section on this page. -- PBS (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No other page did of course, you and I and everyone else knows that . The point is a specific section on Terrorist and Freedom fighter isn't needed or at least that is what emerged here. Terrorist is mentioned in this guide now but Terrorist and Freedom fighter are part of a group and don't need a section by themself. If you think they do then WP:BRD is the best course of action. Gnevin (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what Gnevin is suggesting. We're in the discussion part of BRD. I prefer discussion over edit warring. Maurreen (talk)
 * We are discussing the merger here in a slightly different guise not the content. So we had BR but no D Gnevin (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Philip, there's a bit of a forest fire going on here: this talk page; the old WTA talk page, and my talk page. Could you choose one page for the discussion? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only your page to ask you to reply. The WTA to discuss that guideline is to be turned into a redirect. This page for discussion of how the merge of text should be done if it is done. See my comment on agree merge first, then merge the text into three separate section then and only then edit the three text to integrate them. What should not be done, as has been done is to integrate them as part of the merge  process. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Forest fire is probably overstating it, but there do seem to be a few sparks flying. I find it baffling that the mini-project to rationalize these related pages has suddenly attracted antipathy, after a number of editors have been working on it for a period, very publicly, with care and diligence and a lot of discussion and thought about content. PBS, in that context your major edit was indeed surprising. Regarding the opposing comments just added by some editors, I get the impression those concerned may need more time to come up to speed with developments if they've somehow been unaware that this has been going on, and to reflect on the principles discussed and the changes made, and respond further in detail about any actual issues. It's difficult to discuss objections unless they're objectively phrased to convey specific issues that can be addressed. Perhaps Maurreen's new section below will help that process. PL290 (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to suspend merger
In the past 24 hours or so, few but strong objections have arisen to the merger. Although I agree with the merger, I suggest letting it germinate for a while. It's a reasonable trade-off. That way, nobody should have procedural complaints later. Maurreen (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The objections arose after I posted final notices on the merging Talk pages. Such opposition as there is appears to focus on WP:WEASEL. I agreed to postpone the merger of that page. I've observed no good reason to suspend the other two, but I shan't get in a tither about it if the decision goes the other way.—DCGeist (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The RfC had not run for a month and I for one strongly object to the merge of WP:WTA into this page given that is it is not a merge but a substantial change in the wording as proved by the reversal of my edit to this page which was a cut and past of the WTA wording. -- PBS (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The RFC had not run for a month? So what? It had not run for a year, or a decade, or a century, either. RFCs run for a week, longer if necessary for consensus to become clear. Here, the evidence for consensus was unambiguous and overwhelming. Now you strongly object. Superb. Why don't you start a new page with all your favorite no-no words? But be careful. You might not want to include "avoid" in the title because--guess what--a lot of people have realized that a lot of those words are A-OK when used properly, and it's the care that's applied that really matters. So call it, I dunno, "Words to question" or something. Feel free to duplicate the entire text of the old, well-buried "Words to avoid" page that enthralls you so. And then see if you get anything close to a consensus for making that page a style guideline. C'mon. Give it a shot. If the content is even half as crucial as you seem to think, it should be easy, right? DocKino (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you always so caustic? It does not seem like a very good way to go about persuading people to your point of view. The WTA has been "an English Wikipedia style guideline." for a long time. So I don't see what you are trying to say. But as you have given you permission I will revert your reverts to my edits. -- PBS (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is hard to follow. Who is objecting to the merge, exactly? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You should see them if you search for "oppose." Maurreen (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the RFC. -- PBS (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest ,we current have 10 to 6 in favour. I'd hold off and see if we get more opposes or support as we seen there is nothing like a page move to get peoples attention and before someone says it WP:VINE Gnevin (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please put Words to avoid back to how it was before you made it a redirect. -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant I'd holding off undoing the merger. As it stand for a major change we've only gotten 5 additional objections which was bound to happen . Phil can you discussion your issues with this page your oppose is noted or do you believe this page will simply never work (which is fine) ?Gnevin (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip, I don't see any agreement at all to revert to your version, as you suggested in your edit summary. As at least a temporary compromise, why don't you put "extremist, terrorist," etc. back where they came from, undoing that redirect and leaving this page as it had been? Maurreen (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 3RR. Which is why I asked you to do it. -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll revert them both. You'll be happy with one, we'll be happy with the other, and I need to go to sleep. Maurreen (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Gavin you should revert the merge. Until a clear consensus emerges for the merge, and for that to happen you need to allow a lot more than a week. -- PBS (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Question for Philip
Not sure what's going on here with agreements to revert to help someone avoid 3RR. Philip, there seems to be strong consensus for this. Would adding specific material to the new page help to get you on board, and if so what needs to be added? SlimVirgin talk  contribs 08:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If the merger is on hold then Words to avoid should not redirect to Words to watch.


 * See my comment below about how to go about this sort of merger and avoid the mistakes made with WP:ATT -- PBS (talk) 08:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge WT:WTA into here?
I don't have a strong opinion, except that the execution of his move left many loose ends. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"Feel"ings (Q for Maurreen)
Maurreen, if you're still around:

I just noticed the other day the note you'd left a while questioning whether "feel" belonged in Statement characterizations. A bit before that I'd noticed for the first time that "feel" was in the box, but neither it nor anything like it was discussed in the text below. It seemed arguably proper to include it, so I came up with a sentence of explanation for it. Could you take a look and see what you think? "Feel" gets thrown around a little sloppily, but I tend to think it's not a particular danger. Anyone else's "feel"ings are also welcome, of course.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm happy with what you wrote. My guess is that the earlier version made it seem that "feel" is loaded, which I disagree with. Maurreen (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Objection summary?
I'd like to suggest that anyone objecting list their objections here concisely. Then maybe we can all see what we can do to get the most acceptance by the most people. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Take one simple example: there is a problem with the word claimed is summarised here. If you read the archives of WP:WTA you will see what the problem is. I can trawl it up if you have difficulty finding the the sections. This sort of problem in the wording of this page happens time and again. It is as if the person or persons who wrote this page had not bothered to read the WTA archives, before trying to summarise what is in the page. If I would prefer to go back to developing articles on the English Civil War, but we can go through it point by point if that will help. -- PBS (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So do you have total objection to merging or streamlining any of the affected pages? Maurreen (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the merge. I am agnostic on that. But there should be two clear steps the first is the merge of all the text from all three guidelines into three sections with an initial brief lead to say that the the three major sections are the result of merging three guidelines. Then and only then should the process of integrating them begin. If that is done then all the editors who contribute to the three separate guidelines can participate in the integration. The current method reminds me too much of the process that lead to the failure of WP:ATT. There are two separate issues the desire to merge three guidelines and the method used to do it. Although I am agnostic on the merge, I think the way it has been implemented is very bad. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you please fix the the WP:WTA link so that it works properly? -- PBS (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about. I was not involved with the merged pages directly. I worked directly only on this page. Maurreen (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you follow the link to WP:WTA where does it lead? -- PBS (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't object to the merger (I support it), but I can identify two problems:
 * The merger itself and content changes were done simultaneously. That's problematic where heavily watched pages are concerned. The result was a package deal: Merger + accepting that a number of changes were the new status quo, making it hard to revert to the previous situation. That's unfortunate, because it means that objections to the merger and objections to the content changes combine into a substantial opposition, where both individually might have gone through (probably with some corrections to the content changes).
 * Most experienced editors don't read WP:WTA etc. They just want to be able to cite them in certain situations, without even looking at them (or at most a quick glance), in order to score a quick point in a discussion. (This description may sound negative, but when done correctly and within reason, there is nothing wrong with this.) The merger has broken many of these shortcuts for this use case, so people will cite a shortcut, thinking they have expressed themselves clearly, but a user who is not familiar with the shortcut's history will think they are just waving around off-topic links. Something similar happened to me recently, and with the current changes this is going to happen to many editors simultaneously.
 * I think to avoid these problems we must work a bit slower and, most importantly, avoid forking guidelines and changing the forked versions. The following strategy might have been more successful in this case:
 * Prepare the individual guidelines for merging by making some of the most important changes there, such as removing fluff, gaining local consensus for each.
 * Merge them into a single page (after RfC etc.) by simply pasting everything together with a section for each of the original pages.
 * Wait a few months.
 * Slowly start restructuring the page by moving stuff between the sections etc.
 * Hans Adler 09:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hans, I think that is completely sensible. In principle I accept that there is scope for improvement and could live with some sort of consolidation of this sort if it was done properly. I also think the new page is fairly well writen and there may be scope for missing material to be moved out into essays etc. But the fact remains that an existing community of editors who have worked on the existing policies and watched them over the years did not know this was coming. And a week during the Easter Holidays is an incredibly short time to claim this kind of consensus from the wider community for manual changes. --BozMo talk 09:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A RFC, several posts of WP:VP, several posts on the talk pages, several posts on the main MoS, post on CENT and a banner on the MoS themselves. User where aware if they watched the guideline or cent or had any interest . The existing community of editors choose to ignore it. If you have suggestions then start suggesting or editing but your implication of a cabal forming in secret is clearly wrong. Gnevin (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, I could live with that, but if a merge is agreed, I would suggest instead of waiting, the guidelines are copied into three sections (called after the names of the current guidelines), and then work on the three as a whole, because having the three on one page would focus minds. There will be some obvious non controversial changes that can be made almost immediately and for the rest more editors (combined from three pages) should make for a stronger final integrated guideline. The current method being used here is similar to that of WP:ATT which failed spectacularly partly because merging and integrating took place as one step. If WP:V and WP:NOR had been placed as two sections on the page WP:ATT and then editing had taken place over some time then I think that it might well have been general acceptance of Attribution. -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Gnevin, I don't think that the people who worked diligently on WP:ATT were a cabal nor do I think the people working on this merge are a cabal, but I do think that merging and integrating policies or guidelines simultaneously is often a mistake and that the two steps should be kept separate. -- PBS (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are users who are objecting willing to pull in the time and the effort. If so I am willing to support an unmerge for the time being and following the model approve with one change that all the text here isn't dumped Gnevin (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Objecting to what? The merge or the simultaneous changes to the text? -- PBS (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The text change Gnevin (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, per Hans I think we could find out by going through a more considered process. Try to do the substantive changes to the policies before the move and if this meets little opposition on the talk pages (which is where such discussion should take place) go ahead with our blessing. Words like Cabal are unhelpful; I have acknowledged that there is quality in the proposal but this kind of scale of change needs to be done properly. --BozMo talk 10:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip, you're doing here what you did there, which is arguing that any tightening of a text represents a substantive change. It just isn't true. It wasn't even slightly true at ATT, which depressingly followed the policies, including their badly written bits. But it's not even that accurate here either. What exactly would you like to see added to W2W? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it does not represent a substantive change, then there is no harm in merging first and then discussing what if anything needs changing, because if there are no substantive changes, then nothing is lost. But take for example the change that was recently made to WP:WTA was that a substantial change? Changes need to be gone through line by line otherwise there can be unforeseen consequences, as we frequently see when large changes are made without due consideration. --PBS (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I object to the merger for many reasons. Some of the existing articles have over a thousand links while this new article has about 30. The existing articles have a large following showing a strong consensus to keep their existing text. However, this merge removes most of that text, basically gutting years of consensus. In addition to simply being a good style to follow, many of those details are used to attempt and reduce the number of edit wars. I don't see how "trimming" is going to make Wikipedia better. I like this current article, but it should be used as an overview with links to the original articles for more details. In addition, I agree with PBS that all the redirects should be undone until these issues are settled, including PEACOCK. Q Science (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hans and BozMo are absolutely right - this needs a more considered process, not being rushed through over a holiday period. It's premature to merge at this stage, for many of the reasons that Q Science mentions. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * What holiday? Maurreen (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you miss Easter? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My calendar has Easter on April 4. Maurreen (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Schools went back on Wed 21 April. --BozMo talk 13:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Question for Philip
In case this gets missed: Philip, which sections or examples exactly would you like to see added to Words to watch? :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 10:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the merge (if there is a consensus for it) separated from the editing of the text. Merge first edit second. As I described in the previous section. -- PBS (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a process answer, Philip, and it makes no sense because the page would be horribly long. Please give me a practical answer. Which material would you like to see carried over that has not been carried over? SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a process answer. As I am not going to declare what a consensus merge would be. I would have to discuss the merge of the text two sections at a time once the page merge had taken place. The new page would only be a couple of sentences longer than the current three page, and it would allow a fully consensual process. Once the merge has taken place then the integration of the text can take place, so the new page won't stay as large for long as some things can easily be integrated without any controversy (the leads for example). Better to work from that than half a dozen editors squirrel away on a new page and present it as a take it or leave it (as a merge).-- PBS (talk)
 * The better process answer is to try to condense first and then merge. That would establish clearly what is missing and whether it mattered. It would also solve the short cut issue of hundreds of effectively broken discussion links --BozMo talk 17:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but I don't think that it is complicated to co-ordinate merging text over three talk pages. I think it would be simpler to merge as is (if there is agreement for a merge) and then integrate the text as all interested the editors would be looking at the same talk page and the same problems at the same time. -- PBS (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am (for my own benefit) going to summarize your view as I see it; I would like to know whether I understand your objection, so please correct me if I'm wrong: You seem offended that you and others were not part of earlier discussions to merge. These discussions trespassed on your territory, so to speak. You would like first to revert all the redirects. Second, if pro-mergers such as me would like to pursue this further, we can open a discussion on the talk pages of the pages to be merged. If we choose to do so, then you will consider our proposal and express your viewpoint on those talk pages. The process would now happen in a neutral context where one side has not already changed the other's pages. Do I understand you? If not, please ignore what I am about to say and correct me instead.
 * I believe&mdash;contrary to your views&mdash;that we gave ample notification to the editors at WTA and the other pages to be merged. I further believe that there is no formal process we are required to follow, and that the process we did follow is acceptable. Unless I'm mistaken, I think you have put forward only process objections, not content objections. However, I believe that the ultimate judge of this page is its utility to Wikipedia's editorship, and I believe it is currently of equal or greater utility than WTA and the other pages it proposes to replace. Because of these reasons, I support the proposal.
 * I would like to know what you think of the content of this page. Do you think it is too short and too lacking in detail? Ozob (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * user:BozMo has just about covered my position in the next sub section, but you also seem to have problems understanding his/her position as well.


 * I am not offended. As I said above I am neither for or against a merge (the same position as I held on WP:ATT), what I am against is the process. The decanted text is not a replication of the parts, instead it is a distilled version of what the involved editors think is an improvement of the parts. This means that the editors who have been involved in the development of the parts will probably see large changes to the sections they think are important in the parts.


 * in this case the RfC was started here 23:23, 15 April 2010 (almost 16th), it was not until the 17th that a section was added to Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid and the merge was presented as a done deal at 03:45, 23 April 2010. But there had been next to no discussion of this proposal on the talk page of WTA.


 * Of the editors involved in editing the guideline page before the RFC (about half a dozen and less on the talk page), how many of them have been actively involved in discussing the proposed changes to the wording of WTA on the WTA talk page? I was involved in a discussion of a small change to WTA while this page was begin developed. If the editors editing this page intended to merge the pages and make very big changes to the wording of the section covering terrorism why did they not chip into the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid to give a heads up of their intention?


 * If there was to be a poll then at the very least all those editors with an ID who have edited the three guidelines over the last year should have been given a heads up on their talk pages! But in my opinion that is too late (as a few have done lots of work which they understandably do not want to throw away: " If so I am willing to support an unmerge for the time being and following the model approve with one change that all the text here isn't dumped Gnevin (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC) and that is why I suggest a different approach is desirable.


 * The process of crating this page is a replica of the process used to create WP:ATT and it fails for the same reasons. I am surprised that those editors involved early on in the WP:ATT fiasco and involved in this process did not flag a warning to the other less experienced editors of this page that this process is flawed.


 * It is important to note that merging guidelines is a fundamentally different process from merging articles as guidelines are not encyclopaedic articles and there is no reason why they have to be merged in the same way. Which is where one editor takes a stab at merging what he or she considers relevant from the content fork and then other editors chip in to move or remove more text.


 * Therefore the process I would recommend is:
 * create a new page under development. Place a copy of all three old guidelines into the new page unchanged in their own sections (with a new small lead)
 * Place an RFC on the talk page for a merge.
 * Request on the talk pages of the old guidelines that there is a moratorium on further development of the old guidelines until after the outcome of a merge RFC.
 * inform the active editors of the old guidelines on their talk pages that there is a proposal to merge.
 * Wait for the outcome of the RFC if accepted create the redirects and add the guideline box to the top.
 * Start to actively edit the new page.
 * If it were done this way there would be no US and THEM division as the editors who wanted a merge would not have wasted hours and hours drafting a new guideline which they are then emotionally attached to. Similarly those who have put in hours and hours drafting the old guidelines would not feel that their work is being abandoned for a new version which does not have (what they see) as the finer points of the old guidelines. --PBS (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me try again to characterize your views. I will do this through quotations, then make some remarks. My remarks here are different than they were above, as I have studied your views more closely. First you objected to content:
 * In this case I am totally opposed to the changes that have taken place in the wording that is currently on WP:WTA particularly the section on WP:TERRORIST.
 * If anyone wants to change the content of WP:WTA then discuss those changes on its talk page.
 * The terms the wording of the section has been debated phrase by phrase, and if there is to be a merge then the wording should be incorporated in full and then changes debated changes phrase by phrase here. If that is not done then there can be no consensus for the changes.
 * Take one simple example: there is a problem with the word claimed is summarised here. If you read the archives of WP:WTA you will see what the problem is.

Then you objected to the process:
 * I do think that merging and integrating policies or guidelines simultaneously is often a mistake and that the two steps should be kept separate.
 * I would like to see the merge (if there is a consensus for it) separated from the editing of the text. Merge first edit second.
 * Yes it is a process answer. As I am not going to declare what a consensus merge would be. I would have to discuss the merge of the text two sections at a time once the page merge had taken place.
 * I think it would be simpler to merge as is (if there is agreement for a merge) and then integrate the text as all interested the editors would be looking at the same talk page and the same problems at the same time.
 * In this case I am neither for or against a merge of these three guidelines, what I oppose is the process that is being used to do it.

In your comment above you make both process and content objections. All of these quotes are from :
 * As I said above I am neither for or against a merge (the same position as I held on WP:ATT), what I am against is the process.
 * If the editors editing this page intended to merge the pages and make very big changes to the wording of the section covering terrorism why did they not chip into the conversation at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid to give a heads up of their intention?
 * Therefore the process I would recommend is:
 * Similarly those who have put in hours and hours drafting the old guidelines would not feel that their work is being abandoned for a new version which does not have (what they see) as the finer points of the old guidelines.

You have repeatedly suggested a particular process: Put the text of three guidelines in question on the same page, then carefully recraft each section. You have also repeatedly said that you do not oppose merging the guidelines as long as "merge" means "put all the text onto the same page". Essentially, you want the content to either remain the same, or you want to intensely scrutinize whatever content changes are made; but you do not care so much what page that content ends up on. I believe therefore that it is fair to characterize your views as primarily a content objection. Your process objections are red herrings intended to slow us down.

More specifically, you care about WP:TERRORIST. You have tried to insert the current WP:TERRORIST into WTW four times:. You reference it three times in the discussion above, and you reference no other single topic of WTW, WTA, or WEASEL.

What I still do not know is what you object to in WTW's discussion of the word terrorist. All I know is that you prefer WP:TERRORIST. Why? Ozob (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are not understanding my motives at all. I happen to know a lot about the history and development of the terrorist section in WTA. However as that section has been radically changed in this guideline, it is likely that other sections which I have not studied in detail have also changed, and there will be other editors who have voided opinions about those sections. That is why I think the current process is flawed. If no one is objecting to the new wording for WTW, and WEASEL, then it is a non issue, but if others are  objecting to the merge of those sections under this process then it is an issue. I have suggested what I  think would be a better algorithm, for a merge such as this, but I can also live with altering the three guidelines, first and then merging them as some others have proposed. What I do not approve of is the current method of a few editors creating this page and then say the merge is approved with this text, as it is not clear to me that there is consensus for either the merge of this text. I think we need a new RFC that asks the question should here be a merge. If yes then we should agree a process for the merge. There are currently three proposed methods.
 * the current method.
 * alter the text in the three guidelines and then merge
 * Copy then all in here and then integrate the text
 * I prefer 3, but I can live with 2, but I think 1 is a mistake.
 * To answer you second question here in detail would I think be a mistake, as I am going to go through the issue of terrorist below with SV in detail so I don't see the advantage of doing so here. But the point is we should start with the wording at WP:WTA which has been developed by many editors over a long time, and is an agree a consensus version of that wording, not start with wording that was put together by a few editors and work back towards a compromise version. If the current wording was placed into WP:WTA without consultation on the talk page it would be reverted out as not consensual and a discussion would occur on the talk page to try to find a compromise. What make it accpetable here on this page to start with replacement text and work back towards the current version when that would not be acceptable method on the current guideline page? -- PBS (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response from BozMo
[Originally a reply to my first comment above; moved since I would really like to hear Philip's reply. Ozob (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)]

Actually, the page is surprisingly good. IMHO it is as good as a third party who had not used the existing guidelines much could reasonably achieve from existing text. It tidies up quite a lot of duplication between existing guidelines. The problem is that the existing guidelines are much in use, and the new policy runs across how they are used, missing many of the nuances (case law) and inventing new descriptions. That reduces the usefulness considerably. Someone above seemed to think I was to blame for not noticing that half of Weasel was now four sections away under "WP:CLAIM", but you have to manage the transition as well as the end point. Clearly, there was an obvious duplication but duplication between policy is not per sae a bad thing for editors, repetition from different angles can improve the usability, although it is a bad thing for people who like everything tidy and logical. As well as the experience of people who like discussing policy and drafting fine text the experience of people who have to use these guidelines regularly to explain things to newbies is missing. Hundreds of people use guidelines for each person who likes trying to improve them and many editors are way too busy to frequent the village pump. That does not give the people who do hang around the VP the right to rule of course, as Jimbo pointed out when the WP:V WP:RS merger caused a huge row (I seem to remember SV being in the middle). Of course those involved in drafting this change support it, but if you take them out as non-neutral the majority of other opinions expressed above is "premature". Even with the involved parties it is about 11-7 which is hardly a consensus to rush, and I suspect if we, say, neutrally flagged it to everyone who had contributed to the policy talk pages in the last six months you would find a good 75% opposition. There is more to be gained by moving slowly and listening more. The shortcuts and templates need thinking through and missing text needs going over. And for Maureen above, yes school Easter Holidays ended here Wed 21 April and many people were not back for it because of the volcanic ash so it certainly was rushed through when people were away. --BozMo talk 07:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If I understand your criticism right, you believe that WTW does not provide enough detail; that because WTA and the old WEASEL provided more examples of objectionable words and phrases, they were more convenient for both experienced editors needing to instruct new editors and new editors needing guidance. You also say that repetition can help new editors learn proper style. Do I hear you right?


 * [At this point Bozmo replied. I have moved his reply past my comment so that the discussion does not become tangled. Ozob (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)]


 * I agree that WTW does not list every objectionable word or phrase, and that WTA and the old WEASEL discussed specific words in greater detail. However, I believe that this is what was wrong with them. These discussions were repetitive, and I do not believe that repetitive pages are easier to maintain and to read through. User:Dieter Simon comments above that the real scope of WEASEL was not specific words but the withholding of the "full facts behind a statement". WTA, it seems to me, is similarly about words chosen to mislead the reader. Focusing on precise words only encourages offenders to invent more elaborate circumlocutions; it does not address the underlying problem. I believe that WTW has concise statements that confront the problem directly, and therefore I believe that WTW is a more useful page. Ozob (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. That is not what I said, and as you have not listened well in summarising the opinions of others but nonetheless tried to answer I suggest for clarity you strike your attempted response. As it happens you are trying to have the wrong discussion: the main point is that this change is premature. To spell out what I said I did not mention the list of examples of words in particular, which was fairly pointless, too long and periodically got partly deleted from the page. The guideline is not really about particular words (which is why "words to watch" is not a good title) but nuance. The "repetition" I referred to was several policies applying to a single offence (e.g. WP:RS and WP:BLP). Perhaps you are thinking too much in terms of the proposed guideline and not the existing one. Weasel is written with wider scope than any of "Vague attribution" or "statement characterisations" or "Editorializing" as defined in this guidelines, although all of these were included in the weasel guideline and one principle has been split into three incomplete fragments which are harder to understand. Neither of the heading of "statement characterisation" or "editorialising" are clear to new users (nor is weasel but at least there is no improvement). I suspect if you changed statement characterisations to "slanted characterisations" and dropped editorializing you could probably get all of weasel in fairly easily and shorten the new guideline. Then you would just need to fix the templates and shortcuts, but I haven't tried and it might mess up other links. Anyway this conversation needs to be on the weasel guideline page not here. And other opinions than mine are needed. --BozMo talk 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please allow me to try again to summarize your views. You believe that the list of specific words and phrases on WP:WEASEL was not very important, instead it was "fairly pointless". You say that WEASEL is not only about vague attribution, slanted word choice, and editorial comments. I think this is correct. Am I right?


 * However, I am not sure what you see as the full scope of WEASEL. I think WEASEL is mostly contained in WTW; there are a few things that I think would make good additions, so I'll add them in a moment.  That may address your concerns, but since I don't really understand them I'm pretty sure it won't. Can you tell me what you believe WEASEL covers? Ozob (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I said that it was not only about "Vague attribution" or "statement characterisations" or "Editorializing" because there was an element of slanted word choice which was not quite covered. Why are you asking me to repeat things above? --BozMo talk 18:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please excuse my denseness. If I understand you correctly, you believe that WEASEL is covered by: Vague attribution, statement characterizations, editorializing, and slanted word choice? Ozob (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * With a little care I think it could come under those titles. Is this relevant? --BozMo talk 16:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I now understand your objection. I agree that "slanted word choice" is not entirely covered by WTW as it stands; so I'm slightly uncomfortable with merging, but still generally supportive. I don't see any way to put slanted words generally into this guideline, at least not at present. The "labels" section that I wrote was a nod in that direction, but it's been reduced to ashes. Hmm. You've given me something to think about. Ozob (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This page
This page has added to the MoS not consolidated as all the pages it was meant to replace are still part of the MoS Gnevin (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not correct. The old pages were all bannered as "style guidelines", but none of them have ever been recognized as official consitituents of the MoS--neither via title nor banner template. I propose that those "strongly opposed" to the current merger/consolidation/rationalization/improvement process be called upon to demonstrate whether even the bannering of those old pages resulted from a transparent, communal effort or whether the designations were, and have always been, ad hoc.—DCGeist (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever you call it, "Manual of Style" or "style guideline", as far as "weasel word" is concerned, you need more, much more than the quoted phrases that seem to be all that constitutes your version of weaseling. Weasel words consist of more than a few phrases that indicate some kind of imprecision, vagueness or ambiguity.


 * As the article weasel word demonstrates weaseling indicates that in a statement not all the facts are being given; that some facts are being withheld deliberately in order to achieve maximum benefit for the speaker or writer; that what is being said is meant to lead the reader to believe that an unstated portion of a statement subliminally is to be complemented in his, the readers's mind.


 * "Mistakes were made" (not saying by whom they were made),"...is now up to 50% cheaper" (cheaper than what); "...is among the leading, best, cheapest, etc..." (leading among the leading what; best in what, customer service, quality or what?).
 * All these and much more would need to be included in a list, and after all it is a list you are preparing here, what ever you are calling the final result of this exercise.


 * Politically too, "spin" is part of weaseling, and, what can I say, everybody has their own favourite version of it, do I need to say more? This is my own bit of weaseling, I am not giving anything away!


 * So, if your section "unsupported attributions" is meant to demonstrate all of what unsupported attributions really are, the section fails miserably. What you are trying to say there is that all you need is watch out for these given examples and, Bob's your uncle, you are home and dry, you are safe, you haven't weaseled.
 * However, you haven't even scratched the surface, in fact, you are giving one of th finest "vague attributions" demonstrations, I can think of. Please think again before you go into one of the most incomplete "style manuals" I have seen.Dieter Simon (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * @Gnevin, thanks. I will try to facilitate a convergence to the contents of this page from Weasel and see what it turns up @ DCGeist Why on earth should we be interested in demonstrating anything of the sort? --BozMo talk 19:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * DC the fact the there have been hundreds of edits demonstrates the community support for these to be part of the MoS . As it stands we now have an addional page in the MoS not less which was the goal of this merge. This is clearly contested and as such is still at proposal stage Gnevin (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Gnevin, I have had a go with Weasel . Would you like to do the same with the other pages due to redirect here? --BozMo talk 20:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Content editing isn't my strong suit. I'll leave that to others Gnevin (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please can we stop developing this page until it is agreed if and how a merge should take place.

It is VERY confusing having two guidelines that say similar but not the same things. So I suggest that until it is agreed on if and how this merge is to take place this page remains under development and Proposed be added to the top of it. -- PBS (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Philip, you seem to have genes against any form of change. Why is it that you trenchantly oppose just about every proposal for reform that I've observed on WP? Evolution is at the core of a wiki: please accept this fact; otherwise, we should all go back to Encyclopedia Britannica. Tony   (talk)  04:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tonly if you want to see examples where I am for change and have argued forcefully for it then then have a look at talk archives for WP:NC (flora) and WP:EDIT -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tony I suspect that you only notice when I object to something instead of looking for when I say nothing. (As a general rule I make incremental changes to policies and guidelines, not revolutionary ones). Taking one of your pet projects for change, I was not against removing links from dates, (I was not for it either), so I did not express an opinion either way. What I did not like was the methods used to force it through as it seemed to me to be a long way from the collegiate consensus which should be used for such changes. In this case I am neither for or against a merge of these three guidelines, what I oppose is the process that is being used to do it. I have explained that in detail above but I can do so again if it is not clear to you what I am saying. -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

DCGeist what does "the logorrhea is exactly what this process was about liberating our users from" mean? -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It means you're adding words that don't have a function. There's no point in saying something in 200 words when it can be said in 20. All it means is that the page will be less effective, because people have to hack their way through a jungle of non-working words to find the gem of a meaning, and most people won't bother to do that. It's particularly important on a page about language that the writers show they have control over their own vocabulary.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

From the history of the article:
 * 08:34, 25 April 2010 Philip Baird Shearer (→Negative labels: Not sure why this change was reverted with the comment "Negative labels: restore consensus version-" if there was a consensus why is it that I put the older wording into here?
 * 09:09, 25 April 2010 Tony1 (Rv to Slim's version: PBS, please no personal )
 * 09:15, 25 April 2010 rv to last version by PBS. There is not yet agreement that the merge should take place. The wording I have included is from the current guideline, it is not my wording .)

What do you think my personal agendas are Tony? -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I just tried to add anything that was missing from the terrorist section, but I honestly can't see anything, except that the old version is long and repetitive. Can you give me a fact or concept that was in the old version and isn't in the new? I'm quite willing to try to reword things if I can find something that's missing, but just adding a bunch of extra words is pointless. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 09:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One at a time: "freedom fighter" is not in the new version. -- PBS (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Freedom fighter" is not a negative label it is a positive label. -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Negative or positive, we wouldn't use it. Not sure what the point of adding it is, but I've done it anyway. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 23:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been placed into a section titled "Negative labels" but as it is not a negative lable then I suggest that it along with Terrorist and Extremist is placed back in a section called "Extremist, terrorist, or freedom fighter?". SV you said that "but I honestly can't see anything," but you have already acknowledged that you missed "Freedom fighter" and I think you have missed a lot more. As I said that was just the first one. -- PBS (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Philip, with respect, I think you're being obstructionist here, rather than genuinely concerned about change. You do have a tendency to oppose change for its own sake. Please read the three pages that are being merged, then read this one, and tell me if there's anything genuinely helpful that's missing, and explain why it's helpful. I'd be very willing to add it. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 00:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Philip, the point here is to combine several overlapping, overwordy, confusing guidelines, all on similar topics, into one concise page that covers the entire underlying theme and point of them all. If editors insist that the new guideline must replicate exactly every single word in the old, then no progress at all can be made to that end. Please list any substantive issues you have with the new guideline, as opposed to quibbles about a word here or there, or general kainophobia/metathesiophobia. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I have a substantive issue, and that's the muddling together of the terms "extremist," "terrorist," and "freedom fighter." That's not anyone's fault here, I don't think, just how the section has (poorly) evolved. Though I can see how we'd look like our hearts are in the right place there, it also makes us look somewhat dim. AFAIK, there's no such thing as a scholar, professor, or analyst who specializes in "freedom fighting." There might be such an animal when it comes to "extremism," but far more mainstream is the study of terrorism. I think there's a tendency on WP to see this subject through the lens of "terrorism without terrorists" in a (misguided) attempt at fariness. But if enough reliable sources agree that someone or something is terrorist, than it is. I don't see how our style guideline should be able to override that. Yet I have seen people continue to parrot WP:TERRORISM as an excuse for violating RS, UNDUE, and NPOV. IronDuke  02:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked the question above "Which other page had a specific section on Terrorist and Freedom fighter? -- PBS (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)". To which I was told none. So it is not as if this section is being merged (from the content of two different guidelines) it is a replacement for a specific section. I suggest that we put in the current wording from WP:WTA and then edit it down if that is necessary. One does not normally dump a whole new section into a guideline and then ask "Please list any substantive issues you have with the new guideline", rather the question should be here is the old text. My first substantive issue with the old text is ..." and then agree changes.


 * I have placed the original text in here and it has been reverted out. So I have offered to go through the current wording point by point. The first was "Freedom Fighter", SV accepts that she missed it, now I have pointed out that it is not a negative phrase and that we should reintroduce the section heading "Extremist, terrorist, or freedom fighter?". But instead of discussing the content I get " Philip, with respect, I think you're being obstructionist here ...". In which case lets go back to the original text and edit that down if the bottom up approach is obstructionist. -- PBS (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So where has "Freedom fighter" gone? When can we get onto the second point?-- PBS (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I added FF, but you complained that it was positive, so I removed it again. I think it's best to wait for the RfC to conclude and have it closed by an uninvolved person, then take things from there. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 01:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not complain I pointed out it was positive and suggested that we put back the section heading as in WTA.


 * While we wait for the RfC to conclude we can use the wording from WTA and then agree to change it after the RfC is complete any other wording is premature. -- PBS (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * SV I made two changes and commented on them both in the history, to revert both changes with a comment like "that's too long" and no discussion on the talk page is not the way to reach consensus now please explain what is wrong with using title that can be used for positive and negative labels, and why the section is too long. Why not edit it instead of reverting it? -- PBS (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * SV I hope that this time you will engage in discussion instead of just reverting what I do. -- PBS (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

SV I hope that this time you will engage in discussion on this talk page, or constructively edit, instead of just reverting what I do. -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You've been told by several people that the section you're restoring is too long, and that we're tightening. It's obvious that there's no good reason a section on terrorist should overwhelm the page, especially when it doesn't say much. Policies and guidelines should be well-written if possible, especially MoS pages, for obvious reasons.  SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 21:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for starting to talk on this page again. I do not think that a second on this topic overwhelm the page. The wording was worked out over a long time and the changes you are proposing to it are in my opinion too great.


 * This is a guideline, not a policy page it should give guidance. I have cut out some of the wording have a look at it now and see what you think. But I would prefer it if you would engage in positive discussion and edition rather than just reverting with the comment "too long" as that gets us nowhere. -- PBS (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Slim's reversions and clearly stated comments are getting us somewhere. They are making clear that overly long considerations of individual words have no place in this carefully focused, principle-oriented style guideline. They are making clear that disregarding good structural design, good literary style, and a good sense of proportion and emphasis is not acceptable on this page. They are making clear that getting hung up on personal agendas rather than collaborating within the orbit of consensus is unproductive here. Your sense of how much attention should be paid to the word "terrorist" evidences that you remain oblivious to these considerations. Have no fear: we will keep reiterating them until you see the light.—DCGeist (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry are you hung up on a personal agenda -- or are you implying that you think I have some? If so please explain what you think my personal agendas are, because I think that my only agenda is to improve Wikipedia, and I hope yours is the same. We can have the same agenda and disagree on details. The problem with what you call "carefully focused" is that it stops being "principle-oriented" because it sets out a set of does and do nots without any explanation which does the very opposite of encouraging "principle-oriented" guidance. -- PBS (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The way forward
I think we should be following the model as proposed by BozMo of editing the Weasel and Pea locally first and seeing what objections are formed. Is this something others would support? Gnevin (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I will not stand in the way of that as a process, because I think it is better than the current one, but I still think that merge first then change would be simpler. -- PBS (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. One of the advantages of merging the guideline pages is to unify the approach. I suggest that we go ahead with the merger, with a view to a unified approach, then hammer out section-by-section (or topic-by-topic) any desired changes of substance.—Finell 02:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC