Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 10

Other loaded words
Hello,

I wrote an essay on this topic recently, called Loaded words and terms on Wikipedia. Maybe people who participate in discussions here could give me feedback on it. Put them on the talk page for the essay, though, rather than here. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Going just by the first two sections on "consumer" and "intellectual property" this is a bad essay. We try to use language that reliable sourcing gives, and consumer as the end customers of a product line - even if they don't "consume" the product, is very much standard business language in most industries. Talk to any lawyer involved in copyrights and patents and "intellectual property" is clearly the right wording to discuss this type of knowledge that entities can try to protect. Your logic on "digital rights management" is fully wrong: this is the industry term,  for "management of digital rights", and there's no support for the alternatives you suggest.
 * Of the others, the only one that is a valid concern is "piracy", and it is appropriate to try to use other terms like "unauthorized copying" before that (though there are plenty of places where we have to include "piracy" as a term discussed in RSes. --M asem (t) 14:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Masem. Even if the terms are inaccurate (which they're not) or disagreeable to the author, they are not "loaded".  An example of a loaded term is the use of "mankind" for all of humanity which some choose to assume excludes women.  That assumption is the loading.  Calling people who buy, use and discard a product without using it to produce other products "consumers" is apt, accurate and carries no loading whatsoever. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Masem: So would you disagree that for Wikipedia to use these terms in its own voice is non-neutral? They imply a point of view; there are words we can use which don't imply a point of view, so I don't really understand why we would want to be using the words that do. Also, isn't "going by what the sources say with language" only really the case for titles of articles, not the text within them?
 * Also, may I consider you to be officially a part of the conspiracy, since you use the words "industry" and "protect" in loaded ways? :) DesertPipeline (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Except for "piracy" when used to talk about copyright theft, none of the words you listed are a problem to use in a neutral way. We follow the language of what is in reliable sources both for article titles and within the body, we don't create terms that aren't used outside Wikipedia, which is what you're asking us to do. --M asem (t) 05:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Masem we don't create terms that aren't used outside Wikipedia, which is what you're asking us to do. The only entry in the essay where that could technically apply is the "User-generated content" one. For the others, they all have neutral terms or words to replace them (except in the case of "intellectual property", which as stated in the essay, isn't actually a real concept). I should probably use the GNU.org essay on the term as a reference actually, now that I think about it. DesertPipeline (talk) 07:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But you're starting from a claim that these terms are "not neutral", which is not true. We do want to avoid neologisms and new language that has yet to be well established even if it is present in some reliable sourcing, but when terms of the art become standard in a particular field (such as "User-generated content" and "digital rights management") we have no reason not to use those terms, and that's staying neutral to the sources. There are times where a few may recognize that some terms are poorly used (eg the essays from Stallman), but if industry has fully adopted the terms, we should be following that suit and not trying to meet the few voices that are against them. That's why you're right on the issue of "piracy" - this has been well established as the wrong term for unauthorized copying - but the other terms all seem like personal issues that have no backing of the need to change them from sourcing. --M asem (t) 13:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @DesertPipeline, I think you've fallen victim to the Etymological fallacy. The word consumer does not actually mean "person who consumes".  This dictionary defines it as someone who uses economic goods – uses at all, not only "uses up".  This dictionary says a consumer is someone who buys things or uses services.  We can't just start with "consumer... hmm, well, if something is consumed by fire or if you consume all the food, then it's completely gone afterwards, so anything that doesn't result in the complete absence of the thing after use isn't consumption, so there's no consumer in those cases." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of this could easily be lampooned. "The word "rights", as seen in phrases like the Divine right of kings and the Lord's right, implies fairness..."  Maybe move it to your userspace and then think more about your underlying assumptions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the above. The essay Loaded words and terms on Wikipedia directly contradicts our policy on WP:NPOV, "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It means, in particular, that we don't take a fringe view -- regardless of how much we may sympathize with it personally -- as the preponderant view. "Intellectual property" is a well-established term. We should, of course, acknowledge in appropriate places that there are those who question its presuppositions, but that is not the mainstream view. --Macrakis (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is fair on, say, intellectual property, to have a section about criticism of the term (like the Stallman essays in the provided user essay) assuming those are not FRINGE issues. --M asem (t) 19:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is fair on, say, intellectual property, to have a section about criticism of the term (like the Stallman essays in the provided user essay) assuming those are not FRINGE issues. --M asem (t) 19:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Masem User:Macrakis: The article Patent is a good example of what goes wrong when we use the term "intellectual property" as if it is a real concept. Please see my post on the article's talk page.

Also, if "consume" does not mean "use up", what does it mean? Why would we use it specifically in the case of food and drink, where its use uses it up, if it does not mean that? Any other usage of the word, where something is not immediately used up by its use, is metaphorical. Whether or not this metaphorical usage is prevalent, it isn't literal or neutral.

"Customer", "buyer" and "purchaser", etc, all serve the same purpose as "consumer" without being loaded and non-literal. If you oppose their usage in its place, what is your rationale? DesertPipeline (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you cannot recognize that these are terms commonly used in the reliable sourcing that we use, ad where there is no doubt to the validity of their terms, and are questioning them in your own original thought, there's really no place for discussion here. None of these are loaded terms save in the view of a few esoteric essays, but that's in the realm of FRINGE, meaning that we're not going to cater to that minority viewpoint. --M asem  (t) 05:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Masem: Please answer my question. Why should we not use other words which are neutral and convey the same message (perhaps even conveying it better, since you have to think non-literally to understand "consumer") when they are available? DesertPipeline (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are making the assumption that "consumer" (as to mean a user of a product) is non-neutral, which fails due to the reasoning given already: it is the term most commonly used by a wide range of sources. You're trying to claim there's only one definition of "consumer" meaning "one that uses up a resource" which may be one definition but importantly is not the only definition. There's nothing non-literal about this, nor non-neutral. --M asem (t) 05:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Masem: Why does popularity automatically confer neutrality? The only reason the word is popular is because it has been pushed by corporate interests in order to distort the thinking of the public. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We are meant to summarize reliable sources, so the frequency of a term in those sources is what we should reflect. We make sure that corporate or other interests trying to push a word do not go through with the fact we don't immediately accept new language, per WP:NEO. That said, claiming that "consumer" is a term pushed by corporate interests makes no sense, given that it was used as early as the 15th century and more commonly in the late 1700s . We are absolutely not going to be changing long-standing language use on the claims these are pushed by corporate interests, and I would strongly caution putting such doubt into WP. --M asem (t) 05:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Masem: Maybe I'm not expressing my opinion properly (I'm not great at it at all). I mean that we shouldn't use these loaded words and terms in Wikipedia's voice. If some source wants to call people "consumers", okay, we can report on that or quote them or what-have-you. But in the general language of the encylopedia, if we have a choice between calling people "consumers" or calling them something else, such as "people" or "customers", we should choose the latter option. Is this a reasonable or unreasonable desire? DesertPipeline (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And as I've pointed out, using "consumer" has at least 200 years of practice. It is widely used and accepted, and thus makes it a fully neutral term. Obviously we should make sure it is the right term in the proper context and make sure that if there's a possibility of confusing it with the "one that consumes a resource" definition, we look for alternate language (eg: The sentence "Many of the consumers at Whole Foods are organic food consumers." includes both possible definitions, and that's where replacing the language makes sense for clarity. But if you are talking a business-related article, and "consumer" comes up in the context of products and/or services, we would expect any English-speaking person to recognize that "consumer" to be "one that uses goods or services" as a common, neutral term in the English language. --M asem (t) 06:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree then. Thank you for your input. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Rather than arguing over the word "consumer", you need to concentrate on the interpretation of the words "loaded" and to a lesser extent "neutral". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Martin of Sheffield: In your opinion, why is the word "consumer" neutral and non-loaded? DesertPipeline (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Neutral: it implies neither opprobrium nor praise, neither support nor condemnation.
 * Non-loaded: it carries no additional connotations such as age, sex, ethnicity or religious observance.
 * As I said, you need to concentrate on the meaning of the terms, not on categorising words according to unspecified criteria. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Martin of Sheffield
 * Not neutral: Using the word implies that people who purchase items are indeed "consumers". This is an opinion.
 * Loaded: As my essay tries to explain, there are many things that people purchase which are not used up by their use in the way that food and some other items are. Acting as if they are sets a dangerous precedent. It causes decisions to be made that are not in our best interests.
 * If I replace the word "consumer" in an article with something else that communicates the same message (and I would say communicates it better, because "consumer" is not literal), is that an improvement in your opinion? Some of my edits where I have done this are now being reverted. I personally do not see any reason that they should be, even if we suppose that the word "consumer" is neutral and non-loaded. I do not consider this very fair. Are my actions harming the encylopedia? DesertPipeline (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (1) Perhaps the word you want is "inaccurate"?
 * (2) Ditto "misleading"?
 * Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Martin of Sheffield: Doesn't "misleading and inaccurate" imply that it's non-neutral? Also, again, I really want to know if you think my actions are harming the encylopedia. DesertPipeline (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No. "Non-neutral" implies a lack of balance or a partisan approach.  Since you're not editing mainspace I wouldn't accuse you of harming the encyclopaedia.  You posted here asking for opinions and comments, and I'm afraid that all responses have been negative.  Perhaps WP:DROP applies? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Martin of Sheffield: My question does apply to mainspace. Where I have seen words and terms mentioned in the essay I wrote, I try to replace them with something else that I consider to be neutral. For instance, if I see "consumers", I replace it with "people", "persons", "the public", "the general public", "purchasers", "customers", "buyers", and possibly some others I've forgotten, whichever is appropriate. Is this action harmful to Wikipedia? Should I be reverted for changing a word to another word that I feel is a fair and neutral one to use where the original was not? Even if we presume that "consumer" is neutral, is it okay to revert my edits when I replace it? DesertPipeline (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is not in mainspace, nor is the essay, therefore is not harming the encyclopaedia. Edits you do in mainspace will be subject to other editors discretion as for all edits made by any of us. Frankly I have neither the time nor inclination to go around checking up on you and imposing my interpretations. If you write an essay and put it up for comment you must expect comment, particularly if your choice of words appears infelicitous. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * DesertPipeline, I notice that you asked above Also, if "consume" does not mean "use up", what does it mean? This is the wrong question.  You are not editing articles to remove the word consume, are you?  You're editing them to remove the word consume r .  So you need to be asking yourself, "What does the exact word consume r  mean?"  And you need to answer that question by looking in a couple of dictionaries, instead of leaping from "I know one definition for the word consume" to "Therefore the sole valid definition of consumer must be 'a person who consumes'".  English is more complicated and illogical than that.  Go get a dictionary, look up the exact word that you care about, read all of the definitions (not just the one that most closely matches your personal concept), and trust that those dictionaries are correctly documenting reality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing: What everyone seems to not understand is that there is a reason why it is being used this way. It is too simplistic to say "the word means this now, so it's okay". It is being used in this way to subtly distort our thinking to the benefit of business interests. If Wikipedia continues using it in this manner, it is supporting that. I keep asking this, and don't get a response: Why should Wikipedia use this word in particular when others work just as well in the context (in my opinion better, because they're accurate and not misleading)? Would the encylopedia be harmed by not using this word? These are genuine questions and I hope that you will answer them because they are crucial to my point. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The belief that it is inaccurate and misleading to call someone a "consumer" when the result of their consumption is not the total destruction of the resource is yours alone. The question we seem to be asking you, and not getting an answer for, is:  Why should Wikipedia conform to your made-up personal definition of a perfectly good word?  I understand that you don't like its real definition – a definition that has included "one that spends [money]" since the 18th century – but if you get to make up definitions and impose them on Wikipedia, then we would all be allowed to do that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing: Why has this word been changed to mean something that it does not (purchasing, the act of which does not cause any destruction of the good itself), and does it harm the encylopedia to not use the word?
 * I've explained why this word isn't "perfectly good" already. I realise that because we are stuck in the system that pushes this sort of language, it's hard to see it as wrong. The answer to the question you ask is "it pushes a point of view" because the answer to "why is this word being used this way" is "because it distorts our thinking and makes us see things in a way that is biased towards a point of view if we accept it". The point of view that they are trying to push is that we, people, should be called "consumers". Why? Once again, there are other words that describe things neutrally. They don't want us to think of ourselves as "people who purchase things when we have the desire to and have lives outside of the purchasing of items"... they want us to think of ourselves as "consumers, who consume". Do you see the issue there? Isn't that obviously more negative? They don't want you to think of yourself as a person. They just want you to buy. That's all they consider you useful for. Making them money. That's why they call us this. That's why they want us to call each other this. That's why Wikipedia must not call people this. Because it is morally wrong. It's a disgusting word. It dehumanises us. I cannot emphasise this enough – there are replacement words that are actually neutral. They mean what "consumer" is trying to convey. They do not dehumanise us. Why should we use the word that does when there are others that don't? DesertPipeline (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that argument doesn't work on WP, as you are pleading a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument here. Certainly there are cases of corporations that want to pigeonhole people as "consumers", tallying them as numbers on some spreadsheet to meet their bottom line, and ignore moral and ethical factors to get the biggest profit. However, there are far more many uses of the word "consumer" in a plain normal sense that does not seek to degrade the persons being called that, and simply reflects that these are the person that purchase goods and service. Eg terms like Consumer price index, consumer protection, consumer choice. These are all well-established terms in the business field indifferent to the type of business and thus are perfectly neutral, and we are not going to change our language because in some exceptional cases, some uses of the word "consumer" can be seen as hostile. --M asem (t) 04:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We're not getting anywhere. @DesertPipeline, I'm going to tell you what this discussion sounds like to me, as if someone was overhearing it.  Maybe you'll understand it better this way.
 * Me: Some of the earliest English dictionaries, such as A Dictionary of the English Language from 1755 define the word consumer as "one that spends".  That is an exact quotation of the dictionary definition.  This means that the word consumer means the same thing as the word purchaser.
 * You: But why has the word consumer been changed to mean purchaser?
 * Me: Where does this alleged "change" come in?  Consumer has meant someone who spends money for centuries.  In 1691, John Locke wrote that exporters of commodities should be considered consumers:  "the Consumer, under which Name I here reckon the Merchant who buys...to export".  That was 330 (three hundred thirty!) years ago.  The merchants were not destroying the goods that they were trying to sell.
 * Nobody's changed the definition. The only thing that's wrong is that you've been sold a bad definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User talk:WhatamIdoing: I'm not sure how it's relevant that the word has been used in this way for a significant length of time. That doesn't mean it's right, or that it was always this way, or that it should continue to be this way, or that we should support it being used in this way (because again, it is a point of view. Do you dispute that?).
 * User:Masem: There's a difference between righting great wrongs and just not making things worse, as my essay says. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia starts saying "purchaser (and by the way, if you say "consumer" you're letting yourself be dehumanised by business interests)" every time it would have said "consumer" previously. It just shouldn't say "consumer" in its own voice in a way that suggests agreement with the point of view that term pushes. I know I'm repeating myself here, but you don't seem to be acknowledging what I keep saying. DesertPipeline (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You're the one bringing the stance that "consumer" - a word that has been accepted in use for more than two centuries in the field of business analysis - is a non-neutral word. I recognize what your argument is, "consumer" is this dehumanizing, non-neutral term and that there are other terms that are more neutral, but it is an impossible position for us to even consider because that's a fringe position, not even an argument that can be backed in other sources. There is simply no basis of the claim that "consumer" has been pushed purposely by the business world for over two centuries to create a specific point-of-view. --M asem  (t) 12:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * When a definition has been stable for multiple centuries, it is extremely unlikely that there is actually any "they" that is trying to make you believe anything. It is far more likely that this nefarious "they" are imaginary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing: The "THEM" argument only works if there is nobody that would benefit from whatever is being claimed. In this case, it's quite obvious that business interests benefit by making us think of ourselves as "consumers" rather than "people". It also reinforces the mentality of the "consumer" attitude, which is to replace perfectly working items with new ones simply because they are new. That's probably as close as this sort of thing could get to any actual consumption – even though consumption is the immediate transformation of a useable item (food or petrol or what-have-you) into a non-useable state. I'm sure they'd like to be able to manipulate people so much that they start throwing away items immediately after first using them to then buy new ones, though, but luckily we aren't at that stage. Maybe next year... DesertPipeline (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And "business interests" have been pursuing this agenda steadily for at least 330 years, right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing: I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that every instance for however long this has been going on has been in pursuit of this goal, but it's certainly what is happening now. I'm not really sure why that's relevant, though. DesertPipeline (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You have provided zero evidence of a conspiracy among a shadowy group of people you're calling "business interests".
 * You have provided zero evidence that this word's definition is what you claim and not what the dictionaries say.
 * You have provided zero evidence that anyone on the planet except you believes that this word is being misused.
 * Even if you could prove that this was some group's goal, you have provided zero evidence that their method is "misusing this word by inventing a definition that is at odds with its traditional use" instead of "being smart enough to pick a word whose original, accurate, verifiable definition happens to line up with their goals".
 * There is no hope that I will believe you under these circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing: Here is evidence that I'm not the only one who acknowledges this word is being misused: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Consume — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertPipeline (talk • contribs) 10:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing: Re-pinging because I forgot to sign. DesertPipeline (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So basically from a small group of free software developers that have reason to be hostile to standard business practices. That pretty much meets the definition of WP:FRINGE here. --M asem (t) 13:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And even Richard Stallman, the famous activist who appears to have written that, confines himself to infinitely copy-able software, and not to durable goods. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And that would make sense that if we talking in the field of free software/open-source, treating end users as "consumers" would be wrong (as I've never really seen "consumer" used in that field), but stepping out into the larger field of commercial/proprietary software or even other commercial business, the logic to avoid "consumer" completely vanishes. That is, in certain fields, there may be more appropriate terms of art or undesirable terms, but we should not let those selections influence broader fields that may include that one field, unless those terms' preferences have carried upward; what DesertPipeline is asking is for us to force the adoption of the open source view of cosumerism (or anti-consumerism specifically) to the broad world of business which is simply not going to happen. --M asem  (t) 16:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Masem: You are making a false distinction between free software and commercial software. Charging for copies of free software is allowed, because it's not about price. It's free as in freedom.
 * User:WhatamIdoing: "Applying it to durable goods is a stretch". Unfortunately, this page mostly relates to software, so it isn't going to go into the details of why this word is generally wrong.
 * I would just like to know what you gain from this. If your opinion prevails, and we continue on as we have always done – what do you get out of it? I look around and all I see is people working against what is against their own interest. Is this the culture that has been fostered now, or has it always been this way? Has a large flaw in the human mind just been exploited countless times so that people who wish to benefit only themselves get to do so at the expense of practically everyone else? I now understand why someone would want to be pessimistic about the world situation. That doesn't mean I'm going to give up, but it does mean that my confidence diminishes further every time someone says something that, to me, I can only imagine would be prompted by a deep self-loathing, and quite possibly a hatred for the human race as a whole, and the desire to see it all go up in flames. I can offer no other explanation for why else everyone would try desperately to prevent anything from happening that might actually be of benefit to humanity. This isn't really about this any more, by the way. It's the general situation. Wikipedia is the real world; if it's happening here, it'll happen out there. Now I understand why people bury themselves in other activities rather than trying to make a difference. You try and you feel like you're trying to fight the ocean. Then someone probably hires an assassin to get rid of you before you actually manage to achieve anything positive. If I weren't so stubborn, I'd give up now. Everyone else already has. DesertPipeline (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "if it's happening here, it'll happen out there" is back to front. If it's happening out there, it's happening here. Wikipedia describes, not prescribes. CMD (talk) 05:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What do I get out of it? I get normal words used in normal ways in Wikipedia articles.  I get the principle of NPOV in our writing style instead of anti-goal of one editor's original research and philosophical belief.
 * I can agree that there are occasions when these terms are inappropriate. To build on what @Masem says about terms of art, within the tech industry, in some circumstances, consumer is the opposite of enterprise.  Consumer hardware is the stuff you have in your own home; enterprise hardware is what your ISP puts in their server farm.  To give a second example, it is occasionally useful to differentiate between purchasing (Grandma purchases baby clothes) and using (but her grandbaby wears them).  If an article needed to talk about all of the steps in that process, you would probably not label both Grandma and the baby as "purchasers" or both as "using"; the article would properly use different words for different roles.
 * However: I cannot agree that the word consumer should be discouraged, deprecated, or banned.  It should only be used in ways that are consistent with its actual, dictionary-based, non-activist definition, but that's true for all words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I would be cautious about expanding the MOS:WTW list too much. If we expand it too broadly then it becomes useless - if every word is a word to watch, then no word is a word to watch; and almost any word or phrasing can be valid or invalid depending on the context besides.  The purpose of the list is to highlight a small number of words that are frequently used in a way that introduces problems, not to serve as an exhaustive list of verboten terminology. --Aquillion (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, can you just drop it now? EEng 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Acceptable pleonasms?
I do not understand the difficulty in getting the point across that the pleonasm "widely popular" is unacceptable. Ladies and gentlemen, to suggest something "popular" must include the word "widely" to better explain it is to suggest someone is very rich. Some things do not require modifiers because by their definitions they include the modifiers. If you say something is "widely popular" it is no different than saying it is “popular.“ In university courses, we often use the phrase "very rich" to teach students to avoid pleonasms like "widely." If someone is rich but someone writes they are "very rich," does that make them richer, or does it change the reader's understanding of someone being rich? Mark Cuban is rich. That is sufficient. It would be acceptable to write "Mark Cuban is richer than Daymond John," but used alone as in the "popular" reference, you would write only that "Mark Cuban is rich." Adding the word “widely" to popular is a redundancy. It adds no new information; thereby, it must be eliminated. If the hamburger became popular, then the hamburger is widely popular by virtue of the fact that it became popular. These are the kinds of things that I have been teaching journalism and writing students for decades. It seems unusual to have to explain this to adults who consider themselves editors. Also, this is not a question of what "sounds right." So many people choose their English words by what they think sounds right. There are hard and fast rules about the English language. Although English is a living language that is subject to change, avoiding pleonasms in writing is not going to change. I find this entire conversation ridiculous. I do not find the editors who are insisting upon including the redundancy to be ridiculous. I believe they are well-meaning people doing what they think is best. But when I explained this edit the first time that should have been sufficient for them to understand why the word "widely" should not be included. I encourage you to read the sentence again with the word "widely" excluded and ask yourself if leaving it out changed the meaning of the sentence. It did not. The hamburger became popular. That is sufficient. Finally, when we look at these pages that require consensus, the consensus expectation is if someone wants to change the principles, policies or guidelines that are on the page. Before one changes any of those they must be discussed and a consensus must be arrived upon. Removing the redundant, meaningless word "widely" from a sentence is not something that requires consensus, as it is meant on this page. God bless and happy editing! MarydaleEd (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If your only concern is "widely", please propose that change in an edit that is not riddled with errors. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Friend, I am unaware that I made any errors in editing this article. However, had that been the case, it would have been helpful for you to have pointed out to me that which you found in error outside of your belief that "widely" was an error. Also, if you are suggesting that outside of this "riddle of errors" you would not continue to fight my position on the use of the word "widely," then you should not have continued to revert it, but left the proper edit while coming to my Talk page and in good faith telling me of the other errors that so offended you. I’ve never edited anything in my life that was "riddled with errors," so I don’t know to what you are referring, but I am an imperfect human, so if you feel there has been a riddling of errors, feel free to give me your position so we can discuss it. If I have erred, I have no problem owning my mistakes. You see, while I am proud of the years I have spent in the journalism/writing business as a professional, that pride comes from the fact that it was my life’s work. I have no personal attachment to articles (see my Talk page) or ego involved in my edits. Explain to me that riddling of errors you found. I will be happy to discuss them with you if I disagree with you or make appropriate adjustments if I do not. I would like to add that since this transpired earlier, I researched you a bit and was pleased to find that you work nicely with other editors. However, it also confused me because it is clear you are communicating with me with what appears to be a mild level of hostility and I don’t understand its origin. If I have somehow offended you, I am happy to extend an apology, because I assume we are all good and decent people working toward the same goal, and any belief otherwise would not be an accurate reflection of my true feelings. I prefer to work with you in a spirit of harmony. God bless and happy editing. MarydaleEd (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is quite a difference between rich and very rich. On its own rich implies someone has plenty of money, but very rich implies that they are at the extreme end of the wealth spectrum.  One might describe a millionaire as rich, but I suspect most people would call billionaires very rich.  On the subject of widely popular, it depends upon context.  In the 1940s McDonald's hamburgers became popular within the United States, but it was not until the 1980s that they spread world-wide and became widely popular. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This edit, which you restated in your reverts], is simply an error and in my view cancelled out any value that might have resided in your reverts. Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Widely vs in text attribution
"Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term." There appears to be a confict between "widely used by reliable sources" where it would not normally need attribution and "in which case use in-text attribution". Shouldn't it instead clarify that attribution is needed for opinion sources or when it's only reported by some sources yet still considered DUE enough for inclusion? This appears to mean: it must be mentioned by many sources, yet should still be attributed. To whom would one attribute it when various reliable sources use it without attribution, considering it obvious (i.e. WP:YESPOV is relevant here and is policy vs style). I also see a WP:GEVAL issue with this paragraph, where various things it compares are not equivalent or are not likely to be called as such by reliable sources at all. — Paleo Neonate  – 11:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see no conflict. If a biased description is widely used, then there should be no problem finding multiple sources to cite as opinion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If there's only a handful of RSes that use the label (somewhere between 2 to 5ish), you probably should include them all, naming them in-line (So-and-so is considered racist by the NYTimes, the WaPost and USA Today"). Keep in mind the possible use of bundled refs to avoid excessive listing of refs in a row. On the other hand if have 5 or more refs using that label, and partiuclarly when we're talking in the range of 10+ disparate sources (different works altogether, not just multiple pieces from the same publication), then this is where I would argue it is fair to drop the in-text naming, using language like "So-and-so is broadly/widely considered racist.", select the 3 best RSes (eg with sources like NYTimes, BBC, WaPost near the top) and use those for sources for that statement, and if people keep pushing on that, you can bundle those references and use "For example: " in the bundle. Of course, I would recommend doing a full survey of sources to make sure the label is frequently used (more than ~10% of the time when the entity/person is mentioned in RSes), so that we're not just cherry picking. It might be possible to find 10 opinion columns about a group that call it racist but if there's 1000 articles out there about the group that fail to discuss anything about its racism, then that's UNDUE as well.
 * Of course, this is on the presumption that these are still with WP:RECENTISM aspects. If we're talking labels that have carried the test of time (decades + academic analysis), such as calling the KKK white supremastics, or where there's legal declarations involved like for listed terrorist groups, that's different. --M asem  (t) 15:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I likewise see no need for change. Any change opens the door to WP:Tendentious editing along the lines of people arguing that we just have to add stuff like "So-and-so is a racist/sexist/transphobe"    and degrading the encyclopedia to Twitter-level discourse. Crossroads -talk- 22:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's quite simple. Comparison with Twitter here is also ridiculous in the context.  This MOS section suggests that everything is just an opinion and should be attributed.  It also mixes oranges and apples by including unlikely labels with potentially valid descriptions.  Policy says otherwise where reliable sources always have the last word.
 * WP:NPOV's WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested." and, in the case of actual opinions: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."
 * NPOV's WP:GEVAL: "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity."
 * We have WP:RS and WP:BLPRS already, so it is already assumed that anything outside such, other than minimal WP:ABOUTSELF (as attributed opinion) would not be used anyway. These sources may or may not use attribution so the context will vary where above quoted policy applies.
 * I was about to quote some text from WP:ATTRIBUTE but it appears to not be accepted policy.
 * This means that comparing "terrorist" (may be a valid description) with "pervert sexual practice" (would be controversial even for sexologists) in the same basket is problematic, but this also suggests that someone convicted of violence to advance a political goal outside of war, that has been convicted of such charges and is widely reported by reliable sources as such (that themselves don't attribute it as an opinion) should always be attributed as someone or some source's opinion. This is also only MOS, but I've seen it used as if it was policy recently to argue this, which is how I saw the conflict of this MOS entry with policy.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding WP:NPOV and "avoid stating opinions as facts", something like "So-and-so is a racist/sexist/transphobe" is inherently a statement of opinion. So this page is in accord with that. There could however be some words in the list that don't belong, like "terrorist", perhaps. Crossroads -talk- 05:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think terrorist is worse, or at least equally as bad, as racist/sexist/transphobic. There is no accepted academic definition of terrorism. Many militant organizations like the PKK do not have agreement whether they're terrorist. It's much better not to use the label "terrorism" and instead state the organization's means and ends. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Committed suicide" addition
, do you have any specific disagreement with the language of my addition which you reverted? If not, please restore the section and I will be happy to answer any questions. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps provide more guidance on style guides such as the AP Stylebook on why they don't use this wording? – The Grid  ( talk )  22:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I could provide a link to the AP's guidance on suicide reporting as an example, but I think if I explained their guidance it would give the impression that that guidance is part of WP:MOS. Anyway, the section I added is consistent with the RfC, so I think it should be restored. We can add to it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is this needed? Seems to be the opposite of the RFC outcome.. ...that is no change is needed....let alone a recap of the rrc. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 02:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing is that we have no written guidance to the "status quo" in any MOS/P&G to refer people to if the question comes up, though we obviously can talk to the RFC to point to the most recent consensus. Do we need to be more explicit in MOS to explain the status quo, is the question. --M asem (t) 03:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally dont see the point in adding info that is non-conclusive from every RFC. Why add non-Instructional jargon. Current COVID-19 Project Consensus is a great example of listing non-conncesus that has little value but takes up lots of valuable space ...or MOS should not go that route by listing non-binary talks all over if the normal  editorial decisions process in the outcome. RFC conclusion was to follow normal editing practices with no definitive path to take.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 12:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We could have a new section of frequently discussed words where the consensus is that they are not words to watch. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a "explanatory supplement " essay page like External links/Perennial websites for words that come up alot but are not of real concerns. As "suicide" is just one in a long line of words that have this status.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 12:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm very late to this, but I really dislike the phrase "commit suicide" for two reasons; it is euphemistic (rather than simply saying "kill oneself" or a variant thereof, over which it offers no advantage), and it is a direct throwback to the times in which suicide was considered a crime, which has unsavoury connotations of mental health stigma. Archon 2488 (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary said "if we just suggested the use of plain English, this problem would go away" and therein lies the problem since it is normal, plain English. It also has nothing to do with criminality but to do with the action; consider "he was a committed Conservative" which is not a crime!  There is pressure to change usage to reflect a misunderstanding of the language and I fear you have been mislead by this. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That usage is not with the same definition. Commit suicide is an idiom (with its own etymology) which dictionaries say is stigmatizing   (a NPOV violation). Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Both your first and third examples (both American) include a phrase along the lines of "it is now" and refer to style guides and the like. In other words it is a bit of newspeak to change existing usage.  Just leave the policy as it is and stop trying to impose contentious changes on the meaning of English so as to encourage social change. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not "newspeak" to observe that language changes over time, hence for example why people today can find Shakespeare's Elizabethan English confusing and difficult (and many sentences that are perfectly grammatically correct 21st Century English would have seemed riddled with intolerable solecisms and abuses of vocabulary to Shakespeare). I'm well aware that "commit" has a Latin etymology, but this isn't really relevant; how many words of Latin derivation have significantly different meanings in modern English? How many have changed even since French – including classic false friends like confus, sinistre, déviation, déranger, blesser, attendre, proposer, etc etc? Point is, after the words were borrowed into English, their evolution diverged, so while they are etymologically linked, many of them now have very different connotations in English vs French.


 * See also how "artificial" (artificialis, literally artifex[artist]-like) almost completely inverted in its meaning, and is now commonly used with connotations of something lacking in artistic/creative merit. My point about simple English expressions like "he killed himself" was that they avoid the more abstract (and often, I feel, euphemistic) nature of many Latinate words, which often have many connotations. In this case, yes one can describe any act undertaken as being "committed", but the word has obvious connotations of criminality, regardless of how people might have used the word in the 15th century. We're not writing for a 15th-century audience, nor do we write in Middle English, so this doesn't matter. And it is, I would argue, a far more egregious and fundamental misunderstanding of how language works not to appreciate that it is ultimately usage (not dictionaries or etymology) that determines meaning. If native speakers perceive a word as having connotations, it has those connotations. I find unhelpful (and against the spirit of WP) an argument which seems to imply (by extrapolation) that only classically trained scholars, who know how Romans circa 50 BCE would have defined their vocabulary, can really understand the meanings of those words in 21st-Century English that are ultimately derived from Classical Latin.
 * Re your reply to Kolya above, I do not see that there is any significant difference in the connotations of "commit" between US and UK/Commonwealth English, so I regard this as irrelevant. I have no idea why it is now is so objectionable to you, since it is the main purpose of dictionaries like those cited to explain current usage to their readers. Yes, etymology is interesting and important (I'm quite a keen amateur student of linguistics FWIW), but it's not as practically important as having a clear description of how other English speakers alive at the same time as you are likely to use a word. Moreover, if other reputable style guides are explicitly favouring a certain usage, that is indeed a NPOV-compatible reason for WP to favour it. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep talking about "native speakers" and "current usage", but that is exactly the point. Standard English usage has been, and is, "to commit suicide"; what has changed is that various interested bodies are trying to change the language for political reasons. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This incorrectly implies that there is a single "standard English" usage. The reason this disagreement has arisen is because there is not. I do not accept that the only people interested in deprecating "to commit suicide" are interested bodies acting for political reasons, a slant on this which makes an attempt to discourage the use of stigmatizing language sound somehow sinister and driven by ulterior motives. I'd suggest (again, as someone who is only an amateur linguist) that what we observe here is a fairly natural process of linguistic change, similar to the deprecation of former clinical terms like "imbecile", "retard", and "spastic" in the 20th Century, as these were understood to be extremely pejorative. Pointing out that "retard" has a French etymology and originally meant "hold/pull back", a largely demoded sense which it retains in aviation, does nothing to contest its de facto evolution into a slur in modern English. At any rate, I can assure you that I am not such an "interested body".
 * By comparison, "passed away" is a very standard usage, but we explicitly proscribe it, favouring the neutral (and also, obviously, standard) "died". I see that as analogous for what I'm suggesting here. And I would very strongly dispute that "to kill oneself" is in any sense nonstandard English (as my reading of your comment seems to imply); it is probably the least euphemistic and most direct way of saying it, it is neutral, and it uses simple plain English words. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed section:

Is there a reason to not include established guidance in the MOS/P&G? Regardless of whether it is the status quo or a new norm, a guideline is a guideline. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Editors can make editorial decisions ... as to what sounds most natural, most informative and reads the best ... [Text above]
 * The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided ... [Project page]
 * Combine the two thoughts and there is no reason to mention the term at all. It is not specifically a word to watch and the guidline does not seek to be exhaustive. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * Committed suicide is not a word to watch. See RfC.
 * Unless, are there examples of RfCs on style issues that haven't been added to MOS where they can be found? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We have something of this nature elsewhere Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style...however like Current COVID-19 Project Consensus its a mass wall of info with very little value for guidance. Essay route is the best way to convey real info in my opinion because it would have room for proper prose style writing.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 12:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Simply not needed. Agree with User:Martin of Sheffield. Why is this being rehashed now, so soon after an Rfc about this? At some point, one has to just move on. As far as the list of words that are not a word to watch, I propose The.  Mathglot (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * How is it rehashing the RfC discussion to discuss adding the consensus of the RfC to MOS? Anyway, I had thought this discussion had run its course. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Other terms
"The terms completed suicide, failed attempt, nonfatal suicide, successful suicide, suicidal gesture, and suicide threat are considered pejorative or misleading, and the term parasuicide is considered overly broad and vague and therefore unacceptable by the CDC." Should we include guidance on these terms? Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Suicide proposal
Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Question: Does WP have a serious problem with these specific forms of phrases? I understand the separate concern of "committed suicide" and I know this is not asking for that to be included, but I rarely have seen these specific terms as to make me feel this is a backdoor towards getting "committed suicide" also on the books. If we don't have a problem with these words, then we don't need this advice. --M asem (t) 00:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Failed suicide attempt" and "completed suicide" still have many occurrences. These are terms I read about while researching commit suicide. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But on Wikipedia is the question? For example, using google to search "completed suicide" on en.wiki, I get 126 hits (far too few to be a concern) and most on pages talking about suicide from the medical or psychological facets, rather than in the framework of a biography. "failed suicide attempt" is 106 hits, many on talk pages. So per NOT#BURO, we should not be creating new policies or guidelines for things that are not serious issues. --M asem (t) 05:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's just biographies where we want to avoid those terms. Another phrase we want to avoid saying is that someone is/was "suicidal". All of those words together are still only used a few hundred times on article pages. I wasn't originally thinking this, but this might actually be a good backdoor to add the "committed suicide" RfC consensus, since that is a question that does come up frequently; it's up to you all whether it should be on the books prominently or not. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, there was an issue with "committed suicide" (the google search gives me 26,000 uses), but at ~100 some uses, there's really no issue on these other terms to carve out any untested MOS for them and particularly if this was intended to bring in the "committed suicide" RFC into this. --M asem (t) 14:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Peacock prose
The very end of this section has a tag for "peacock prose". I don't see that tag as being relevant there. Does anyone else have a view? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jovenel_Mo%C3%AFse#Political_career --2603:7000:2143:8500:F97E:459A:7CB2:D95 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of is that it refers to "listened to their different views". Presumably people at meetings listen to each other, so stating this explicitly sounds like a bit of praise, as if it say "Wow, Kelly Craft really listened!" But that's a stretch. I have a different criticism, though: After the first sentence, that paragraph digresses, making Craft the focus. Largoplazo (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I hear you, but I'm not sure that's quite within the MOS of what "peacock prose" means. As to the second point, understood as well - that would be better if it were amplified with their reaction to meeting w/him, which in in the source, and brings the focus back to him.--2603:7000:2143:8500:2958:7608:DD4E:E130 (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" is a value-laden contentious label
We need a thorough discussion on using the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist". Wikipedia should be a place for fair, unbiased and objective information to the extend (practically) possible. This goes for the language used too. The label "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" are widely used (in the west) as a rhetoric trick to frame "the others" as unreliable, dubious and untrustworthy. If we want Wikipedia to be a fair place for reliable wide-ranging information we need to start avoiding labels and framing that are actively used to disparage others. "Conspiracy theory" is extremely similar to the contentious words "heretic" and "controversial" which we advise against. While the words and terms to avoid are not limited to the ones on the list, there is still widespread uncritical and sinister use of "conspiracy theory" and its variants here on Wikipedia, and it has become quite worse lately. "Conspiracy theory" is pretty much as unfair as it gets, and using it like it is used now does not make Wikipedia better. Lukan27 (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Points of discussion (discuss the specific points under each respective point, not straying off)


 * What is Wikipedia trying to say when using the term? What do we want "conspiracy theory" to mean when we use it in general?
 * The term is too vague.


 * "[the paper analyses] the epistemological effects of designating particular questions and explanations as a ‘conspiracy theory’. It is demonstrated how such a designation relegates these questions and explanations beyond the realm of meaningful discourse.", emphesis added, Theory, Culture & Society, Sage Pub., source. Lukan27 (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Replying in the middle of your own opening post is not really WP:TPG, but since you have done so presumably this is also where to answer my reply to your addendum. You have just inserted a reference to a Luhmannian theorist of gambling who wrote a paper on Wittgenstein and Conspiracy Theory discourse. If you don't have better sources, that is looking pretty FRINGE, yo. Newimpartial (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an ad hominem fallacy and has no relevance to the discussion at hand. Sage Publications/Journals is an extremely well-respected and highly used source for all subjects scientific and scholarly. Lukan27 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pointing out when academics have published work outside their field is not ad hominem fallacy. Not all peer review is created equal, and not all published scholarship is of equal credibility. Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're basically saying that "they made research about something else, thus they're not qualified for this, thus this paper is bad". Plus, it's only Bjerg who has written about gambling theory. Further, when researchers publish something in an area, that inevitably makes that field one of their fields of expertise, at the very least in some sense. But Presskorn-Thygesen and Bjerg have a PhD in Sociology and Philosophy, respectively. Obviously it's well within their area of expertise. Not all peer-reviews are equally good indeed, but you don't point out why this particular review is insufficient, besides the already-mentioned fallacy. Lukan27 (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A single peer-reviewed publication does not make anyone an expert in a particular field. Bjerg, as I say, seems to be the Luhmannian expert in gambling theory, while as far as I can tell the second author is a philosopher-dilettante. Neither author seems to be knowledgeable about conspiracy theory, or about political discourse in general (and indeed, this is an example of a topic area that attracts a lot of non-expert commentary by academics writing outside of their specialization). Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that they were "experts" in the field. I said that they given their education, choice of publishing in that field of research, and succesfully become published by an extremely well-respected academic publisher, that makes that field one of their fields of expertise, at the very least in some sense. I generally find your argumentation here to be attempts to avoid fair and reasonable discussion. I will post more sources, but I will ask of you to have patience. Lukan27 (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not throw fallacy-links around to refute arguments. Both of you have valid points, a discussion does not have to have just one side arguing "correctly". I have managed to get access to that article and tried to read through it, though I must admit I didn't manage to follow it completely., I agree with you that this is a scientific article and Sage a reputable publisher; so there indeed is academic criticism of the term "conspiracy theory". However, I also agree with that this paper is not particularly great at proving your point: As much as I admire Wittgenstein as a philosopher, I do not believe most people are familiar with his theories. And this paper discusses terms in a very specific matter, in a way that is hard for me to follow. (The paper draws a connection between terrorism and conspiracy theories?) In the end, it's just a single paper, which does not prove to me that "conspiracy theory" is indeed as vague as these authors suggest. --LordPeterII (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't see the problem in pointing out informal fallacies in my coutnerpart's line of reasoning here. They demonstrate the invalidity of Newimpartial arguments, which is kinda the point of discussion. I do agree that some general evaluation of the authors themselves and their background, intentions, etc., is necessary, but in my honest opinion Newimpartial's objections are basically just ad hominem fallacies, which obviously doesn't constitute valid reasoning, neither in general or in this particular case. I know we're all about reliable sources here, but there's a difference between evaluating a source, and going straight for the authors and psychologize them right off the bat, wouldn't you say? Lukan27 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1
The thing is, WP:RS status has to take into account a number of factors, one of which is the relationship between the author and the field in which they are publishing (as well as the topic they are being cited about, since the field of publication may not align with the topic cited). For these purposes, discussion of the author's credentials is not ad hominem fallacy, it is a relevant criterion. And as far as being experts in a field versus something being one of their fields of expertise, I think that is a distinction entirely without a difference. Newimpartial (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you inadvertently pinged yourself. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out. :) Lukan27 (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The term is too value-laden for general use.
 * General use of the term gives the impression of a false balance/weight.
 * The term is a rhetorical/dialectical maneuver.


 * The term can be understood in (at least) two ways, that is, neutrally "the theory/postulation that two or more people are conspiring" and pejoratively "a rediculous stupid idea that deserves no attention". Proponents of using this term may use/abuse this ambiguity on purpose, so when readers open up a (relevant) article on Wikipedia they understand the labelling in the pejorative sense, and the proponents know this, but when the editors/proponents argue for using the term they argue that it's merely being used in the neutral sense. Lukan27 (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Struggles over [conspiracy theory attributions] can be analysed in terms of the tactics that powerful perpetrators use to reduce outrage over injustice: cover-up, devaluation, reinterpretation, official channels, and intimidation/rewards.", Social epistemology, Taylor Francis, source. Lukan27 (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting piece, but what the author is actually doing is responding to the reception of the dissertation of one of his Doctoral students (Judith Wilyman) which was labelled in the media as promoting vaccine conspiracy theories. There is nothing in the piece that suggests that conspiracy theory attributions are not susceptible to being evaluated based on evidence. In fact, in the case with which the article is most concerned, Wikipedia does not use a conspiracy theory attribution in wikivoice; rather, the WP article mentions the controversy with attribution (The thesis came under heavy criticism from multiple directions, including medical professionals, due to claims within the thesis, including advancing a conspiracy theory). The obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that some conspiracy theory attributions are verifiable and essentially undisputed while others are more contentious: in the latter case, but not the former, attribution is appropriate. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Free-flow discussion (as-it-goes discussion)

 * We don't want to misinform readers by avoiding language that would properly contextualize a given explanation as unreliable or fringe. So we shouldn't avoid using the unqualified term, but we should have good justification for when we do so.
 * I agree that we should strive for proper contextualization. But I contest that using "conspiracy theory" in general like Wikipedia actually gives the proper context. Actually, it gives the wrong impression/context almost always. Lukan27 (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a case where you believe the term is misused? — Æµ§œš¹  [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some specific cases come to mind, but it's a core issue and a general problem on Wikipedia, which is why I started this section. I would humbly prefer to keep this as far away as possible from (discussion of) specific pages, although specific use-case examples are obviously unavoidable. Lukan27 (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The editing history of Lukan27 shows that the case of Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene is very likely the one getting Lukan27 to bring the issue here. Of course, Marjorie Taylor Greene can and should be called a conspiracy theorist because of the high quality sources applying that label to her. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, I agree that "conspiracy theory" is a WP:LABEL. On the other hand, like "pseudoscience", it's a LABEL that if we were to stop using it, it would invite WP:FALSEBALANCE issues all over. I think that the current guidance that says to only use contentious labels when reliable sources consistently use them strikes a good balance. Loki (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We must definitely avoid false balance. We should never make anything look like it's, say, 50-50, when it's actually, say, 99-1. That much is clear. But inversely, labelling something as a "conspiracy theory" actually falsely gives the impression that it's, say, 99-1, instead of, say, 60-40, or whatever. Further, pseudoscience is without a doubt a much more precise and substantial concept than "conspiracy theory". The term is extemely vague, and that alone is/should be sufficient reason to avoid it, or to use it with severe consideration. Lukan27 (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a handful of labels like "conspiracy theorist", "climate change skeptic/denier", "flat-earther" and some others which are definitely labels, but less "value-laden" compared to things like "racist", "white supremacist" etc. because it is easier for RS to judge these by their statements directly, and thus compared to the other value-laden labels, as long as there's reasonable agreement on the RSes for the use of these terms, I see no issue with Wikivoice saying these factually. HOWEVER they must be considered still as characterizations and not neutral objective aspects of a person, and should absolutely not be in the lede sentence of a person's BLP, which is where these tend to end up being used. (The case in point I'm guessing this is coming from Marjorie Taylor Greene. A "conspiracy theorist" is not a career path compared things like politican or businessperson, and that's false equivalency to try to group it with those terms. But this is not to say that in the case of Greene that "conspiracy theorist" should be avoided in the lede, just not the lede sentence, as her ties to QAnon and other conspiracy theory groups is well documented and part of why she is notable more than just being a US Rep. It just not appropriate per BLP or NPOV to identify that term or any of these similar labels that I mention as early in the first sentence regardless of how much they apply to the person. --M asem (t) 15:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On the question of Greene, I wonder whether editors would feel like she was less 'labeled' if the article began with something like "Greene is an American politician and businesswoman who is notable for espousing conspiracy theories while serving as a US Representative". This provides a bit of the bad person/bad action distinction that parenting manuals have been so fond of for the last half-century, and it's not technically "a label". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "A "conspiracy theorist" is not a career path" -- it's very much her career path, just as with such people as Alex Jones. MTG hasn't been a businesswoman for a decade, and she became a US Representative largely in response to the conspiracy theories she believes in. If RS describe someone primarily in terms of being a conspiracy theorist, it's not up to editors to overrule them. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2
"conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are used by RS to describe a specific kind of behavior and declaeration. Note that "false balance would be "if 3 sources say it, 3 don't and none dispute it, its a consensus". No, if RS disputes its true its a false balance to say it is true, there are however many reasons why an RS does not say it, its does not reman they are saying it not true. What we must not do is ignore or whitewash outright falsehoods. If people do not want to be labeled "conspiracy theorist" by RS do not publicly pedal "conspiracy theories", its as simple as that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are also used by unreliable sources. The problem here is that what you and misc. sources call "conspiracy theory" is just your (biased) viewpoint. Labelling something "conspiracy theory" doesn't make it a "conspiracy theory" or ludicrous. And I would also argue that sources labelling people left and right as "conspiracy theorists" actually makes those sources in those specific cases unreliable. Lukan27 (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * One of the things with "conspiracy theorist" (and nearly every label) when it comes to how we use them in our articles is trying to make sure that when these labels are being called out by RSes, that we are only cherry picking a few cases and then claiming it represents a whole, which unfortunately I see happen far too much. It would be inappropriate to highlight a person as a conspiracy theorist if only the New York Times used that label about that person and no other source at all (though this would be an unlike scenario). On the other hand, if out of 100 or so recent articles that are providing significant coverage of the person across the range of RSes we have, and at least 25 of them use "conspiracy theorist", that's probably a good reason to use that; if its less, then you probably have to be walking with careful attribution around the label and it should not be a highlighted "feature" of that person in discussing them. I've discussed the idea that editors should really engage in these type of source survey on talk pages to be able to document when a label applies and be able to point to that survey when the label is put into doubt by new editors/IPs that might complain. --M asem (t) 14:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with this approach is "how many" is enough? Moreover, how do we "attribute" 10 sources? I would agree, it is it only one or two RS (or a lot of fringe or weak sources) we should attribute, but if it is (to my mind) a case of "five out of 10 sources on a google news search" say it, so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea is that if you are able to show a significant number of different sources routinely agree with the label (eg the 25% metric I suggest), named attribution in the body should not be required as long as the immediate followup in prose explains why that label applies, and that one attached 2-4 highest quality sources otherwise not used to the statement with the label; in the lede, then, assuming this is done in the body, you simply need to reassert the 2-4 sources. If that 25% is not met, then you likely need to be specific on attributing sources.
 * Further, the size of this survey is important. If you can only find 10 sources about a BLP, and even if 9 of the 10 use the label, that's probably still caution to use named attribution and not the generalization I suggest, as 10 sources is far from vast coverage. If that survey was 100 sources, then that's a bit better sampling and clearly didn't exhaust the possible pool of sources for the topic at hand, that would be better to justify the generaliztion approach if the label was routinely used by those sources. --M asem (t) 14:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If its enough sources to establish notability its enough sources to establish they are not able for this. A person is notable for what they are notable for, and if that is being a "conspiracy theorist" then we note that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not saying that having only a few sources total doesn't prevent you from saying a label, just the line between where it should be treated with clear attribution, and with the type of broader generalization. If you can only find 10 RSes about a person but have clear significant coverage to meet GNG/NBIO, and all ten discuss the person with respect to being a conspiracy theorist, I would still say that when identifying them as a conspiracy theorist, that you have to use named attribution as you don't have a critical mass of sources to know if this is generalized across enough RS voices, but you 100% have to include that label per WEIGHT. --M asem (t) 15:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a generalized concern here. One of the failings I see in many Wiki articles is the desire to apply labels or mention facts that appear in RS but not tell the reader why that information is significant. Even worse is when the context isn't explained but is presented in a way that could lead the reader to conclusion not supported by RS material. How does this improve our articles? Is the objective to provide readers with a full set of facts and understanding or is it to list the negative things others have said? For example, "Mr. Smith" is called a conspiracy theorist. Most examples are by sources that say, "Mr Smith, a conspiracy theorist, said X about the Governor's speech." So we say Mr Smith is often described as a conspiracy theorist. Doesn't that beg the question why? I would hope that before we decide such a negative thing has weight for inclusion that we also make sure the article has sufficient content to explain why a rational RS might use that label. In the best case we would have a RS tell us why Mr Smith is a CT. My related concern is when we have something like "Mr Smith met with [bad group]". OK. Is that because Mr Smith wants to join, wants to support or perhaps wants to discuss their concerns even if Mr Smith doesn't agree. Basically when we present some fact it should be clear why it's significant in the bigger picture and should never be introduced in a way that could lead a reader to a false conclusion. Springee (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should present the facts and sources in our work to the best of our abilities, and help readers make their own informed opinions instead of telling or hinting what they should think. And it is without a doubt more precise, and in most cases much more fair, to state that sources describe Smith as a "conspiracy theorist" instead of just going with how some generally reliable sources label Smith. Lukan27 (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I question the utility of such labels, in that they have the potential to be cynically misapplied for nefarious purposes. "Disseminator of unproven allegations", or similar, while it could become a label over time, is a phrase with fairly clear semantic content, which may be parsed with respect to the behavior of an individual, thus avoiding the risky slickness of a label. I fear that numerical definitions of "conspiracy theorist" carry the risk of being cynically manipulated. Take the example of Cary Mullis and his beliefs about AIDS and HIV. Why tote up what RSes have said, when, clearly, he has disseminated unproven allegations?--Quisqualis (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can only agree. Saying "conspiracy theory/theorists" as it is normally understood is dubious to say the least, involving Vagueness, straw fallacy, ad hominem including guilt by association, begging the question, cognitive bias, media manipulation and red herring just to name a few. The typical semantic understanding of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" are nothing but rife with fallacies, bias and rhetoric/dialectical manipulation. Lukan27 (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are lucky that you specified near your opening of this discussion I would humbly prefer to keep this as far away as possible from (discussion of) specific pages; otherwise you would be expected to provide evidence that *any* of the wikilinked but unsourced claims you just made are in some way related to actual Wikipedia articles. Since you have not offered any evidence, though. we should presumably interpret your typical semantical understanding of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorists" as a pure straw man, and therefore ignore your intervention here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lukan27 has been banned from discussing post-1992 American politics (due to contentious editing and repeated attacks on editors' good faith around this very issue) so that disclaimer is understandable and we should not encourage him/her to violate the ban. You can check for yourself though that the article that was their focus that resulted in the ban does not have the problems that Lukan27 is calling out. I'm afraid this whole page is a waste of a lot of peoples' time, a consequence of several SPA ideologues claiming that it's biased to call a certain person a conspiracy theorist despite numerous reliable sources describing her as such. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not only a label but a description and the above would be true about any claim made in a WP:BLP that is unsupported by acceptable sources, "conspiracy theorist" is no exception or special case. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break 3

 * "Conspiracy theory" is an established concept in high quality sources (e.g. academic textbooks). If Wikipedia abandoned it it would put us of-of-sync with the kind of respectable serious sources we (should) aspire to. "Conspiracy theorist" is potentially a bit more problematic, especially in view of the need to respect WP:BLP. But, on the other hand, when high-quality sources describe an individual as such, Wikipedia needs to follow out of respect for WP:NPOV, which is not negotiable. If we stopped calling David Icke one for instance, we'd be failing in that duty of neutrality. Alexbrn (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly the label applies on Icke's article, but as I mention above, giving "conspiracy theorist" the same weight of lede importance as his actual objective careers, and the subsequent weight of calling out his conspiracy theories in the lede, is absolutely not neutral per our policies. No one has a career as a conspiracy theorist. Icke should be mentioned as a former footballer and broadcaster, and then introduced, in a new sentence after that as a conspiracy theorist given that this is significant to his notability; it just cannot be the lede since there are other things he was noted for from a more objective standpoint. --M asem (t) 18:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect, that's bollocks. Icke's fame in RS derives almost entirely from his "career" (yes) as a conspiracy theorist. His early life as a minor footballer/sports reporter is of negligible interest to RS. Your proposal would be a howling violation of NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But there is no such thing as an objective career in "conspiracy theroist", its why its a label. You can say to lede off "David Icke is a writer and lecturer, and a former footballer and sports reporter. As a writer and lecturer, Icke has engaged in promoting conspiracy theories...." or something like that. There is no policy that requires ordering the lede elements in terms of notability (outside of making sure the lede ultimately captures why someone is notable) but there is policy per both BLP and NPOV that articles must be written in an impartial tone and dispassionately. This would require destressing the conspiracy theorist aspects (which I agree are what he is most notable for) until after what we can objectively state about him. Leding off with the conspiracy theorist term before anything else - given that this is not the extent of what he is known for - gives the article the appearance of an attack piece on him. There are ways to still keep the lede focused on stressing that he is a conspiracy theorist without the tone the article currently establishes. --M asem  (t) 18:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But we can state objectively, and based on reliable sources, that Icke has only a questionable claim to be the child of the godhead, but that he is unquestionably a conspiracy theorist. Literally no reliable sourced dispute this, and consensus reality affirms it very clearly. Destressing observations that are objectively true and well-sourced is an immense failure of NPOV IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we don't have to take "conspiracy theorist" out of Wikivoice for the case of Icke in this case because of the overwhelming coverage for that, per what I agree with above (as long as the body is explaining in full why this label applies w/ sources). It's just the ordering and wording of the lede, putting a judgement-weighted term ahead of non-judgmental career facets, sets a very negative tone, even if the term fully applies. Switching things around loses no information but reduces the tone from accusation to informative which is where we are supposed to be writing these articles. --M asem  (t) 19:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I just don't regard "conspiracy theorist" as a "controversial" term in the sense of WP:LABEL - it has a clearly-defined meaning and is rather well-documented in its application to particular cases. In the cases where it is appropriately used, the only sources objecting to it represent those who believe in the conspiracy theory, so it would be FALSEBALANCE to destress the term, except in cases where it is tangential to the subject's Notability. This is certainly not the case with Icke. Of course, if the reptilian Anunnaki reveal themselves and reliable sources confirm this, we will then need to rewrite a few articles, but that is a small price to pay for accuracy in the present IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You may not see it as controversial, but the fact its listed among LABEL says we should consider it to be one. How many people claim to be self-identified conspiracy theorists? Pretty much no one. I do agree that we can designate it as a non-value-laden label similar to "climate change denier" or "flat earther", meaning that with sufficient sourcing, it can be said in Wikivoice without attribution in ledes as long as that claim is backed up in the body. But these are still terms that pass judgement on a person, and should not be the first things we are saying in their ledes. The only time this should be the case if this is absolutely the only notable thing that person is known for throughout their life, as the case typically with many criminals in prison on murder convictions or the like. We have to write neutrally and dispassionately, and throwing judgmental terms out the door as the first things said about a person is not neutral nor dispassionate. We should still strive introduce the term early enough as to not bury the lede to speak, given the weight of importance to Icke's article here, but laying it out after some rudimental objective statement, one consistent with nearly every other bio on WP, keeps the article far more neutral in line with BLP and NPOV. --M asem  (t) 19:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh? It's not listed anywhere. The person who created this section apparently wants it so listed; that's what the discussion is about.

arbitrary break 4
Self-identification is irrelevant--e.g., few people self-identify by the crimes they commit but that may still be the primary reason for their notability. The article that prompted the person who started this section to do so is about someone for whom being a conspiracy theorist is a major claim to fame--she would be a minor and insignificant freshman member of the U.S. House of Representatives if she weren't also a conspiracy theorist. Before winning election, she was a conspiracy theorist prominent for the fact that she was likely to win election; that's the source of her notability. It should be one of the first things said in the lede because it's one of the first things said by reliable sources. This whole section is just an attempt to hobble reports of reality. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Again, lexicographically, a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for a circumstance or event. There seems to me to be some confusion about "covert but influential" - the belief that software companies, who are not in themselves covert, are responsible for the Covid-19 pandemic is still a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, as software companies are "hidden forces" in relation to biological pathogens, their influence is still "covert" in relation to the phenomenon being explained by the CT. Newimpartial (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You say "it has a clearly-defined meaning". I can only disagree severely. Could you maybe point out what this clearly-defined meaning would be? Lukan27 (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The plain, lexicographic meaning of "conspiracy theorist" is "person who believes in a conspiracy theory". Newimpartial (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And "conspiracy theory"? Lukan27 (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Per Alexbrn, when we have multiple high quality academic sources describing a person as a conspiracy theorist with in depth analysis of their theories, NPOV requires us to include this description in the lead. Examples are folks like David Icke, Milton William Cooper, Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist), Alex Jones, James H. Fetzer, etc. I think a problem arises when something like "Senator X promoted a debunked conspiracy theory" appears in reliable news and commentary sources. In this case, the person is typically not primarily notable as a conspiracy theorist, so describing them as such in the lead isn't appropriate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure about the Senator X point; at some stage there's a threshold where Lieutenant-General Y ends up being such a notable proponent of the delusion that it would be wrong not to label them as such in the lead, nay, in the lead sentence. GPinkerton (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And in this particular case, that prompted the above, the lead has: "She has voiced support for conspiracy theories including Pizzagate,[4] QAnon,[5] false flag shootings as a means for Congress to legislate for gun control,[6][7] 9/11 conspiracy theories,[8] and the "Clinton Kill List".[6]", that and supporting sources appear enough to support the description... — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about Marjorie Taylor Greene, I agree, conspiracy theories is what she's primarily notable for in the majority of reliable sources. In fact, it's hard to find sources that don't describe her as a conspiracy theorist. Re my example, I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Ted Cruz, who isn't primarily notable for allegations of giving credibility to conspiracy theories. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that the editor who started this discussion did so with the specific purpose of supporting their effort to not label Marjorie Taylor Greene as a conspiracy theorist. They have tried multiple tactics, including claiming that the blog posts were by an imitator (MTG told people on her Facebook and Twitter pages to read her blog posts), that we only have evidence that she used to be a conspiracy theorist (the blog articles were in 2017 and 2018 and MTG has never repudiated them) that every source is left-leaning and biased against democrats (both left-leaning and right-leaning sources call her a conspiracy theorist) and now this. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not true. It's correct that I've been engaged in M. Greene's talk page before I started this section. Consider this. But I didn't start this section just to escape closing or whatever of that talk page section or to forumshop. This has been a point of worry for me for a very long time, and I genuinely believe that this is a subject something everyone should join in on and discuss. Lukan27 (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid this link to your diff only makes it worse: Are you actually campaigning since 2013 to remove content that is contrary to conspiracy theories? Now, I do not mind this discussion, and I believe you brought up a fair point. But the wording in the diff is quite problematic: Removing content that tries to "save" ("redde") the "official explanation" is basically content that WP:RS agree on. Sure articles should be NPOV, but in my opinion that specifically does NOT involve to include only supportive information - we have criticism sections in articles about companies, in articles about just about anything. Maybe I am misunderstanding your motivation there or the Danish Wikipedia has some different guidelines. But I am not convinced that a criticism section should be on its own page, so that a conspiracy theory (and "9/11 was an inside job" is a prime example of a conspiracy theory that WP:RS agree on) is presented just as a theory, without criticism. Again, I won't take this against you here, because the discussion here is a valid one. But it does not prove the point that you are neutral/impartial on the subject. --LordPeterII (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that Lukan27 is banned from discussing post-1992 American politics and their comment above mentioning Marjorie Taylor Greene's page is a violation. It's probably best to avoid engaging them here as it would be a provocation to further violations. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

arbitrary break 5

 * "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are fair descriptions. We can use them if and when WP:RS do. Often enough, omitting that characterization would amount to whitewashing. Above, these terms were argued to be less precise than "pseudoscience", but any subtlety or gray area with "conspiracy theory" will have its counterpart with "pseudoscience". (For example, an idea might start as legitimate but dodgy science and become pseudoscience over time as die-hards refuse to accept evidence piling up against it.) As to whether or not they are value-laden, well, if they express any preference it is for fact over fabrication, and it's hard to get all that steamed about that in an encyclopedia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pseudoscience has a clear definition, but in my experience, some of the sources we cite are apparently unfamiliar with it. If someone says that the Moon is made of green cheese, that's not pseudoscience; it's just plain wrong, WikiProject Skepticism/Green Cheese Model of Lunar Composition notwithstanding.  It is, however, not difficult to find sources that claim all sorts of things are pseudoscience (e.g., economics), even if they do not claim to be any type of science at all (e.g., art history).  It seems to get used as a term that means "stuff I don't believe in".  I think we should avoid labels when the facts suggest that the source does not use them with precision.  However, when the label is used with precision – when the pseudoscientific claim comes with a story about string theory causing the toxins to leave your body, or when the conspiracy theory claim names the specific conspiracy theory that the person promotes – then I have no concerns about using those labels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitions

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theory

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conspiracy-theorist

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conspiracy-theory

Note these are very basic, but do give a clear defintion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote: MoS does not need to be changed

 * "Conspiracy Theory" and "Conspiracy Theorist" are a strict enough parallel to "pseudoscience" that I would like to see them excluded from WP:LABEL in the same way that "pseudoscience" already has been. Similar to "pseudoscience", these are objectively accurate terms that the figures to whom they apply cannot accept, for their own (cognitively understandable) reasons. Newimpartial (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These definitions are dictionary definitions and merely (try to) point out what some people mean when they say "conspiracy theory/theorist". Wikipedia/voice should make up it's very own mind what Wikipedia/voice means when it says "conspiracy theory/theorist" in general, and whether they want to partake in derogatory labelling or not. Wikivoice should definitely consider these dictionary definitions, but not blindly follow them nor blindly ignore them. Further, these dictionary definitions above are in the neutral sense, which would mean that theories like the official explanation of 9/11 would be called a "conspiracy theory", given that it's a theory about a handful of foreign conspirerers plotting against the US govt., etc., which would mean that official theories should be labelled as "conspiracy theories" as well. That alone is sufficient for rejection. But it's not the dictionary definitions we are discussing in this section in general. We're discussing the general and typical use of the label, which include (but is not limited to) the derogatory sense of the terms, and Wikipedia/voice's stance and use on/of it. Further, these dictionary definitions are quite useless when it comes to evaluating specific cases of (alleged) "conspiracy theories". Lukan27 (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The circular nature of your argumentation on this subject is impressive, not to mention the moving of goalposts. You literally asked what is meant by the term, and when provided with the standard definition, you reject it for being "useless in evaluating specific cases" (although this has been alleged rather than supported with any evidence). You presume that the term is used in a "derogatory sense", without showing evidence of this from RS (or anywhere), and without pointing to a single case where WP has "blindly" followed these supposedly misleading sources. You also raise the red herring of cases where actual events were caused by covert action, according to reliable sources, which are excluded from the "conspiracy theory" category because they are true. The moment an explanation is provided with convincing evidence that makes it part of consensus reality, it is no longer a conspiracy theory. Newimpartial (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked what we say, or try to say, when we say "conspiracy theory/theorist". There's no "standard definition" like that, you can't just point to a dictionary entry and state that this is what everyone means when they say "conspiracy theory/theorist". When I write that labelling people as "conspiracy theorists" is done derogatorily, it's because, as everyone knows, that when someone calls somebody a "conspiracy theorist" it's to denigrate them. No one labels anyone a "conspiracy theorist" because they think that Jack and Jane conspire to make a practical joke (or whatever). When you label someone as a "conspiracy theorist" you label them as fringe, and that's not necessarily the actual case. Further, distinctions have to be made when others label people as "conspiracy theory", what are they trying to say and do, and why? Lukan27 (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But if non-reliable sources label someone a conspiracy theorist, we don't use that attribution at all. If some reliable sources label someone a conspiracy theorist while other reliable sources contest that attribution, we don't use that attribution in Wikivoice. The only time we use "conspiracy theorist" in Wikivoice is when many RS do so and no RS contest the attribution. In such instances, with respect to WP policy, it is the actual case. That's what verifiabiltiy is all about. Newimpartial (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * —here we have Bret Weinstein saying "this was never a conspiracy theory, in fact that term is used to make it go away". (Jan 30, 2021) Notice what he is saying. If I may paraphrase, he is saying conspiracy theory is a term used to make an idea go away. Weinstein is saying something pertinent to this discussion: "conspiracy theory" is is used to dismiss ideas. The dismissal of ideas is not a part of an encyclopedia's mission. is saying something similar: "No one labels anyone a 'conspiracy theorist' because they think that Jack and Jane conspire to make a practical joke (or whatever)." An encyclopedia has little need to dismiss ideas. The usual use of the term "conspiracy theory" is to make ideas go away. An encyclopedia is not in the business of making ideas go away. Why is it inordinately important that Wikipedia use "conspiracy theory" in Wikivoice? Isn't it a misuse of an encyclopedia to make certain ideas go away? If an idea is incorrect we state that it is incorrect. If an idea has been debunked we state that the idea has been debunked. "Conspiracy theory" is merely dismissive. Unless we are saying that a particular person or institution referred to an idea as a "conspiracy theory", there should be little legitimate need for an encyclopedia to deploy that term in its own voice. Bus stop (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you are talking about here re: Bret Weinstein (a figure that I thought was covered by your topic ban, anyway) but I was talking about RS which Bret is not. Your argument that The usual use of the term "conspiracy theory" is to make ideas go away is not what most RS on the topic have to say. Newimpartial (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean, —I'm not topic-banned from evolutionary biology; I'm not topic-banned from biographies; and Bret Weinstein could be any other person for purposes of language usage. Did you think I chose B. Weinstein to advance a point which I support? I'm not a scientist. I'm an ignoramus. And I don't care one way or the other whether the virus originated in a laboratory or the virus originated in a wet market. I don't know the implications of the two scenarios. Obviously the question is an important one, but I am ignorant of its implications down the line as concerns pandemics of this sort. We are discussing whether or not "conspiracy theory" should be freely used in Wikipedia's voice. Calling something a conspiracy theory can be a convenient way of shunting an idea aside, meaning its potential for abuse is great. Common sense should tell us we should use it with caution and to err on the side of using it with in-text attribution, not in Wikipedia's voice. I am interested in hearing your argument as to why you feel it is inordinately important that we retain free use this term. Just because reliable sources use it? That doesn't cut the mustard. An encyclopedia has virtually no need to shunt ideas aside. We explicate; we don't aim to dismiss ideas from consideration. Right now we live in particularly politically divided times. Partisan writing is almost the norm. Should Wikipedia follow in the footsteps of sources that serve as exponents of polarized views? No, it should not. That is where an encyclopedia differs from a journalistic outlet. Unbiased writing would be saying in wordier language that an idea held by Person A and Group B has been proven to be wrong by Person C and Group D. An encyclopedia wouldn't resort to the far more opaque language of simply saying that an idea was a conspiracy theory. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are using the Weinstein quote in order to frame the use of a legitimate term as something bad. If Weinstein had said, "People use the word '&lt;insert random word here>' for &lt;insert nefarious purpose here>", you could use the same reasoning to keep that other word out of Wikipedia articles. But Weinstein does not have that ex cathedra power of dictating Wikipedia dictionary restrictions. Nobody has. When we remove that argumentum ad verecundiam from your reasoning, there is nothing left but empty rhetorics and an unsupported opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the Intellectual Dark Web in the United States is covered by the post-1992 US Politics discretionary sanctions, when it comes to political issues like frozen peaches free speech. Please let me know if I am wrong about this. Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —Real Time with Bill Maher is not part of the "intellectual dark web". Is it your argument that I shouldn't talk about language usage if the examples I am giving are from someone who also participates in the "intellectual dark web"? In my opinion the proliferation of the term "conspiracy theory" coincides with a popular need discredit the ideas of others without going to the trouble of explaining in detail, step by step, what is wrong with an idea. That is antithetical to an encyclopedia's purpose. Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am talking about what he is known for, namely the culture war, not whether he has a mainstream platform. But if you want to take an outspoken advocate of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis as an expect RS in what isn't a conspiracy theory? Well, it's going to be hard to hear yourself think over the guffawing. Newimpartial (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weinstein isn't an "outspoken advocate of the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis". He is a scientist, as is his wife. Like all good scientists he goes were the facts lead him, and I don't think we know with a high degree of assuredness how the covid virus came about, and I think all possibilities should be explored, but I will also add that this is irrelevant to language-usage, which should be what this discussion is about. Bus stop (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the discussion is about language-usage, then I would suggest that you cite experts in language and its usage, rather than defrocked former biologists turned culture warriors and "conspiracy theorists". Just a thought. Newimpartial (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no "If", Newimpartial, the discussion is most definitively about language-usage. But the discussion is more focussed than that. We are concerned with the usage of language in an encyclopedia. Does an encyclopedia need to dismiss ideas? I don't think so. We sometimes reference ideas that are rejected in some quarters. Should we enshrine such rejection, in Wiki-voice, in a term like "conspiracy theory"? Maybe but maybe not. We should be weighing different forms of language-usage to see which form provides the reader with a lot of relevant information. Let me call your attention to the compactness of the term "conspiracy theory". Ask yourself what the reader gets out of it. The reader only understands that from some quarters emanates rejection of that idea. Now consider alternative wording. "The XYZ Organization and Individual ABC thoroughly reject Carbon Copy's idea as merely being the product of agenda-driven and sloppy science." I am arguing that the lengthier linguistic form is more informative for the reader and therefore better suited to use in an encyclopedia. We don't always walk in lockstep with our sources. We derive something from our sources and we apply it to creating an informative article. Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

By both policy and community culture, WP like other encyclopaedias does indeed need to dismiss ideas, since we do not aspire to be the encyclopaedia of user-generated credulity. Since that outcome would he a great example of WP:NOT, we have policies like WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE and WP:NONAZIS, and we label pseudoscience and conspiracy theories as pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. If that ethos doesn't suit you, there are plenty of other user-generated encyclopaedias that might better suit your preferences. Newimpartial (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Point of order: NONAZIS is an essay, not policy, and RS + FRINGE are guidelines. And while I don't subscribe to what Bus Stop is trying to argue away, there is the point that we should not be rushing to include commentary from the media about people and groups just because we consider them RSes, and that what we are getting from such RSes would fall within UNDUE - this is where NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM also must come into play among other facts, and we actually should dismiss novel ideas that have not had withstood the test of time - such as the rush that the media tends to push on criticism of public figures. This is part of what Bus Stop may be getting to, and absolutely something that NPOV tells us to keep in mind and put into balance. But as to much of the rest Bus Stop seems to be arguing, particularly w.r.t. "conspiracy theorist", I'm not so sure about. --M asem  (t) 00:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Masem—I'm simply saying that we should try to be informative, meaning that expanded language should be favored over briefer, more cryptic language. I don't know how we got to WP:NONAZIS. Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —interestingly you are suggesting why I used a particular example. I don't know why I used that example. I stumbled upon it by chance. It is random. I saw the term in use and I said to myself: that supports my argument. So I presented it here. Inadvertently, and of course without his knowledge, Weinstein is weighing in to the subject of this discussion. He says "this was never a conspiracy theory, in fact that term is used to make it go away". He is referring to "that term". The term he is referring to is "conspiracy theory". Am I totally out of bounds in saying Weinstein is weighing in to the subject of this discussion? Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, you are trying to change the rules, for whatever reason, and you got hold of something somebody said, which you thought could help you do that. You did not have to explain the details of your discovery of the Weinstein quote, they are not relevant. But you are overestimating its impact. Nobody cares what Bret Weinstein thinks when there are actual experts on the subject who think differently. (Even if we assume he does think that about all instances of using the term - maybe he is only talking about that one use and agrees with using the term in other cases.) That's all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hob Gadling—when someone says "this was never a conspiracy theory, in fact that term is used to make it go away", that is commentary that is on the topic of this discussion. Does Wikipedia have an inordinate need for terms to make ideas go away? We explain, using lengthier language, why an idea sucks. We don't hide the reasons that an idea sucks behind opaque, impenetrable terminology. I think there are limited instances that "conspiracy theory" should be used in Wikipedia's voice. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this thread is finished. You are repeating yourself, and there is no need to repeat the refutations of your repetitions too.
 * I will not answer your next contribution since this response will also apply to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. They are clearly value laden as they are terms used to suggest claims made by the subject are not credible. Additionally, they are often applied with cynicism in sources. As an encyclopedia we really shouldn't be using tabloid type labels. Unlike pseudoscience these are labels that are (almost) always applied to people, not a theory. Springee (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC) EDIT: In reply to LordPeterII's correct concern below, I'm clarifiying that I was thinking of "conspiracy theorist" since that is applied to people. I'm less concerned with "conspiracy theory" when applied to a thing since there are no BLP concerns. Springee (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a question, what do you mean with "are (almost) always applied to people, not a theory"? Afaik they are applied first to theories, and only secondary to people who adhere to these theories. Has there ever been an example of a person being accused of being a "conspiracy theorist", without also giving a conspiracy theory which they follow? I have not heard of such a case - and which convinces me that the similarity with pseudoscience is quite striking. (That's solely about your second point, I can understand your concerns about tabloids.) --LordPeterII (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, I was thinking of "conspiracy theorist" since that is how I often see this used. Conspiracy theory can still be problematic but it is rarely applied to a BLP.  I've added a clarification note. Springee (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The parallel is accurate. Caution is warranted when labeling a person in this way, but that's true of many other entirely valid descriptions. Talk pages are there to debate the borderline cases if necessary; the basic principle is sound. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I do agree that "conspiracy theorist" is less a value-laden label and more a decently defined term. This would also apply to things like "flat earther" or "climate change denier" and thus don't fall into the same class as the other value-laden labels as LABEL currently points to. We still should be making sure that enough RSes use the term before we can use it as there are subjective edges to these terms. But my issue is that these are terms that are not neutral descriptors and remain pejoratives. Similarly, there are terms that are positive, non neutral descriptors that work in the opposite way, like "philanthropist", "savant", and "genius", which we should also be similarly careful about in the same manner. All these fall into a class of descriptors that we may be able to say factually in Wikivoice (not being the LABELs), but absolutely need to be justified in article body text somewhere using the RSes that use the terms, and which should not be treated as objective terms to introduce the topic in the lede. Thus, the oppose for this is that this points to the need for a new class on this page (WTW) to deal with these types of terms. --M asem (t) 15:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither Support Nor Oppose. "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" should be used with in-text attribution, as it tends to vary with the perspective of source issuing the characterization; it is far from objective. Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's silly. What about Chemtrails, the Phantom time hypothesis or Saddam Hussein's stargate? Failure to WP:ASSERT the obvious is actually a violation of NPOV because it gives the impression the conspiracism aspect is "just somebody's view", as well as being a symptom of muddle-headed relativism. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Alexbrn—the aim is not to pull the wool over the readers' eyes. Even if it is reliably sourced that someone is a conspiracy theorist, we are giving the reader more information when we say who is considering the person a conspiracy theorist. That is best accomplished by means of in-text attribution. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We WP:ASSERT what is not seriously in dispute, to remain WP:NPOV. If, on the other hand, there is serious dispute over whether something is a conspiracy theory then attribution may be useful. Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV is not affected by stating the origin of the characterization. Bus stop (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is, for the reason given in WP:ASSERT. Furthermore, there is almost never one ("the") origin of such knowledge. We don't say stuff like "David Icke is a conspiracy theorist according to Edith Trellis" because that would be misleading garbage. Alexbrn (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not be running around stating willy-nilly that people are conspiracy theorists because that is a serious charge. And again we are here to inform the reader, not pull the wool over the readers' eyes. Bus stop (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, no "willy nilly", but when some fucker like Icke is undoubtedly, per RS, a conspiracy theorist, we just say it. To be neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Identifying someone like Icke as a conspiracy theorist is not necessary being neutral, but being accurate in the same manner that identifying a fringe theory as pseudoscience is being accurate. The term of "conspiracy theorist" as with "pseudoscience" should not be taken as neutral terms, though ones that can be said in Wikivoice without attribution (as long as fully justified in prose in the same article w/ sources). It's important on this distinction and non-neutral terms need to still be used carefully in Wikivoice, compared to fully neutral terms like "writer" or "thoery". --M asem  (t) 18:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that shows a fundamental failure to understand core Wikipedia policy. Accuracy (to the preponderant view in sources) is neutrality. I get the impression some participants here have either never read, or have forgotten, WP:NPOV. Get a WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple aspects of neutrality as defined within NPOV. Neutrality w.r.t. capturing the dominant view of the sources as per UNDUE is one facet - and this to me is where reiterating someone as a "conspiracy theorist" if that's a dominant stance in the sources is being accurate to capture the view of sources. Tut there is also neutrality w.r.t. to tone and language that we use to write to that as to maintain WP's impartial/dispassionate role, and that's where we recognize these terms are still loaded language and should not be mixed and prioritized over objective, impartial terms to describe a person. --M asem (t) 19:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * NPOV is a non-negotiable policy. Your inventions about "neutrality w.r.t. to tone and language" are entirely your personal bugbear, and have nothing to do with how Wikipedia should be written to be neutral. Of course the WP:TONE of Wikipedia should be aligned with respectable sources, but that doesn't mean we write with some kind of squeamish pappy language that evades reality, as you seem to advocate. Alexbrn (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And all I'm saying is that with terms like "conspiracy theorist" or "philanthropist", terms that we can state in Wikivoice without attribution when there is strong agreement in RS but that still carry a non-neutral tone, these should absolutely not be in the first sentence of the lede, or at least not prior to the standard, more objective descriptors of one's career that nearly every other BLP/BIO article leads off with. If these are the most notable facets of the person, they can likely be brought up in the second sentence of the lede; if not the case, but they still are key parts of the notability for a person, they still can be brought up in the lede. But to highlight them in the first lede sentence violatesWP:BLPSTYLE in addition to TONE. Delegating it to the second sentence, at worst, while keeping it in Wikivoice doesn't violate part of NPOV and makes sure this well-recognized detail is still placed in a high position in the article. --M asem (t) 19:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Philanthropy is an analogous case. If somebody is (in RS) pre-eminently a philanthropist, like George Peabody, then Wikipedia simply asserts that. The problem with "philanthropist" is that some Wikipedians seem to want to redefine it as meaning "somebody who once gave to charity". In my (perhaps cynical) view, the main purpose of the word philanthropist on Wikipedia is to help identify UPE editors writing bios. Alexbrn (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn—you are arguing to collapse the characterizations that you find in sources into a pigeonholing of the person being so-characterized. This is pulling the wool over the readers' eyes. We serve our purposes better by expanding on the one-word or two-word characterization that you are arguing for. Instead of stuffing the person into a box that is dismissive of the person, we should be providing a more fully-worded description of the person, while adhering to the sources as faithfully as possible. Wikipedia should try not to pigeonhole people into one-word or two-word descriptions. That is dismissive of the person being so-described. We are here to inform the reader; to the greatest extent possible the reader should be allowed to reach their own conclusions. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice straw man. I agree. If somebody is other things besides a conspiracy theorist, we says those too. Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are in essence arguing to spoon-feed digested information to readers. The reader does not need you to digest information for them, at least not subjective information that is highly dismissive of a person called a "conspiracy theorist". That can be used but it should have in-text attribution. Bus stop (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Another straw man. I'm not arguing to "digest" anything. If, in high-quality sources, somebody is indisputably a conspiracy theorist, we WP:ASSERT that straight. NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are primarily discussing extreme examples. I don't know enough about David Icke to weigh in knowledgeably. But in instances in which the characterization is not crystal clear we should err on the side of providing the reader with more rather than less information. "Conspiracy theorist" by itself does not cut the mustard without in-text attribution. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Our readers are presented with more accurate (less misleading) information if they are told that David Icke is a conspiracy theorist than if they are told he is "referred to by some as" a conspiracy theorist. We owe this degree of objectivity to our readers, per WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And I will add from my view that I agree this is the category of labels we can state factually in Wikivoice without attribution as long as the sourcing and discussion in the body (as the case in Icke's article) is clearly there to support it. I just have an issue on placement/weight of the term in the lede relative to other terms but not to its use in Wikivoice. --M asem (t) 20:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is laughable that it is the first sentence in the lede: "is an English conspiracy theorist". And, Newimpartial, I did not ever suggest the language "referred to by some as". Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What would you propose? "David Icke is a former footballer who subsequently claimed to be the son of the godhead"? Newimpartial (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first sentence should avoid the term, but it can be brought up in the second. "David Icke is an English writer and lecturer, and former footballer and sports broadcaster. He is a conspiracy theorist, having written more than 20 books promoting his New Age theories and alternative medicine." --M asem (t) 22:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the question is now about where to put "conspiracy theorist" in the lede? Whether first sentence or second might be a point to discuss, but it isn't about whether the term should be used at all because it was a contentious label. I believe discussions about the weight given to/placement of "conspiracy theorist" in a specific article is more a consideration regarding WP:BLP in general. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion if caution should be used with a term or an assertion, even more caution should be used with that term or that assertion, the closer it is to the top of the article. I think placement has bearing on the appropriateness/inappropriateness of a term or assertion. Bus stop (talk) 08:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right, caution is advised the closer something is to the top of an article; I didn't want to disagree with that. But I do feel as this is a point not directly related to the question at hand, which is whether or not the term should come to be included in the "words to watch" section on this MOS page. At least in my personal opinion, there is a huge different in having a lede start with "Person X is a conspiracy theorist" (if that's what they are primarily notable for; most of the time it should not be in the first sentence) as opposed to "Person X is a racist heretic": The first example would be something to be discussed on the talk page, the second example is something I would likely immediately revert because it is just much, much more contentious label. So I believe there's a huge difference in quality between some of the current contentious labels (such as "racist" or "heretic"), and "conspiracy theorist". And placement position is a valid point for discussion, but e.g. with "racist heretic" it doesn't matter if it was in the first or second sentence, as that will 100% need an in-text attribution or even outright removal (at least in a BLP, not talking about people from 1000 AD or sth). --LordPeterII (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. WP:FRINGE is a more important policy than WP:LABEL; it is vital that we describe things as conspiracy theories when there is universal or near-universal agreement among the sources.  Taking a fact and treating it as an opinion is a violation of WP:NPOV, and it is a particularly severe problem to do so in a situation where we end up treating a fringe theory as though it has more support or basis than it actually does. More generally, I feel like this is part of an underlying issue with WP:LABEL where there is a risk that it can be used to push for the appearance of neutrality even at the expense of actual neutrality - obviously neutral appearances are important, but actual neutrality (which requires strict factual accuracy according to the best sources available) is the heart of WP:NPOV and is far more important, so when the two conflict LABEL should always and without question be disregarded, and should make that clear in its own text. It is good to seek less dramatic wordings, but if doing so involves sacrificing even the tiniest sliver of accuracy or moves us even the tiniest step away from the consensus of the sources then it is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just on a point of detail, WP:LABEL is part of the MOS, so of little weight in policy-based considerations in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

break: Vote – 28 Jan

 * Support. It is a valid (and probably overdue) discussion, but I have not been convinced that there actually are major problems with its usage on Wikipedia. I commend the attempts by to keep this independent of any specific Wikipedia articles - but I have not yet seen any case in which undue weight or slander has occured in relation to "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" (apart from blatant vandalism and similar, ofc). All the examples brought up in the posts above were not really contentious. Additionally, I am convinced by the similarity to "pseudoscientific", so I do not see how "conspiracy theory" should deserve a different treatment. They certainly both are terms that should not be trifled with; but where they are used overwhelingly by reliable sources, I have no reservations in using them. Any case where they might be problematic is imo already sufficiently covered by WP:BLP, so there is no need to amend the specific guideline here.
 * As a side note, this vote is currently not very easily visible; could this be formatted a bit better to be separate from the primary discussion which advocates the polar opposite? --LordPeterII (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The sciences and the social sciences are not the same. You are saying "Additionally, I am convinced by the similarity to 'pseudoscientific', so I do not see how 'conspiracy theory' should deserve a different treatment." Wouldn't "conspiracy theory" more likely be associated with the "social sciences" and "pseudoscience" more likely be associated with that which purports to be science? Bus stop (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I... am afraid I can't follow you . What do you mean with that? In my opinion, both are concerned with theories that are dismissed by the majority. Sure there are differences, as pseudoscientific theories are mostly related to the natural sciences. But as with e.g. vaccines and autism, where the natural sciences have disproved a correlation, it gave birth to a conspiracy theory. So I believe the two are related, although it probably falls into the realm of social sciences to investigate why a conspiracy theory becomes popular. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there are absolute answers in science. Not so in the social sciences. The social sciences are dominated by opinions. We can speak of something being pseudoscience with more assuredness than we can speak of something being a conspiracy theory. You are saying "I do not see how 'conspiracy theory' should deserve a different treatment". But it should deserve slightly different treatment. We can be confident in saying something is pseudoscience. If we are going to say something is a conspiracy theory, we are going out on a limb. We may be wrong. Just because a bunch of opinion-makers dismiss something does not mean they are right. I understand that we adhere to the findings of reliable sources. But opinions should be treated more carefully than the facts that emerge from the hard sciences. Bus stop (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as an aspiring physicist I can say that I do not personally believe in absolute answers in natural sciences (I believe that's what you mean with "science"). I do believe natural sciences can give us very good and substantiated answers, but any of these might be overturned (or amended) in the future in the light of new research (for example, there even is tentative evidence that the laws of physics might be spatially variable, which could have all sorts of implications similar to science fiction). I understand your point, and in a way you may be right. However, take my example - or better, let's take three examples:
 * Vaccines and autism: This is a theory about medical effects/correlations that should in theory be subject to the scrutiny of the natural sciences. And indeed, the scientific community disproved this correlation as a myth. We even know who started it; the whole thing is scientifically debunked (which, ofc, doesn't mean that any vaccine ever will be safe from any side effect). Yet the conspiracy theory persists - it's directly going against natural science. Just as with pseudoscience, there's not much involvement of social sciences except maybe to investigate why the myth persists.
 * QAnon: This arguable is a prime example of your stance. It's completely unrelated to science, and revolves around a conspiracy within society that is not related to the natural sciences much. It's basically just a claim that you either believe or not, and frankly I don't see many options to ever disprove it completely.
 * Modern flat Earth beliefs: That's an interesting one, because it has historical roots. It is subject to scrutiny by the natural sciences because it revolves around things unrelated to human society that can be measured. Incidentally, the theory itself is also labeled as pseudoscientific in the lede of the main article here: Flat Earth. So there's at least sometimes a significant overlap between "pseudoscientific" and "conspiracy theory". Indeed, there exist multiple easy ways to disprove a flat earth theory, my favourite one being the "ship sinking" into the horizon, or any other thing sufficiently far away like here . As per Ockham's razor, flat earthers struggle to explain this. I'll give another anecdote on how natural sciences are very important for that one: In a video I watched about "flat earth" that tried to explain it, the narrator suggested that gravity was a wrong concept because it would only work with a spherical earth, and thus promptly tried to replace gravity with Aristotle's concept. However, as a physicist I can assure anyone that gravity indeed works very well with a flat earth! There's no reason to criticise gravity here, the physical theory does not require a spherical earth. But it's likely that the narrator was not sufficiently accquinted with physics to realize this.
 * I apologize for the digression. But in conclusion, I do believe that in many cases the two concepts "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theory" are closely related. There are slight differences, and certain alleged conspiracies are beyond the realm of the natural sciences. That doesn't mean there is much of a difference in treatment: Pseudoscience is a theory that is rejected by scientific consensus. Conspiracy theory is a theory that is rejected by scientific and/or societal consensus. Whichever consensus is reported by reliable sources, that's what we work with. We don't have to have absolute answers in either case - and if flat earthers are ever proven correct and achieve scientific consensus, well, I'll be dammned, then I'll vote to remove that conspiracy label from them and report that the earth is flat (but I still reserve the right to not believe it personally). --LordPeterII (talk) 12:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * since Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to be doing the science, it doesn't really matter, so we depend on sources. — Paleo  Neonate  – 18:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Opinions and facts are different. In Natural science we deal with facts; in Social science we deal with opinions. This is a simplification, perhaps a gross simplification, but I think it is generally the case. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This may he a tangent, but opinions and facts are different. In Natural science we deal with facts; in Social science we deal with opinions should be a self-disqualifying statement in terms of WP:CIR. Health data, for example, do not magically change from "fact" to "opinion" and back again depending on whether a biologist or a health geographer is working with it. Nor does an interview become more or less of an opinion when it is given to (or from) a journalist, an historian or a scientist. Confusing "natural science" vs. "social science" with "fact" vs. "opinion" (or with quantitative vs. qualitative data) is a simple category error that no competent editor should be making, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody is requiring you to accept my observations as to where "pseudoscience" differs from "conspiracy theory". But they are two different terms. And they are not interchangeable. Starting from this premise it stands to reason that one of the terms more often is contingent on facts and the other of the terms is more often contingent on opinions. But I don't really want to belabor this point any further. It is an observation that I am making and it is your prerogative to disagree with it. Bus stop (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bus stop, I think you're wrong. A statement like "Nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll started in 1946" is not a scientific statement.  Depending upon your POV, history is either a social science or non-science.  But no matter how you choose to classify the academic field, that sentence still reports a fact, not an opinion.  The relationship between Supply and demand is a matter of social sciences, not natural sciences, and it's a fact, not an opinion.  When you tax an optional good more, people consume less of it than they would if it was cheaper:  that's a fact, not opinion, and not natural sciences.  The average American woman's annual income is lower than the average American man's income:  fact, not opinion, and not about natural sciences.  US mothers have been more likely to stop working during the pandemic than US fathers:  fact, not opinion, and not about natural sciences.  People might have opinions about these facts (e.g., some people believe that income differences matter, and others don't; some people believe that it's desirable to use taxes to reduce consumption, and others don't, etc.), but the facts are still facts, even if those facts are not determined through the scientific method.
 * This is IMO not an unusual error. There's been a huge cultural shift over the last couple of decades, in which "science" is The Truth™, and everything else is wrong or merely a subjective opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —as I said, "This is a simplification, perhaps a gross simplification". I don't want to dwell on the distinction between "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theory". You are obviously making some good points. I regret even weighing in to the distinction between "pseudoscience" and "conspiracy theory". But it is good that we are having this discussion. I think there are special concerns that go with the use of the term "conspiracy theory". I am definitely not saying we can't use the term "conspiracy theory". But here is the problem: the characterization of something as a conspiracy theory is a conclusion. I do not think readers come to Wikipedia for conclusions about topics that may be characterized as conspiracy theories. In my opinion readers come to Wikipedia to get up to speed on a topic. In my opinion readers come to Wikipedia because they want to become well versed on a topic. If we only tell them that something is a conspiracy theory and fail to tell them why it is considered a conspiracy theory, we aren't really fulfilling our role. And while telling them why it is a conspiracy theory, I think we should also tell them of countervailing opinions, if any exist. They want to come away informed. They want to know what factors apply in addition to learning that something is a "conspiracy theory". Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that why readers come to Wikipedia differs according to the subject. If you're here because someone called and said "We're at the hospital – the baby has Scaryitis" then you might very well just want to know the "conclusion".  If you're trying to "get up to speed" about whether your demented relative's story about dozens of people being secretly involved in John F. Kennedy assassination has any basis in reality, then you probably want to know the "conclusion".  You probably don't want Wikipedia to pussy-foot around and "bury the lede" so you can make up your own mind later.
 * I do not think that the evidence indicates that most readers want to become well-versed on a topic. The median reader spends mere seconds looking at an article.  That is not the behavior of someone who wants to become well-versed on a topic.  There might be a few readers who read whole articles, and there's no harm in explaining everything for those people, but I doubt that most readers, on most articles, read the entire first paragraph. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —I'm speaking colloquially. I have no idea what "readers want". It is interesting to me that some want to have no dos and don'ts associated with the use of the term "conspiracy theory". Why does that sentiment exist? Is there no guidance that can be offered on the use of this term? It is a term rife with possibilities for abuse. Not only is it sloppily defined but it is used to place ideas out of the realm of consideration. I have been concocting guidelines on how to use the term responsibly. In the final analysis I don't know what those guidelines should be. I would recommend caution when applying the term in the context of current events, especially not-totally-resolved current controversies. This is a polarized discussion. The prevailing sentiment is that the term should be used freely. I dissent from that opinion. Bus stop (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there are a variety of reasons. Perhaps some don't think written guidance is needed because they don't see any serious problems.  In the absence of problems, written guidance would be WP:CREEPY.
 * A more significant concern appears to be that any such guidance is likely to make it harder to write accurate, actually-neutral articles, because the guidance could be a cudgel in the hands of crackpots. Imagine that you're writing about an ardent proponent of the idea that a shadowy group of people secretly control the world.  Imagine that every single reliable source you can find uses the exact term conspiracy theorist.  And imagine that a POV pusher (who "just happens" to believe in this dubious idea) shows up and says "Oh, no, you can't say that!  That's a 'value-laden label', and it's not 'neutral' to use the everyday, normal, plain English term for someone who believes that a group of people secretly control the world, especially not in 'wikivoice'.  That's not neutral because you're 'taking sides' by believing the reliable sources."  Wikipedia is actually supposed to 'take sides' when all (or nearly all) of the reliable sources agree on a given point:  The Earth is not flat, The Da Vinci Code is fiction, QAnon's claims about satanic cannibals are false, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not at the mercy of POV pushers who believe dubious ideas. In my opinion Wikipedia is at the mercy of well-established editors, even administrators. I don't place a strong emphasis on policy. Policy is subject to abuse. Nowhere in this thread have I argued the use of the term should be banned or even curtailed in any way. Language usage is what we are discussing, in my opinion. There is no harm done in erring on the side of providing more rather than less information, when the term "conspiracy theory" is used. And there is no harm in erring on the side of providing in-text attribution when the term "conspiracy theory" is used. Most of our policies say "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Bus stop (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, most of our guidelines say that.
 * I think you're familiar with the problem of Buy one, get one free for paid editing? It's the same thing with POV pushers.  Policy (and guidelines, and advice in general) is subject to abuse by POV pushers.  As a purely practical matter, if we write down that this is a Bad Word™, then we will spend time justifying its use to people who do not want Wikipedia to be a neutral encyclopedia.
 * Yes, there is a harm in providing in-text attribution. Here's an example:  Where do you put the in-text attribution for the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories title?  Let's say that you decide the title is exempt, but you need in-text attribution in the lead.  How to do you write that in-text attribution without any of the following happening:
 * filling the article with the thousands of sources that use that term for that subject,
 * making it sound like this is just some people's opinions and that other, possibly reasonable, people disagree,
 * sounding stupid?
 * Keep in mind that phrases like "the overwhelming majority of sources and all reliable scholarship" is not WP:INTEXT attribution.
 * And once you say that, okay, we should have INTEXT attribution when it's disputed, but not in these obvious cases, then you have added absolutely nothing, because that is exactly what the current rules are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We should be circumspect in our use of this term. We should not casually and blithely label an idea in a currently unresolved hot topic of discussion a "conspiracy theory". Under such circumstances certain restraints should apply. We do not want to be giving short shrift to an idea, even if a source dismisses it as a "conspiracy theory". Encyclopedias tread lightly on currently unresolved questions. Readers can think for themselves. Our role is to provide them with good quality information relative to issues, not to "inform" them that something is a "conspiracy theory". We really have to fulfill the proper role of an encyclopedia. That's what this is really about. Bus stop (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. The term « conspiracy theorist » should be used in lede only if several WP:RS do, identical with « rapist » and « dictator ». No more, no less. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: LordPeterII pointed out a flaw in my statement which I think points out a significant distinction. There is a difference between calling a thing a conspiracy theory and calling a person a conspiracy theorist.  A theory has almost no BLP implications.  Labeling a person a theorist is clearly in the area of BLP.  Also a theory is generally applied to a singular thing while actions, activities, etc of a person are more complex and it's harder to classify them as clearly.  Regardless, I can see the arguments for saying "conspiracy theory" should be treated as a non-contentious label while I think "conspiracy theorist" must be treated as a contentious label.  Springee (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This, in general. We have chosen to be "proactive" to making sure that flawed science and medical ideas as well as false malicious theories involving public figures are called out quickly, as per SCIRS, MEDRS and BLP, so identifying things as pseudoscience, fringe theories, and conspiracy theories as fact (assuming well-backed as such) in a lede sentence is appropriate. But BLP requires us to treat living persons far more carefully and be less aggressive towards calling them out on being "bad people"; we are required to write about them in a dispassionate voice. We are not here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and make sure that the reader immediately knows said person is "bad" because they are a conspiracy theories. Which means, that while we still can call a person a conspiracy theorist in Wikivoice when the sources support it without attribution, this must be treated with a lot more care and consideration and hence be placed later in ledes  (eg second sentence if that's what they're primarily notable for).
 * Also, as pointed out above, we still have to watch for cases where these labels like "conspiracy theorist" and "philanthropist" are poorly/inappropriately added either as OR by an editor w/ no support from sources, or where only a couple sources rather than many sources support the term. I'm working on the assumption that we can use these terms in Wikivoice only when a large number of sources explicitly use the term so that we're not evoke OR or cherry picking here. --M asem (t) 14:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A project-wide and general problem is taking unclear sourcing and running with it and in the process turning questionable support in sources into a full-fledged assertion. At Talk:Jordan Peterson it was debated whether Peterson should be called a philosopher. Multiple poor quality sources were presented. This is an instance I think in which we are not justified in stating something in Wikivoice and without attribution. Bus stop (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's also a good example where the body of the article doesn't support the label. I think this is often missed in article level debates.  We really shouldn't be asking what external sources say before adding a label to the lead.  We should be acting as if the article body is the only source for writing the lead and then ask if the label is justified.  If not based on the body of the article then either the body needs to be fixed first or the label shouldn't be used.  Springee (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, in the case of Peterson, "YouTube philisopher" is a reliably-sourced but not universal label, which could therefore be used with attribution. The problem with the Talk page proposal, as I recall, was that some wanted to extract "philosopher" to include in the lede based on "YouTube philosopher", which would make about as much sense as extracting "philosopher" from "armchair philosopher" or "barstool philosopher". Newimpartial (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is a problem. People might reliably call me an "NFL armchair quarterback" but that doesn't make me an "NFL quarterback".  Springee (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think sometimes the lede of an article is used as a billboard. Summarizing is different from advertising, which is what billboards are good at. We should err on the side of summarizing. Based on this reason I am not sure terms like "conspiracy theorist" should ever appear in ledes. More oblique language is preferable for use in the lede. The danger of using "conspiracy theorist" in the lede is the danger of pigeonholing a person. A more openminded approach should be taken. As points out "we are required to write about them in a dispassionate voice". Pigeonholing and dispassion are mutually exclusive. The prominence of the lede section of an article exacerbates potential problems associated with pigeonholing. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

break: Vote – 29 Jan

 * I retract the following suggestion. Further discussion has revealed that this approach would not be helpful and rather seems to confuse people. That is actually an interesting observation, that I wasn't even clear on myself. But I agree that this is right: "Conspiracy theory" for a thing is not contentious, "conspiracy theorist" for a person might -potentially- be a contentious label. But that brings me to a follow-up problem: What if we describe someone as a follower of a conspiracy theory?
 * Like, for example instead of saying someone "is a Christian", we would say they "are a member of a Christian congregation". This basically means the same thing - is there any difference in the two phrasings?
 * Now if instead of saying "Person X is a conspiracy theorist" (generic label), we would say "Person X is a proponent of conspiracy theory Y" (specific label) - would that improve the situation? I honestly do not know, and would be glad to hear some opinions.
 * Personally, I am leaning towards that this would be an improvement and less contentious. Because someone who, for example, has publicly voiced their believe in and support for QAnon, would probably not feel slandered if they were described as a follower of QAnon, with QAnon itself being described as a conspiracy theory. Same applies to flat earthers; I do not believe we are breaking NPOV if we describe them as adhering to the flat earth conspiracy theory as opposed to just generic "conspiracy theorists". But this is thinking pretty meta and yeah, I would love some feeback on this. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theorist" should probably be reserved for when the person is known to adhere to multiple conspiracy theories. If the people is only known to adhere to one specific conspiracy theory, that doesnt make them a conspiracy theoriest in broad terms and likely better to say alternative wording. --M asem  (t) 13:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. If we would need to list several conspiracy theories in a row, it would be more elegant to just use "conspiracy theorist" so as not to block the reading flow. But that would already be the first exception to the rule - the more I think about it, the less I believe that this would actually be an improvement or a solution. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know most sources don't use it this way but I would distinguish between those who believe/promote a theory with those who originate a theory. I promote Newtonian physics but that doesn't make me a physisist. If I promote a well established theory but add nothing to it am I a theorist or simply a proponent/promotor of? Beyond that, I do agree that it should probably be more than two theories before we even consider the theorist label. We should also consider the balance of their work and time span. Springee (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No @, that's not what I meant, and I'm afraid I must disagree with you on this. This is only about the potential of it being a contentious label, not the term's meaning. (You can ofc have your own opinion about this, but we cannot simply go against both reliable sources and general usage in the MOS. It would confuse the heck out of ordinary people like Wikipedia's readers.) . What "conspiracy theorist" means is used consistently within reliable sources, and also clearly defined, for example here: Cambridge Merriam-Webster (as was already quoted above). So "conspiracy theorist" is equivalent to "proponent of a conspiracy theory". This is a notable difference to other cases, like in your physicist example. The definitions also specifically refer to "a" (single) conspiracy theory, so there is no need to wait until they support multiple conspiracy theories. And really, how could the label be contentious if used while the person believes in one conspiracy theory, and not contentious if they believe in multiple? I don't really get anymore what this is about; just that my suggestion would probably do more harm than good. I'll retract it. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. That wasn't meant to be a reply to you and I also understand that how I was defining it (the person who creates/invents the theory) is not how it is normally used (a person who promotes a conspiracy theory).  I was just putting that out there.  Springee (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It may be true that "conspiracy theorist" is equivalent to "proponent of a conspiracy theory", but that truth may not be known to all of the readers. Since "_____ theorist" in other contexts often means that the person originated or significantly developed the theory, it might be clearer to use a slightly different phrasing, even if it's not strictly necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree with Masem that alternative wording should be preferred. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support not a value judgement, if reliable sources indicate that someone who engages/has engaged in concocting, espousing, promoting, or profiting from conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theorist, we can fairly, and accurately, refer to them as a conspiracy theorist. It's non-controversial. Acousmana (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the importance of this discussion, should we maybe make this a WP:RFC to give other editors a chance to voice their opinion? I stumbled upon this discussion by pure chance, and I believe we should give more people a chance to participate. However, I am not sure how to initate such a thing and would prefer an experienced editor to open a RFC, if possible.
 * Also, I have added a line to indicate where the voting starts, to avoid confusion with the discussion above. I hope this is appropriate. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Including it in the list of words to avoid would seriously impede writing about conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. It would be the wet dream of whitewashers. The term is not an arbitrary label, although it can be and is occasionally used as such by people who do not know what they are talking about, typically in "so are you!" retorts. Conspiracy theorists do not like the term because it unmasks them, and they have fought against its use since it exists, just as pseudoscientists did and do against the term "pseudoscience". We should not fall for their self-serving rhetoric, we should not repeat their bad logic, and we should go on calling a spade a spade when reliable sources call it a spade. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Should we apply that same logic to "racist", "neo-nazi", "pedophile", etc? I mean we need to expose those people! Who cares about IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If all reliable sources agree that someone is one of those, of course we should. If you are trying to argue that Wikipedia editors know better than reliable sources and we should second-guess them, that stance will not get you very far. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That depends on does it violate our rules on crime. But yes if a majority of sources use a label that is not an accusation of criminal activity, yes we should say it in our voice.Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Here we have a usage from merely one day ago. At the beginning of the video Bret Weinstein says "that term is simply used to make it go away". Weinstein is referencing the term "conspiracy theory". Just because a reliable source uses a term does not mean we should use it. An encyclopedia should exercise caution using terminology like "conspiracy theory/conspiracy theorist". Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * that term is simply used to make it go away So what? When a vendor rings at my door trying to sell me something I do not need, I use the word "No" to make him go away, and there is nothing wrong with that. The point is not the purpose of the word but its meaning. Do reliable sources say it applies to a situation or do they not? When they use the word, who are you to say "no, that's wrong"? If you have good reasons to mistrust them, you can try to get their reliability taken down at WP:RSP, that is all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clearing that up, . You say "When a vendor rings at my door trying to sell me something I do not need, I use the word "No" to make him go away, and there is nothing wrong with that." Therefore the term is obfuscatory. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That sentence obfuscated whatever you tried to say. I have no idea what path your alleged logic followed to arrive at that conclusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Clarification: This whole discussion is about the idea that the sentence "this is a conspiracy theory" is never legitimate.
 * Only if that idea is true, only if "this is a conspiracy theory" is never legitimate, then it is justified to avoid the term in all cases. The literature on conspiracy theories will tell you, if you actually stoop to look at it, that the idea is wrong. It is itself a fringe idea. Conspiracy theorists use that fringe idea to try and shoot down the argument that their fantasies are conspiracy theories. That is what I meant above by "self-serving". The only reasons I can think of why anyone would want to include the term in the words-to-avoid list are: they believe in the fringe idea that "this is a conspiracy theory" is never legitimate, or they do not know the first thing about conspiracy theories, or they care less about how well Wikipedia articles reflect reality than about other goals unknown to me (such as the blood pressure of conspiracy theorists when they read the Wikipedia articles about themselves). --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling—opaque language should be used more carefully than self-explanatory language. Bus stop (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That comes as a surprise to me. I always thought self-explanatory language needed more work. Again, you failed to communicate anything. I do not know whether you are trying to say you did not understand what I said, or whether you think, for a reason you did not share with us, that the term "conspiracy theory" is opaque, or whether it is something else I cannot fathom at the moment. It's okay with me if you write in such an opaque style, as long as you don't expect me to understand it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling—these terms shouldn't be used in Wikivoice because they are gutter terminology, unbefitting of an encyclopedia. This is not to say that they can't be used. Any words can be found in an encyclopedia. But there is nothing self-explanatory about this language and in fact it is misleading. Does one person "conspire" with themself about one unfounded idea? This is fanciful language that careful writers should avoid unless for instance showing how someone expressed themself. If Mr. Crass said something was a conspiracy theory then we say that Mr. Crass said something was a conspiracy theory. But we shouldn't toss this language around freely as if it were 100% acceptable. At the least it is in poor taste in an encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This argument that terms which are defined and used in the highest quality of academic sources are in poor taste, is in poor taste IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are seizing on the least important part of my argument, . Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is true. You are disparaging "conspiracy theory" as "gutter terminology" or "in poor taste", which is contradicted by its use in the highest quality of sources. But more than that, you are pretending that these questions of terminology are essentially aesthetic, and then not offering any criterion for aesthetic judgement except your own personal preference. And that is in poor taste IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not addressing aesthetics at all. Impenetrable language is problematic when you are trying to explicate ideas, which is what an encyclopedia tries to do. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

But "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are not "impenetrable language" - they are in fact clearly defined and widely-used terms. That should really be WP:BLUESKY at this point, while refusal to accept that is a WP:SEALION move. And the phases "gutter language" and "poor taste" both express aesthetic judgements and nothing else - if you don't understand the terms you are using, please don't use them. Newimpartial (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] Did you just say that the term "conspiracy theory" is "gutter terminology"? If not, please ignore the following.
 * Does one person "conspire" with themself about one unfounded idea? makes no sense to me at all. A conspiracy theory is indeed an unfounded idea, but it is called "conspiracy theory" not because the conspiracy theorist "conspires with himself" in order to make the theory, but because the idea contains an assumption about a conspiracy between several people, none of which is the conspiracy theorist. :::::::I am not familiar with what things people exactly say to each other in gutters, but I suspect "conspiracy theory" is only very rarely one of them. It is used by academics when characterising ideas though, and our article Conspiracy theory tells you what they mean when they say it. Maybe you should try reading it instead of trying to think of what it might mean from looking at the two words it consists of? Words do not need to be self-explanatory, it is enough that you can look up what they mean. Otherwise, writing an encyclopedia would be fruitless.
 * You seem to think that unfounded claim of "A is gutter language" or "A is in poor taste" are valid reasons for not using the word "A". They are not. You need real reasons instead. For example, you could show, using reliable sources, that there is a consensus among academics that A is purely subjective. (You can't, because there is no such consensus.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling—we also have articles like Mike the headless chicken. But you are correct, we have an article Conspiracy theory. Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

break: Vote – 1 Feb

 * Support An article about someone who was recently elected to national office and is prominent primarily because they subscribe to numerous conspiracy theories (as documented by numerous reliable sources) was attacked as "biased" by several people (who presumably are politically aligned with the subject or their party) solely because the subject is described as a conspiracy theorist. One of the complainants was broadly banned from discussion of post-1992 American politics because of tendentious edits and attacks on the good faith of Wikipedia editors, specifically and broadly, in connection to that specific article. Subsequently they created this discussion. There was nothing wrong with the abovementioned article or its use of the term "conspiracy theorist", and no evidence has been presented here of any such problem with any other article. When asked for evidence, they write here "Some specific cases come to mind" without mentioning any such cases or that they aren't allowed to mention them, and "but it's a core issue and a general problem on Wikipedia" which simply isn't true. I think the change is baseless and unwarranted, and that this entire discussion is a poor use of Wikipedia resources. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia articles need to be able to use clear language to describe fringe viewpoints and those that hold them, and there is nothing wrong with labeling these things with the commonly accepted terms. -- Jayron 32 20:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this illustrates an issue with this question. Are we asking if it's contentious to call a thing a conspiracy theory or a person a conspiracy theorist.  Based on the discussion above editors aren't decided if they should be treated the same way or not.  I do tend to think even "conspiracy theory" qualifies as a contentious label but I also feel the bar for calling a particular theory a conspiracy theory is much lower than calling a person a conspiracy theorist.  Even if RS say the label applies I don't think anyone would see "conspiracy theorist" as a good/positive label.  Do we think a BLP subject would agree to being called a conspiracy theorist?  If the answer is "no" to either question then I would say the criteria for being a contentious label has been met.  Anyway,  I think  is correct, this needs a proper RfC.  Springee (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If a thing is not good or positive, it would be incorrect to use words that imply that it is. -- Jayron 32 20:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree we should make it clear something is negative if RSs say it is. I'm also not as worried about calling a particular theory "conspiracy".  I'm more concerned when a person is labeled a conspiracy theorist.  We may agree with RSs that the label has been properly applied but that doesn't mean the label isn't contentious.  Contentious labels aren't something we should never use, just something we should use with care or with clear attribution.  So it would be no issue to call the faked moonlanding theory a conspiracy theory.  Springee (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support no change - Since we infer using reliable sources it's unnecessary. — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding a new class for words like "conspiracy theorist" and "philanthropist"?
I think there's agreement from above that words like "conspiracy theorist" and "philanthropist" and others are terms that are not value-laden labels (though may have edge cases we have to watch for from editor OR and weak sourcing) which likely can be said in Wikivoice when the sourcing and prose is sufficiently there to back it. But I think we should still recognize that these still overall fall into "Words that may introduce bias" - they are simply not neutral/impartial terms even if backed by sources when describing persons. So I would suggest if we should need another category within WTW to include these terms, explaining they can be used in Wikivoice when appropriate backed by sources and where caution should be used on these terms. --M asem (t) 15:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Opppose suppression of academic term with a well defined history of usage in peer-reviewed publications.-- Moxy 🍁 21:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Opppose We should not be mealy-mouthed, if people don't like it, they can always stop peddling conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose-ish out of a general desire to avoid guideline creep and the feeling that this is adequately covered by calling the page "Words to watch". I can see the motivation behind it, and it's not an unreasonable concern, but adding a new class of words doesn't seem necessary to me. (Nothing we can say in a guideline or a style manual will forestall bad-faith complaints, and good-faith disagreements can be settled without a new word-class.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My concern is that sorta related to Moxy's oppose, we have a series of terms that do not fall into value-laden labels, some which I would fully agree that in time, gain academic usage, but in the short term, NOT#NEWS concern, may be applied far too early or with far too little sourcing. (That might point to RECENTISM as a better place). --M asem (t) 03:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, OK, but recentism is a systemic issue that arises inevitably from the nature of a wiki-based encyclopedia. What would a new carve-out do to change anything, except to give POV pushers who support a pseudoscience or a conspiracy theory another thing to point to when making bad-faith arguments and sealioning to keep accurate language out of articles? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Conspiracy theory/conspiracy theorist are used to dismiss ideas and people. This language is opaque instead of being informative. But there is an important point associated with these terms—that is who or what is leveling the charge. This is from 2 days ago. Bret Weinstein is an educated man. Notice how he uses the term "conspiracy theory". He says "this was never a conspiracy theory in fact that term is used to make it go away". He is implying that a hypothesis is called a "conspiracy theory" to "make it go away". That is the reputation the term has, at least in the mind of this educated man. Shouldn't we use it with caution? Bus stop (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that Bus stop has been banned from Wikipedia for, among other things, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * .-- Moxy 🍁 18:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is logically flawed. That we say people are engaging in peddling a conspiracy theory doesn't mean the term is any more or less contentious, especially if we call a BLP a theorist.  Also, I think we have already decided that just because a BLP has said they stopped engaging in something we don't like we don't retract the label.  Springee (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really, it may be policy flawed (but then I have nothing to add in that regard to what's already been said (by me and others). But its not logically flawed, its really only contentious because people who peddle conspiracy theories want them to be taken seriously, and thus do not like it when they are not. If they were not conspiracy theories RS would not call them thgat, that would call them conspiracies (or theories). We shoulds not and cannot mince our words when we talk about people who peddle Qaunon or Pizzagate.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the exact same reason we say that terms like "racist" or "white supremacist" are contentious? Isn't that the same reason RSs call people racist or white supremacists? Just like "racist", there is no clear line between what is or isn't a conspiracy theory. I don't see how treating conspiracy theorist (the BLP label) the same as we treat "racist" (attributed when RSs broadly say as much, not mentioned if only some RSs say it) is going to harm our readers. BTW, I'm not specifically advocating for or against Masem's proposal. I don't think I understand it well enough to voice a vote one way or the other. Springee (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is saying its not "contentious" we are saying if enough RS say it its only contentious in the same way flat earthism is contentious. We are talking about things that fail wp:fringe.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue is not that these terms shouldn't be used (and in Wikivoice) when they apply because they have more objective nature to them as per the prior section, but they still must be words to watch and used only when there is appropriate backing of sources (as has been outlined above, there are cases when editors may OR-ly applies these terms appropriately, and if only or two sources use these terms compared to dozens, that should stay in the realm of attributed labels), and should be recognized as either pejorative or puffery terms (depending) and thus have an impact on tone and neutrality when writing an article. --M asem (t) 14:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose because WP:LABEL already de facto covers it, and it should say it more clearly rather than making cutouts for specific exceptions. Our policy on contentious labels should cover all such labels, and not have cutouts for each specific word. Loki (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I understand the concerns, but I think that this would just add another category that covers "anything with a connotation". It doesn't matter if people like to be called conspiracy theorist - the term is not insulting the persons themselves, just denoting that they are peddling ideas which mainstream society/science rejects. Reliable sources use the term, and they use a lot of other terms as well - like philanthropist. Does that mean I agree that every person to whom the term philanthropist is applied by reliable sources is a good person in my personal opinion? No it doesn't; but my personal opinion does not matter, what matters are usage in reliable sources. There are hundreds of other words that carry some sort of connotation - heck, even calling someone a scientist implies that they have a certain attitude towards the world.
 * Also, this MoS guideline is not a "law". It's a general guideline to which we adhere, but individual cases will still get discussed on individual talk pages. There may be cases where the usage of "philanthropist" or "conspiracy theorist" is called in question, and a discussion might determine that in this specific case, the label is unwarranted. But I have yet to see a single example where that was the case - currently, there seems to be no problem with its usage on Wikipedia whatsoever, and thus I believe that this discussion was valuable, but there is no need to act differently than before. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing though are these are still "words to watch" - they should not be added without the backing of RSes (as with value-laden labels) even though once backed we can state them in a more factual voice; further, they set a tone, and thus can improperly affect the impartialness of an article if misused, in contrast to more objective terms like "activist" or "businessman", further making these "words to watch". We presently don't have advise on these but going from the above section it would seem to make sense to be clear on these types of words that they can still be potential landminds if misused, though far less of a problem than the value-laden labels. So it seems logical just to set out this class of words just to explain where they sit and that editors are still cautioned about their use. --M asem (t) 17:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —scientists go where the facts lead them. That is not what I would generally think of as an "attitude". Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, "scientist" is a bad example. I believe I originally meant to say something else, but by now I have forgotten. But my statement still stands.
 * I think it is becoming clearer to me now that I simply do not share your concerns: To me, "conspiracy theorist" is not a value-laden label as some of the other examples. In my opinion, the term simply states that a person has publicly voiced their support of a theory that is accepted to be a conspiracy theory. This is not intended to denounce the person, or imply that all of their views are to be discarded. The term can thus also very precisely be applied, as opposed to other labels: For example, is someone who actively works to help refugees and people of colour, but still uses the term "Eskimo" or other outdated and racially charged terms a racist? Maybe, but maybe not - I would guess they are an elder person who still hasn't adjusted to the change in usage for e.g. Eskimo. Here, applying the term "racist" could be very well unwarranted. On the other hand, is someone who says "I believe QAnon is the truth and the earth is flat" a conspiracy theorist, even if they otherwise work as e.g. a mathematician that tries to advance science in his field? The answer is a clear yes, because the term "conspiracy theorist" is so precisely defined. They can still be a great and non-pseudoscience mathematician, but their support of at least one conspiracy theory makes them a conspiracy theorist. That's it.
 * Thus I fail to see how the label could be actively misused, except in a form of blatant vandalism that just adds the label at will to articles without giving any explanation. It's a label, but it's not contentious. And if there ever is a disagreement over its usage - like on the article of some politician - we do not need to judge whether the percentage of sources calling them a conspiracy theorist is sufficient. If they actively and publicly endorse e.g. QAnon - they are a conspiracy theorist. If they do not publicly endorse any conspiracy theory, they are not. There is no ambiguity or nuances as with e.g. "racist". --LordPeterII (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The very specific problem with the "non-value-laden" labels like "conspiracy theorist", "philanthropist", and so forth is these are terms that are a form of characterization rather than classification. We can factually say these in Wikivoice with enough sourcing to back it, something we cannot do at all with value-laden labels -- but the issue is that they do not career the same type of tone and neutrality as typical terms we use to normally classify individuals which usually are based on the career and profession. A "businessperson" is a neutral classification, whereas a "philanthropist" is not. An "activist" is a neutral classification, while a "conspiracy theorist" is not. To that end, ledes on BLPs even where these terms 100% apply should not be leading off with these terms in the lead sentence as they are characterizations and not classifications. For example, whereas "conspiracy theorist" fully applies and backed for Marjorie Taylor Greene, its presence in the leading sentence conflated with "businessperson" and "politician" immediately sets a tone that the article is an attack piece, violating NPOV. That she is a conspiracy theorist (one of the primary things she is noted for) likely can fall into the second or later sentences without losing the information but significantly improving the tone. Hence why these are still "words to watch" because they affect article's tone and impartialness. Again, to stress, this is not about requiring attribution for these types of words. --M asem (t) 16:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —there can be instances in which "conspiracy theory" can be used. And there are many instances in which "conspiracy theory" should not be used. I am referring to those instances of simply being "wrong", "incorrect", "mistaken", etc. The use of "conspiracy theory" in such instances is making more of something than may be warranted. It is sometimes the making of a mountain out of a molehill. My objection to such usages are that they serve the purposes of exaggeration. This is often not accurate language. This is often tantamount to hysteria. Reliable sources are known to be biased. Sometimes we repeat, in Wikipedia's voice, the exact language used by sources. But in other cases we do not. "Conspiracy theory" should be used with caution, often with in-text attribution, and rarely in ledes. Bus stop (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you mean, but I simply cannot follow that argumentation. I simply do not see any examples where the term might be "exaggerating". As I explained above, it is a term that is very clearly and narrowly defined, with little room for mistakes - provided, of course, it is agreed upon what a "conspiracy theory" is. I believe the latter is quite clear, and the discussion above indicates that the term relating to the theories is not under much scrutiny. (I certainly do not wish to discuss whether reliable sources are biased - that is another discussion, and would lead to far away from the question at hand.) This discussion isn't about specific articles, but again, I have not seen any article ever where there was a concern that the label "conspiracy theory" was an exaggeration: Either it fits without doubt, or not at all. As a result, I believe that we need not change the MoS at all. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theorist" may be an easy case that it's nearly always used in black or white, but I know there have been past concerns on terms like "philanthropist", particularly when it is absent the backing of sources using the term. "Oh, this is a person that donates a lot, they must be a philanthropist" is not a sufficiently good reason to use the term in Wikivoice, since there could be other factors involved (numerous business leaders "donate" but these often go to PACs which is absolutely not philantrophic activity.) More so, just a single source using the term isn't sufficient. We should always be using these words 1) when well-backed by sources -- but not requiring attribution and 2) as long as we have a body section that uses those sources in depth to explain the support for the term. --M asem  (t) 19:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, I forgot about that: I actually agree that "philanthropist" is a more difficult term as it isn't as easily defined. I would not mind adding that, but tbh it could just go to the old "value-laden" label. I don't think we need a separate category for that. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still thinking we need that. The terms here ("conspiracy theorist", "philanthropist") are words that have well defined meaning and aren't based on values, but they are terms that can be readily misused, in contrast with value-laden terms which by definition are not well defined to start with. We want value-laden terms to be attributed to some manner while for these non-value-laden terms, we at least want some demonstrate that multiple RSes agree the term correctly applies so that its not a mischaracterization; once we have that, we can use the term factually in Wikivoice, no attribution. --M asem (t) 20:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The potential problem with these terms is the possibility of distilling information unjustifiably. There are more wordy ways of asserting the applicability of concepts such as conspiracy theory, conspiracy theorist, philanthropy, and philanthropist, and those wordier ways are preferable unless the distilled version of these concepts are supported by multiple good quality sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't using "wordy" circumlocutions go against WP:TERSE? Ofc this is a discussion/vote, so everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. But I personally do not believe conspiracy theorist is unduly "distilled" - I rather think it is precise and a clearly defined term which we should be using instead of alternatives. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We should go by what the sources say, and generally avoid encouraging editors to make personal value-judgments on the terms the sources use. I know this is meant well and intended to encourage neutrality as you see it, but in practice this sort of categorization or overreach of WP:LABEL encourages situations where editors end up second-guessing the sources and effectively try to downplay things they personally feel are false, dubious, or objectionable. That's not how we should be deciding our weight and focus. --Aquillion (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You missed the point of the proposal completely. I've agreed that these are terms that as long as the sourcing is there, can be said in a factual manner w/o attribution (no need to downplay), but they are still words that 1) editors may sometimes misuse without the backing of proper sources and 2) even when backed by sources, carry a perojative or puffery tone and thus should be carefully included in language particularly in places like ledes to watch on tone, and require prose explanation in the body to support. --M asem (t) 21:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Reliable sources determine if they should be used. — Paleo  Neonate  – 05:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support so the truth about the covid labLeak and use of Ivermectin is nor suppressed.--204.237.48.192 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @204.237.48.192, you are missing the point of this discussion. This isn't about the "truth" or getting it out - in fact, it never was. Editors like and  have provided arguments that constructively contributed to the discussion, even though consensus might in the end not agree with them. Your point, IP, does not contribute to the discussion at all, and it feels like you aren't even aware what we are discussing. So yeah, please consider going elsewhere; Wikipedia might not be the right place for you :/ --LordPeterII (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: In my opinion, we are not discussing the "suppression of truth". This is the talk page for a guideline of the Manual of Style. This discussion is not directly about content on Wikipedia, although ofc content may be affected by it. However, this is and will not be a discussion about truth. Above I linked to an essay, but WP:Verifiability is canon and states "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.", and WP:FRINGE states that "Statements about the truth of a theory must be based upon independent reliable sources.". We are not discussing "truth" here or how to prevent it from being suppressed. If they feel concerned about it, IP should start a discussion at one of the pages I just linked. But I reckon they are very unlikely to get a consensus for change there.
 * Wikipedia is not censored, and the discussion at hand is not aiming to remove or suppress any information on the site (unless I am missing the point of this discussion completely...), we are merely discussion whether or rather how to apply certain labels. Thus IP should have given a reason to their vote that is related to the discussion, not their personal preferences or fears in regards to certain (conspiracy) theories, no matter how warranted these fears may be. If someone asked you for your favourite dish, you wouldn't answer with "But I'm allergic to fish!" would you? Maybe it's a valid and important piece of information, but it's not an answer to that specific question. (This allegory might sound a bit weird but I'm not sure how to illustrate the discrepancy otherwise.)
 * Maybe the answer was harsh, but I feel it was reasonable and still polite. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia (WP:MAINSTREAM) and we need to identify opinions outside the mainstream and so we use terms such as WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:FRINGE, etc. to maintain a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) – "vandal" could be considered a pejorative term, but there are guidelines on WP:VANDAL and accusing others of vandalism (WP:AOBF) – conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist are valid terms for identifying ideas outside the mainstream – we don't want them misused, but valid mainstream sources should determine what is a conspiracy theory and what is not – cheers, Epinoia (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We follow reliable sources on this issue. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose An encyclopedia should inform readers and if someone reads an article to see what is known about claims, for example, that Obama was not eligible to be POTUS, the article must identify the core fact, namely that such claims are what is popularly known as a conspiracy theory—baseless nonsense that people repeat and which the media reports as being repeated. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This betrays a misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV even is. The proposal states,
 * This is utter rubbish; just because something is a critical or negative statement, does not make it non-neutral, if it is supported by the majority of reliable sources. Does the following sound neutral & impartial to you: He was a "serial killer and sex offender, necrophiliac, and cannibal."? That is an abridged version of a quotation from John Wayne Gacy, and it's perfectly neutral and impartial. Condemnatory and damning, yes; but neutral all the same. You can be neutrally described as a conspiracy theorist, just as you can be neutrally described as a flesh-eating, necrophiliac, serial murderer.  Nothing inherently biased about either description. Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Except those are all different classes of words that have objective definitions without any vague areas; at worse, for things like "sex offender", which is a legal term related to convicted crimes, you may have commentators jump the gun in describing people as that before conviction, but we already have BLP to tell us not to do that until a conviction is made. The terms at the center of concern here are ones where there are subjective bounds (exactly when does someone that peddles falsehoods become a conspiracy theorist? exactly when does someone that donates lots of money become a philanthopist?) but once clearly past those bounds to the point that the terms are well-used in RSes, its not as much a problem. Its not about those terms being biased once they are used regularly in RSes, but unless that is the case, including these terms before then or off the backs of only a few sources is a problem. --M asem (t) 13:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question,
 * is easy: they become a conspiracy theorist, exactly at the point when the preponderance of reliable sources describe them as a conspiracy theorist. And the beauty of it is, we don't even have to define conspiracy theorist or evaluate truth or falsity, in order to determine that. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * is easy: they become a conspiracy theorist, exactly at the point when the preponderance of reliable sources describe them as a conspiracy theorist. And the beauty of it is, we don't even have to define conspiracy theorist or evaluate truth or falsity, in order to determine that. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * is easy: they become a conspiracy theorist, exactly at the point when the preponderance of reliable sources describe them as a conspiracy theorist. And the beauty of it is, we don't even have to define conspiracy theorist or evaluate truth or falsity, in order to determine that. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

*Oppose As others have said we go with RS, we do not second guess RS, we assume that if they say something they have checked (it's why they are RS).Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You already voted over a month ago. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose But I did not. This is still going on? WP:SNOW... --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is why I voted again, I did not realize this was still the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay, how on earth is this still going on? We've had a lot of discussion and voting now, and I think it has become pretty clear that consesus is against any change. Can we close this already and move on? --LordPeterII (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"Slaves" versus "enslaved persons"
Some have decided that nouns denoting oppression or inferior status are bad and should be replaced with adjective + "person". Does that amount to euphemism? In several articles (most recently Haitian Creole), I've seen people change "slaves" to "enslaved persons". To me that's like replacing "died" with "passed away". I'm torn between my usual feeling that WP:AINTBROKE changes merit reversion and curiosity about other people's feelings as to whether "enslaved persons" really is to be preferred. Largoplazo (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you certainly picked a difficult topic! Tbh, if this discussion would have occurred anywhere outside of Wikipedia, I would not have bothered to reply since I would have doubted a calm and objective discussion could occur. Caveat: I do not live in the United States or come from any background with a personal connection to slavery, so I can only argue "from a distance".
 * I will begin by saying that I have had university classes that dealt with Ancient Greek slavery, and our lecturers and my fellow students have used the equivalent of the term "slave" (German "Sklave") in discussion, as it had also been used by the sources employed in said discussion. To list a few where the term occurs:, , , , , , , , , , , , ... – the list could go on for quite a bit. However, all of these are dealing with slaves of antiquity, so there's probably no person alive anymore to know any of the people involved (neither slavers nor their victims), which I feel makes it easier to think and speak of them as more like "theoretical" contructs. Don't get me wrong: I know these were people like us! I just can't help but feel that Caesar, Cleopatra and the likes are more abstract historical figures than e.g. than a Frederick Douglass and Thomas Jefferson – the Roman Empire is long gone, but the United States still exist.
 * As for the discussion about these terms, there are some nice articles/essays about the reasoning for the change available online. I recommend anyone who wishes to participate in this discussion to also check out these: Chicago Tribune, Slate & The Guardian
 * Personally, I do not feel like words hold that much power of us, provided we think critically overall. I do not think 12 Years a Slave is in any way celebrating slavery, and taking away the humanity of the protagonists by using the word "slave" in the title. Likewise, I don't think Django Unchained has influenced me to think about slaves as "not people", or people who couldn't be free because of a word applied to them. To be honest: I couldn't endure to watch the movie in full (unlike with others from Tarantino, I had to skip scenes), because I found the violence and inhumanity against the African American "slave" parts so unspeakable, although I knew they were just acting here. I highly doubt the usage of the word "slave" within the movie has convinced me that people like Django are not capable of freedom, or don't deserve such, or that slavery was ever a nice thing to have.
 * But then, I recognize that I might be capable of critical thinking more than some others, and that a change in language and vocabulary might benefit those whose minds are still infected with racism. I also recognize it might not be my part to judge this, since again I have no personal connection to the issue. So, please don't get angry with me: This is just my personal opinion, and I will be happy to abide by whatever consensus emerges from the discussion.
 * And I do hope a civil and fruitful discussion will ensue. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The trouble with trying to force changes in the language is that the change becomes the message. Try replacing the highly political slaves/enslaved persons with other conditions of mankind.  You would rarely talk about "soldiering persons" or "woodworking persons" when you mean soldiers or carpenters.  When I hear "enslaved persons" replacing slaves the sentence changes to have a subtle extra meaning of "here is an author using other peoples suffering to boast of his politically correct views", rapidly followed by "therefore biased and unreliable".  For instance saying that the Barbary corsairs took one and a quarter million slaves from Europe concentrates on the actions and the people whereas replacing the word "slaves" with "enslaved persons" make me wonder about the author.  All in my opinion of course, but forcing language change by diktat from academia tends to have unforseen consequences. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My sister has abandoned "slave" in favor of "enslaved person." She won't forgive me for my published description of U.S. Civil War era "slave quarters." My instinct is to avoid using four syllables when one will do. Sorry, I gotta run. The Atlantic slave trade Atlantic Enslaved Person Trade and Prostitution The business or practice of engaging prostituted persons articles need editing. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What the hell does this add to the conversation at hand? – The Grid  ( talk )  23:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI: It's an example of reductio ad absurdum (qv). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Slaves is shorter, and I am unsure exactly why "enslaved persons" is better, it reads a tad euphemistic to me. I think it weakens history.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point about the conciseness, I meant to point to that as well but forgot. To contrast this with something similar, Manual_of_Style is a policy that does make sense to me: Using "humankind" instead of "mankind" introduced a mere two additional characters or one syllable, and "crewed" is just as concise as "manned". As for guidelines that might be invoked, I think that Policies_and_guidelines states that conciseness is desired, and one could argue that it applies here. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven:You edited your last post from "slavers" to "slaves," denying me the chance to correct it to "enslaved people owners." Wait; silly me: Did the law acknowledge a person's right to own people as chattel, or just a property claim in the lifetime indentured servitude of people who had no rights other than those afforded to them by a, uh, what's the vogue word for "slave master?" --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Not justified, this is just people looking for new linguistic fads to show off how progressive they are. It's the euphemism treadmill; if we do this, next they'll probably push for "people first language" so it becomes "people who were enslaved". Crossroads -talk- 04:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's 2021; language changes. We now recognize that enslaved people were, uh . . . people. Seems like not much to quarrel about, since we're still retaining "slaves" as a word when used in the original sources. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the rub, though: is there any indication that the language has actually changed, or is this an example of trying to drive change in the language? Slaves have always been people; that's not a new recognition. VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Slaves" = "people who are enslaved", which recognizes that they're people. Nurses are people and convicts are people and pilots are people and addicts are people and monarchs are people and beggars are people. Victims and refugees and survivors are people. Immigrants and emigrants are people. Lots and lots of nouns implicitly refer to people, by no means denying them recognition as such. Then some folks come along and seize on one word out of context, pull a new rule out of thin air that sounds like a generality ("using nouns other than 'person' or 'people' to refer to people denies them personhood"), but then they apply it only to that one wordyet with the implication that they're acting on the highest principle and that anyone that doesn't who fall in line is horrid. It's self-righteous and manipulative. At least, that's one way to look at it. And when I say this, I say it as a progressive on the substantive matters who, however, when it comes to words, is often stunned at the way some progressives build mountains out of semantic molehills in ways that must fascinate sociolinguists. Largoplazo (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I identify as politically progressive but semantically practical. I use terms like "enslaved person" and "race" only to quote their usage or to mollify people who refuse to converse otherwise, assuming they have something worthwhile to exchange. A caveat: I might spontaneously use "enslaved person" to avoid repetition of "slave" when warranted for stylistic purposes, and my own lexicon includes a definition of slave quarters as "a cabin or shack where enslaved men, women, and children were forced to live..." My practical approach to semantics won't allow phrasing like an enslaved people ship or an enslaved person/people auction. Even so, I concede a semantic inaccuracy upon acknowledging that the people bound on slave ships and at slave auctions were technically captives, not slaves, until they were sold as human chattel. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You may wish to categorise such people as "captives" when first taken, but surely after they had been sold to the slave traders, marched to the coast and sold on to the shippers they were certainly enslaved well before they reached the New World. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I'm lexicologically finicky, I agree they were enslaved (i.e. "engaged or kept in an involuntary state of bondage, slavery, or servitude") well before they reached the New World, but I can't categorically agree they were slaves (i.e. "human beings who are deemed or treated as the property of another person and held in captive bondage or servitude, subject to a reputed owner’s volition, control, and whims") before they reached the New World. Those two definitions, excerpted from my own lexicon, are adapted as applied to the slave circumstances in the New World, but I'd rather not debate the legal status of the captive people from the hegemonic POV of the slave traders. Yet, the lawyer in me makes a sharp distinction between ownership and possession of the captives. As such, I suspect slave traders might have said they didn't own the captives (i.e. as their officially reportable and taxable chattel) but merely possessed "passengers" (i.e. in the way that pilots say they have people on board or that parents have children) on consignment in behalf of prospective buyers. True, all of this is way off the gist of the thread, but it's my long-winded way of saying I advocate using more than a casual, knee-jerk, emotionally-based approach to the use of a given lexical item in the way that "enslaved-person-not-slave" proponents seem to eager to apply. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * When the unfortunates were sold as chattels to the Arab traders they were treated as "human beings who are deemed or treated as the property of another person and held in captive bondage or servitude, subject to a reputed owner’s volition, control, and whims". They were bought ("treated as the property of another person"), iron collars and manacles were attached ("held in captive bondage or servitude") and they were forced to march ("subject to a reputed owner’s volition, control, and whim") at the rough end of whips to the coast.  If they had been sent CoD to the coast, or the slave markets of the New World, then possibly "possession" might be argued, but the first sale occurred in Africa and they were the property of the slave traders.  [Grrr, I hate the way we talk about property and ownership, apply quotes around the words if it helps.]  As for "taxable", that might be a little anachronistic.
 * Actually, why are you even trying to argue for "possession", not "slavery". Sod the lawyers, these were people being treated as goods and there is no nice way of putting it.  Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing from a personal sentiment. I'm making my best-guess effort to argue from the slaver's POV if caught red-handed: "I don't own these people. They're passengers on my ship. They're not forced to work here, and I have no interest in keeping them forever, so they're not "slaves." Are they in bondage? Yes, they're in chains for their own safety and locked in the cargo hull to protect my ship. Do I own them? No, I merely paid for the right to ship them to the New World. A business partner there will reimburse me for their passage, CoD, plus commission. What happens to them when we land is none of my business. I'm just a middleman who moves a financial product almost as a clearinghouse bank moves funds which they don't own but merely possess as a convenience to the remitter and recipient. But unlike a clearinghouse, I have to pay the remitter and have to recoup my costs from the receiver. That's why I deal in bulk since I make only 12 pence per head."


 * Really, all of that heartless argumentation gets lost with the "enslaved person" euphemism. The irony here: Those who fete the "enslaved person" terminology seem offended by how a "slave" was deemed 3/5 of a human being. False! Slaves were treated in inhumane ways, but they were never deemed subhuman in any ratio. The 3/5 thing applied to all other Persons besides free Persons, regarding apportionment for taxation and representation.  --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't the engine of language change, we are near the caboose of change. We are supposed to reflect a change when it's all but finished, not when it's starting to trend.  It's not clear this will be a permanent change to the language and Wikipedia should only push its use when it is clear.  Springee (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I say use the wording that is most common in the reliable sources the article is based on. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Single
A common practice is to heighten a negative tone by inserting the adjective single for emphasis, e.g. they have not found a single example vs. they have found no examples. But which bin of Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch does this fall in? –LaundryPizza03</b> ( d c̄ ) 05:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I'd consider it as related to other expressions involving numbering, such as at least X or more than/less than X that convey a presumption that a number is either relatively large or relatively small. This example would be analogous to saying "less than one" instead of "zero". The others are sometimes unavoidable when it's the specific language used in the source and no better number is available, but this is one that should always be replaceable. The general case would fit more as one of the "Expressions that lack precision", but this example is not actually imprecise since there's only one number it could refer to. I suppose it might be best considered under the broad umbrella of editorializing, in that it's a persuasive writing technique that contains implications about the writer's opinion. <b style="color:#F60;font-family:Times New Roman">Sunrise</b> <i style="font-size:11px">(talk)</i> 01:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
I am sorry to bring up the topic so soon after the previous discussion, but I had a different issue about the topic and it has since the discussion again become an issue in articles. Specifically, the COVID-19 lab leak theory, which was once dismissed as a conspiracy theory in popular media, is now considered a viable if unlikely possibility.

In social sciences, a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that theorizes an all-powerful, all-knowing and totally evil cabal that secretly manipulates world events. Because of their supposed power, adherents reject ordinary standards of evidence, believing it is fabricated by the cabal.

Just as with some other terms in social sciences, such as paranoid or Fascist, conspiracy theory is overused in popular media. Often it is used merely to refer to speculation with little or no evidence which was the case in the lab leak theory. That's not to say that some versions of the theory were conspiracist, just that not every version was.

I suggest that when we use the term, we attribute it to expert sources, rather than newspaper accounts. People who actually study, teach and write about it in academic literature are better able to determine what is a conspiracy theory than journalists.

TFD (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling discussion
Comments from editors uninvolved with the topic are needed at Talk:J. K. Rowling. At issue is a proposal to label her as "widely considered transphobic" as well as whether opinion articles are usable for support of this. Posting here because this is the page for WP:LABEL and WP:WEASEL. Crossroads -talk- 03:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

"by whom" tags and the incorrect use thereof
A few weeks ago I noticed an incorrectly applied "by whom" tag, it had been added to a simple naming structure (I think it was "to be known as") which was giving an alternate name for something or other. I came here, carefully read WP:WEASEL, as well as the somewhat unhelpfully ambiguous embracetheweasel essay, and realised that there was nothing in this document which would preclude the removal of the tag. Which I did.

Stupidly I then searched under "by whom" to see if there were any other examples of this. There were thousands, many having been incorrectly added to articles more than a decade ago.

This is a medium-sized problem, is there anywhere that I can add a description of why the passive is often correct without an agent, both grammatically and as part of wikipedia? There are several types of incorrect taggings, which I could outline with a view to aiding their identification and removal and hopefully precluding their addition.

Also, is there a work group checking tags, or are they simply left to be fixed as and when people stumble across them?

Boynamedsue (talk) 07:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The page already says The examples above are not automatically weasel words. If we were to articulate your point more concretely, it would be in that section. Because this is a high-profile page, I would recommend putting your proposed wording here in talk to elicit discussion first. — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I will have a think about it and then post something. --Boynamedsue (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC on wheelchair-related wording
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

Warning: it's very, very long (especially if you include the lead-in thread immediately above it). See in particular Proposal E in that discussion (has its own subsection); it aims to add an entire new section to MOS:WTW, pertaining to disabilities and medical conditions. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical negation by poor construction.
Not currently in MOS, but I would like to add that a good editorial practice is to review for phrasing (and subsequent editing) where a poor construction leads to constructions such as
 * Sensitive topic X is completely not unacceptable, and should be reported.
 * The inclusion of both phrases performs a negation, which is rarely the intention of the person writing.


 * Y wasn't doing nothing related to X
 * A double negation, which some might read as implying (or inferring) that Y WAS doing something in relation to X.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is elementary-school-level writing advice, and we have no need of rules that obvious in our MoS. See WP:CREEP and WP:MOSBLOAT.  Our MoS exists to address recurrent disruptive style disputes between editors, and ensure consistent, semi-formal encyclopedic output; not to serve as a general grammar of English for school children.  If you see a double negative in our prose, just fix it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:AWW example
- «Reverted good faith edits by Alexander Davronov talk): The box is intended for words or small phrases which are quite commonly used - I doubt this one is common enough and it's a pretty large phrase»
 * I propose to add the following phrases to the example box of the MOS:AWW provision; you can see that both are used quite often, especially in complex senteces

AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 18:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article edit that I reverted clearly was too large a phrase as well as one not commonly seen in writing. While more wording that represents a weasel word or phrase is certainly out there, not every one of those wordings is always gonna be seen as a weasel word or phrase - it will depend on context a lot of the time, not to mention sourcing, and many are evaluated on case-by-case bases. The boxes are intended to show the most commonly used wordings and agreed on by consensus, and they are not meant to be exhaustive lists. As for the above examples, those might need further explanation because those can be placed in an array of different contexts, not all of which would suit them being weasel words/phrases. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will let this one to dangle for a while if you don't mind; best. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alexander Davronov, I was also about to revert the addition. I am not sure I understand how to contextualize them as weasel words. To take your first example, "acknowledge the needs" only shows up in three articles. I don't see any of those as weasel words, and if they were, this is not a persistent enough style issue to merit coverage in the MOS. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What's your opinion on the second link? AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 07:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't figure out what "to acknowledges the needs of support, includes strategies" means, let alone where one would use it, let alone think it's a "small phrase which is commonly used". Am I missing something? Largoplazo (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. It's a weird one-off and we don't need to add it here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Past tense with "to date"
Take for example the phrase: "It was the highest score to date." I read that as that no one reached such a high score before that date. So if someone gets an even higher score later, the statement is still accurate. So I was a bit surprised to find "to date" listed as a word to watch. I can see why "It is the highest score to date" would be wrong, because that uses present tense, but is it also wrong to use it in past tense? Or am I misinterpreting what "to date" means and is it actually synonymous to "up to today"? Also what would be an alternative way to phrase it? &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine in the past tense with respect to a fixed reference date, just as "recently" is fine in the past ("He divorced his wife in 1993. He had recently learned that she'd ....", that is, recently with respect to his divorce action). The problem with all the words and phrases referred to in that section comes up when they're by reference to an unspecified date that the contributor understood to be "now" at the time of the contribution, which is not going to be the "now" of the later reader, who will have no idea when the information had been contributed. Largoplazo (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! &horbar;Jochem van Hees (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, remember that this section is "words to watch" and not "forbidden words". Be careful and follow 's good advice. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction?
"Wikipedia is not censored, and the inclusion of material that might offend is part of its purpose as an encyclopedia. Quotes should always be verbatim and as they appear in the original source. However, language that is vulgar, obscene, or profane should be used only if its omission would make an article less accurate or relevant, and if there is no non-obscene alternative. Such words should not be used outside quotations and names except where they are themselves an article topic."

Doesn't this just contradict itself in the last sentence? It probably doesn't, but it does not come off clear at all to me. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  16:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically, the whole is saying "don't include offensive/vulgar words in mainspace Wikitext, unless they are part of a quote which is relevant to the topic. Any use outside quotes, except for articles specifically about those words, is not permitted." --M asem (t) 16:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No. Material that might offend some people is not the same as obscenities.  Discussing Biblical interpretation can be offensive to fundamentalists, but need not contain foul language, likewise a biography might contain details of criminal behaviour which are offensive to the family.  However the article on the word fuck of necessity does contain obscenities but does not seek in any way to offend peoples beliefs.  What the paragraph you quote is saying is that WP will not be constrained by the fact that some people do not want certain subjects discussed, its function is to publish reliable facts.  However foul language is not encyclopedic except where it is essential to the article. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In other words, don't write "Napoleon finally fucked up and was exiled to the remote island of St. Helena." Largoplazo (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for clearing that up! Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  04:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Other puffery words
Can a word like "beautiful" and "amazing" be added to the words to watch portion on the "puffery" section? AKK 700  22:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that neither term should be used without in text attribution, e.g., "X said it was beautiful." TFD (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @AKK-700, do you actually need those words to be in the list, to write a good article? We can't list every possible word, and I hope that most editors can figure out such simple examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there are already more than enough sample words there to make the point. In addition, "beautiful" and "amazing" are subjective terms from the point of view of the entity that's using them. Articles are written from Wikipedia's point of view, and Wikipedia, being objective, has no opinion on whether something is beautiful or amazing. So WP:NPOV takes care of those as well. No need to mention them explicitly. Largoplazo (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)