Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 4

So-and-so believes
This page lists synonyms for said including those which sound judgmental about the validity of the statement (such as assert). I find that a similar common judgement is to write a person's statement as a belief rather than a statement. This can additionally cause problems with clarity, resulting in mind-reading on the editor's part and occasionally in unverifiable statements about the subject of the writing. To put this into an example, let's say we have an article about the views that nasal allergies result from drinking water. You might see written "Dr. John Smith believes that contaminated water results in high mucus production. He believes that all water should be filtered before drinking." This should be distinguished from use of the word believe where people make statements about what they believe, or where the element of belief is a core issue. Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Collateral damage and ethnic cleansing

 * See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 3 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 3 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 3

I propose to remove "ethnic cleansing" and "collateral damage" from the section "Euphemisms" as neither term "lacks precision" (see the previous sections listed above in the talk page archives for more details on this. -- PBS (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried to fix that last summer, but DCGeist thought that providing useful information was "verbose". The problem is that some people abuse those words for the sake of (in their personal opinion) softening the claims being made in the articles.  It is the use that you put a word, not the word's dictionary definition or its vagueness, that makes the word a euphemism.  There is technically nothing "imprecise" about "I'm going to go powder my nose now", but that is still euphemism for "I'm going to go urinate and/or defecate now".
 * IMO what we need there is to educate the less-informed editors that these words have very specific meanings, i.e., "Sometimes using a euphemism significantly and wrongly changes the meaning of the sentence: ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and genocide are not synonyms."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems much more sensible way to go. BTW so we don't repeat what was said last summer, if there was a talk page discussion on this "last summer" (please add a link to it under "last summer") -- PBS (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see how that adds anything to what we already have: "Some words that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided..."—DCGeist (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Then the list should include words and phrases that are always used euphemistically not words and phrases that may have euphemistic senses. "nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide; civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage". Ethnic cleansing can include mass murder and genocide. Genocide includes mass murder. If Ethnic cleansing is an euphemism is not genocide also an euphemism for mass murder if not why not? -- PBS (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We've discussed these issues before in great detail. This guideline is Words to watch, and there are two sorts of euphemisms editors needs to watch out for: words and phrases that are always euphemistic, and words and phrases that are properly encyclopedic in some contexts but euphemistic in others. It would lower the quality and effectiveness of our guideline to cut out the second sort from consideration.—DCGeist (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you one example where "ethnic cleansing" or "collateral damage" has been used euphemistically? -- PBS (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well if you have not got one then how do you know that either is used as an euphemism? If they are used so infrequently that you know of no examples then they are not good examples to use here and are misleading. -- PBS (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, we have been over this ground before. It's not our job to spend time finding you old examples during your periodic visits here. You have made no new case for the words' elimination that stands up to examination.—DCGeist (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have not made a case for keeping them. Neither in the RFC or here has the majority of opinion been with you. In this current conversation you are the only one involved who is opposing a change so when you write "It's not our job" who do you mean by "our"? -- PBS (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) I don't need to come here and "make a case for keeping them". That case has been made repeatedly in the past and their presence is the well-established status quo. You want to alter the status quo in a contentious fashion. You need to make a convincing case and build a new consensus. You have failed.
 * (2) Nor is the "majority of opinion" with you. WhatamIdoing wanted to change the phrasing of the section (but was unable to explain how an additional gloss would do more than repeat the substance of what's already said). You want to remove the examples entirely. I am fine with things as they are. I sense you've been tallying up more support for your opinion than actually appears on the page.
 * (3) "Our" refers to me and those editors who have responded to you in the past on these very points but who now are choosing not to indulge you by riding around and around again on your ol' dead horse.—DCGeist (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive 3 four people expressed an opinion in that RfC. One was in favour of deleting one in favour of keeping. Two people who expressed an opinion of placing them in a different section have suggested a change of wording in this section. So who is it on that "ol' dead horse"? -- PBS (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Does RS superceed WP:WEASEL?
There are NPOV problems on Josephus on Jesus regarding what would otherwise qualify under WP:WEASEL. My question can one RS that says "many scholars" or "most scholars" (without naming single one) be used in an article?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose it can be used if it's a quotation from a book. If Professor Bill Bloggs writes in his book "Most cooks like roasting pork" that quote can be included in the body of an article. It's only when something is claimed in the body of an article without citation that violates WP:WEASEL Lung salad (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, but now how can it be used? Do we present it as fact or do we go the according to so-and-so in this book route?  As shown by 2002 Ingle's Endodontics 5th edition which stated "(i)n the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection" even though the 1952 Southern California State Dental Association Volume 20; pg 32 stated "One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection..." and there were works clear into the 1950s promoting the theory of focal infection even peer reviewed textbooks can get it wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Present it as fact that todays' scholars consider the Josephan passages as authentic within the confines of the quotes. Lung salad (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST
Needs to be changed. It ought to read that if there are an overwhelming amount of sources which describe a group as terrorist then it is reasonable for us to do so. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For that to work, you might need to find an unarguable definition of overwhelming. HiLo48 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not difficult Al-Qaeda. I doubt there are any sources which do not refer to them as terrorists. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you checked all sources from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This guideline, IMO, is poorly thought-out and has caused problems for a while. I agree there needs to be changed. I think it should be made clear that there are special cases where organisations/individuals are universally referred to using such terms, and as such it is appropriate to use the same labelling in the encylopaedia. As for sources from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, I think English sources are more appropriate. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 14:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reuters does not use the term, and as an international news agency it puts out most stories on the wire, so there is no universal use in English. Besides what do you mean when you use the word terrorist? For example during the troubles most UK media and both the Irish and British governments described the IRA as a terrorist organisation, yet sections of the US government and sections of the media did not, so do you think IRA volunteers were terrorists?  -- PBS (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A search of Reuters tells a different story 7030 hits for terrorist on that site. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reuters quotes people calling groups terrorist, convictions of terrorism, etc. but does not directly call people or groups terrorist. This is what WP:TERRORIST intends for Wikipedia too. Shrigley (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell no! This word has a vague definition and is constantly abused by POV-pushers. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, it is a loaded controversial word and rightly placed here. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Despite this"
See Dan Norris: "During the parliamentary year of 2006/07, Norris was serving as a backbench MP. Despite this he had the 4th highest expenditure,". Should we add this to the section where we mention "however"? Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Go on, and include "featured" too. Diego (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Revisit "arguable" and "arguably"
Constructions such as "arguably better", "arguably best", "arguably led to", while not common in WP articles, can be found easily enough. I think the idea is to convey that "there are arguments to support this statement but here is not the place to get into it and these arguments may not be conclusive anyway", but there is something unencyclopedic, a weaseling quality, that is bugging me: who is offering these arguments and if they're not conclusive then why are we passing over them?

See past discussions here and here. Participants note that "arguably" is often a flag for OR which may be one source of my discomfort with it. There appeared to be consensus to add "arguably" to WP:WEASEL, WP:ALLEGED, or WP:EDITORIAL but that does not seem to have happened or it was reverted. Joja lozzo  17:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Semicolons
surely these lists of phrases should be seperated by semicolons, not commas. It would make it a little clearer that non of the commas are part of the phrases concerned and show, to my understanding, better writing skills, which inspires confidence more. IceDragon64 (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Award-winning
Is award-winning a word (or phrase) to avoid or is it okay to use in describing someone? I've seen it used in introductions and other areas of articles. I guess if they've won more than one award, it's technically accurate, but I thought I'd check here. Someone had brought it up in a past thread but it was never discussed. Comatmebro (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO it could be admissible in certain circumstances but should be treated with care. If the awards are undoubtly prestigious, "award-winning" can be a good "claim of notability" at stubs to comply with the speedy deletion criteria. But there's the risk that it could be used to describe an organization winning some run-of-the-mill awards that are routinely given to companies in a business field. So yes, it should usually be avoided, most of the time; it's safer to enumerate the most important awards it won, to achieve the same effect. Diego (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I was thinking the same thing about it; you summed it up very well. This article, Daniel Boys, used it to describe him and I removed it because it doesn't seem like he has many awards and the article had a lot of other 'words to watch' in it that I took out. It still is written a little too much like an advertisement or resume for him I think but I don't want to remove too much content. Comatmebro (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

has been featured by
As in, Our company has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Good Morning America, Sports Illustrated, the Oregonian, and the Sydney Morning Herald. (sometimes with, sometimes without, citations to specific articles)

This seems to be an annoyingly common tactic among paid editors to stave off speedy deletions at NPP, without saying anything other than, "Don't speedy delete this, we're notable." Wouldn't it be much more enlightening, and almost as easy (if one's motives were pure), to report with a citation whatever it was that made the company interesting enough to feature? Kilopi (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletions
Here and here Gnevin deleted guidance on certain terms in 2010: note and bear in mind; I and you; myth and legend. The rationale was, "per my suggestion that see also don't extend MOSs"; but the fact that these were three extensions of see-also sections is not a deletion argument, and the actual suggestion mentioned did not appear in this page's archive. But here I did find a discussion about the removal of myth and legend, yielding several views but without a conclusion. Dougweller, the OP there, has some good instincts and pointed out two or three problems with the removal. The related section WP:RNPOV alludes to the deleted material, but since a key adjuration now doesn't appear anywhere ("When using myth in a sentence in one of its formal senses, use care to word the sentence to avoid implying that it is being used informally, for instance by establishing the context of sociology, mythology or religion") I am concerned that RNPOV is insufficient to prevent the use of the word "myth" where it could easily be inferred as an informal use. (In leads, e.g., formal senses should be eased into rather than thrown in cold; I found numerous cases on WP where "mythos" gracefully avoided the problem of the word "myth".) N.b.: While I was "invited" to comment on this at Talk:Genesis creation narrative, I alluded there that this is not the only article in which ambiguous use of the word "myth" appears. Nor have I been the best conveyor of this concern in the past.

The questions are whether the deletions are ripe for reconsidering, whether any other deletions were made in close proximity, and whether material should be restored, either to this article generally, or to the current sections on these topics (MOS:OPED, WP:YOU, and WP:RNPOV). JJB 15:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As the links in your last paragraph indicate, the principle relevant to "note and bear in mind" is covered here under Editorializing, while "I and you" are addressed on the main MOS page. No more material on these matters is called for. I am not sure "myth and legend" are significant enough sources of problematic usage to warrant reinclusion. The most common misuse of "legendary" is already addressed here in Puffery. "Myth" might arguably be a worthwhile addition to the list with which Contentious labels leads off, but an essay is the appropriate spot for any extended discussion of the term.—DCGeist (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks! How about the following:
 * WP:OPED: add "importantly" to box, and add " and it is important to bear in mind" to text.
 * MOS:YOU and MOS:FIRSTPERSON: no changes.
 * WP:LABEL: and "mythology" to box, and add "Avoid use of myth in its informal sense; e.g., establish the context of sociology, mythology or religion or use the unambiguous mythos instead." to text. JJB 13:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the addition of "importantly." We have enough examples already in Editorializing, and its inclusion adds nothing to the communication of the relevant principle. I've edited the addition of "myth"; I'm not sure there would be a consensus for advocating the use of the relatively uncommon term "mythos". "Myth" is a perfectly good word; we just want to watch that it's used precisely here.—DCGeist (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, myth 1a in Merriam-Webster (mythos) is a perfectly good word, and myth 2b (misconception) is not. For mythos a good link is http://www.grassie.net/articles/1999_epic.html 8th graf. Accept your position generally (i.e. not debating "importantly" for now). JJB 01:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Several conflicting changes
Affirm changes by Pol098 and Tony1, they can be restored. Example by Jprg1966 makes no sense to me, can be deleted. Others might want to discuss these or other changes. I'm generally an inclusionist. JJB 17:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No, most of the undiscussed changes by Pol098 were redundant, verbose, and/or got us away from the focus on general principles rather than takedowns of specific words. Your restoration of "eminent" also fails to recognize that this page was designed to focus on principles of good writing, not to create laundry lists of bad words. The addition to the Puffery example field of "acclaimed"—which was discussed on the Talk page of the main MoS guideline—makes specific sense, as it's a term that does appear to be widely overused here. However, it expanded the field to an excessive nineteen examples, way more than is necessary to exemplify the principle, which is the objective here. No other example field includes more than fourteen examples. So...we add a stronger example, and take away a weaker one to hold the line and maintain focus on what counts. You may not take "example creep" seriously, but it was a major contributing factor to why an earlier version of this page ("Words to Avoid") was deemed a failure. "Words to Avoid" was ultimately sunk by...wait for it...redundancy, verbosity, and a lack of focus on general principles. This page was crafted by a group effort to avoid those problems and provide much more effective guidance to the average Wikipedia contributor.—DCGeist (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So 14 is good, 18 is acceptable, 19 is not. Spock would not say "eminently logical" to that, sorry. I have a number of things to say about the text and subtext of examples that need not be said at this page right now. The various issues are to be determined by current consensus. You might help guide current consensus by adding a clearer talkpage hat that properly summarizes and links the former consensus. Thanks. JJB 20:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Murder
Can the word "murdered" be used to describe what appears to be a universally condemned killing of civilians? I'm referring specifically to the killing of civilians at 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings.

Or is it more neutral to say "killed".VR talk  02:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is most neutral to follow whatever your best sources say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

"possibly", "probably"?
What about "possibly", "probably"? Acceptable or not? -- megA (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I use those all the time but only when sources show uncertainty. Dunno that a note is needed for "possibly" when they show certainty; I think adding "possibly" when it's not implied would be WP:OR, not WTW. JJB 15:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. My problem was from a history article, where it was used without any references... -- megA (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely weasely, but use WP:V and WP:RS to preclude them first. JJB 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I've tagged the section with and will see what happens... -- megA (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Weasel punctuation
I would like to nominate "" (quotation marks) as a form of "weaseling". I recognize there is proper use, such as repeating what someone has said, pointing out that a word may not be a word at all, or talking about a word itself. However, sometimes it appears to indicate that something is incorrect or a speaker is ignorant, without supplying any supporting evidence or further recourse for the skeptical reader - just like weasel words.

For example, the Wikipedia article on Energy includes the line:

It is not uncommon to hear that energy is "equivalent" to mass.

I call weasel. This line should be changed to:

It is not uncommon to hear that "energy is equivalent to mass".

The lead-in "It is not uncommon to hear..." smell like weasel words to me, but the original placement of the quotes sealed the deal. At least moving the quotes makes sense in terms of indicating exactly what is being heard. Ideally, the line should be:

Einstein showed, in his most famous equation, that energy is equivalent to mass.

but that is another debate. Staying on topic, I think we should be as vigilant regarding weasel quotation marks as we are for weasel words.

68.144.100.86 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a real concern that I've seen in the wild (and fortunately someone fixed it by removing the quotations). I support adding a mention of this in the guideline. Diego (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just going to start a new section suggesting something similar. I think this guideline should cover both punctuation (!, "", etc) and formatting (e.g. italics), since either can provide otherwise neutral words with charged meanings. Also, note that Manual of Style/Text formatting already mentions that "It may be preferable to avoid the need for italics by rewriting a sentence more explicitly". I think this potential misuse should be explicitly addressed by this guideline. --Waldir talk 16:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They're called scare quotes when used that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? By whom? And why? I've never heard that expression. Is this unique to some cultures and not others? HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing was good enough to provide a link to our article on scare quotes. That article should answer your questions, both directly and through the many sources it cites. Please read it.—DCGeist (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It didn't answer my questions, so I've asked there too. Unfortunately, the page doesn't seem to get many visits, so I'm not confident about a rapid response. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. By the way, what do you think about including these cases in the guideline? --Waldir talk 10:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No. This page is called Words to watch. Let's keep it strong by keeping it focused, and not try to wedge formatting and punctuation matters into it. As noted above, the main WP:Manual of Style page already addresses the use of italics for emphasis. Anyone who believes the MoS should directly address the use of scare quotes should seek to make that happen on the main MoS page.—DCGeist (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I do see your point, but disagree on the best place to make this addition. This feels like the proper page, and the fact that someone else had the same idea just a few days before should be telling. I don't think the page would lose its strength because of this. I'm interested in hearing what the other participants in this discussion think. --Waldir talk 00:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, however things may "feel", this page is Words to watch, not Stuff to watch. By definition, it is devoted to lexical matters, so it's simply the wrong venue at which to address scare quotes.—DCGeist (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I understand you point, and agree with it to a certain degree, but I believe the benefit of making the guideline more comprehensive (i.e. what it's useful for) would outweight the need to preserve the purity of its contents or exactness of its title (i.e. what it is by itself). Again, I would like to hear the opinions of others in the matter. Note that so far 3 people supported the inclusion while only one opposed it (and two participants haven't manifested either way). --Waldir talk 11:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * DCGeist, if the problem you have is one of consistency - that the title is Words to watch and punctuation is not words, we could simply change the title to "Stuff to watch" or "Expressions to watch". If it's one of including only related matters, scare quotes provide a meaning that shouldn't be misused, exactly the same than with weasel words or puffery, so they are adequate to cover in this article; just because their meaning is represented with symbols instead of letters doesn't make it less valid to be described in this article. Diego (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, since nobody else has manifested after over a month, I guess there is enough support for inclusion of a clause dealing with "weasel punctuation" (support from 68.144.100.86, Diego Moya and me, opposition from DCGeist, and no opinion from WhatamIdoing and HiLo48). I think we should start working on a draft to be included in the page. Any suggestions? --Waldir talk 16:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't support this, but it's possible that something could be written that wouldn't be completely objectionable. I think that MOS:QUOTATIONS might be a more natural fit, however.  Or maybe just a sentence added to the section that already includes "so-called", since scare quotes have a similar effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What is being talked about here is the use of quotation marks as scare quotes, which are not always (I'd even say, seldom) used when actually quoting a third party. MOS:QUOTATIONS actually says that "The term quotation in the material below also includes other uses of quotation marks such as [...] 'scare-quoted' passages", but then makes no further mention of the scare quotes usage, and rightly so, in my opinion, since that fits better on this page than there. I'd suggest removing that part of the sentence and adding a "see also" note pointing to this page, once/if the addition is made.
 * Also, while scare quotes are a good example of the use of punctuation to charge the meaning of words, they aren't the only ones. Italics can have a similar effect. Neither are necessarily connected with actual quotations.
 * Finally: I agree that the Expressions of doubt section is probably the most appropriate place to make the proposed additional remark, even though these usages of punctuation can be constructed to convey a positive opinion (as a silly example, from the top of my head: "the reception of the film was very good" vs. "the reception of the film was very good"), in which case they would belong to the Editorializing section. But I think we can agree that the negative usage is more prevalent (at least with scare quotes), and that they're more harmful, so "Expressions of doubt" would probably be the best place to add this. Thoughts? --Waldir talk 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. I'm back. ( Sorry about the absence of a comment here for a while. I've been in a place with no Internet or mobile phone coverage for some time. What a delight! And I won't apologise for not calling my phone a cell phone. It's not in prison.) I'm very confused by this whole discussion. It must be very culturally biased, perhaps to American English, but certainly not to my version of English. The ONLY sensible line (to me) in the OP's post that started this was: Einstein showed, in his most famous equation, that energy is equivalent to mass. The other examples were just plain inaccurate. So I'm still not sure exactly what the issue is. And the term scare quotes still bothers me a lot. I'm Australian. I had never encountered the term before discovering it here in Wikipedia. I teach in high school. Completely independently of this, I heard an English teacher colleague recently ask anyone who who was within earshot "What are scare quotes?" Nobody knew. (Except me with a tiny but still confused inkling.) We should not use the term in any definition or explanation of this matter. It's obviously not used globally, and it's a bad term because the meaning has no relationship to the words. There's actually nothing scary about scare quotes. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can avoid using the term and describe the use directly instead (perhaps with an example), while using the article as a piped link for those wishing to get a deeper summary of the topic. That would in fact be in accordance with this very guideline's "clichés and idioms" section :) --Waldir talk 23:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"very first"
Is there any situation where "very first" has a valid use (outside of direct quotes and references)? I've seen it quite a lot (e.g. "The very first issue of the newspaper contained a number of errors" within The Guardian) but I can't think of an example where simply "first" would not be better, so I am thinking of correcting many of these. I wanted to get some input from others before I make too many edits, however. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess it is not a job for a robot. Very first emphasises "first" and is stylistically ok in my view when there are differing ways to be first, and first is of itself notable. So for example in the Settlement of the Americas one might talk about Clovis first versus Colombus using such terms. --BozMo talk 07:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

avoidance of the active verb
I've often removed decided to and managed to; the point is what the subject did. Similar examples? —Tamfang (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

TDS
I just followed another referral to WP:Weasel which goes to this attribution section. This doesn't work. Weasel is not really about attribution and the attempt by the manual of style editors a few years ago to shoehorn it in any old how is detrimental to Wikipedia since there is an important point about language there. --BozMo talk 06:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The essential nature of weasel words is to make a statement which asserts something but subtly implies something different or stronger by being made. "Some people say" can be weasel words (because they can imply what is said is contraversial or wrong) but it is not about attribution. Another example might be "As a mathematician, he supports the Labour Party" or "as a Scientist I am a Protestant" or "Northern schools value girls equally" which are weasel worded because of a cloaked implication (similar people all do, or in the last case that Southern schools do not). Therefore the right summary for weasel words (which used to be the text of the article) is along the lines of "avoid cloaked implications". --BozMo talk 07:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that the essential nature of weasel words is their vagueness: "Some people believe that ____" is weaseling.  This is primarily a problem when the sources give one person as an example, and the Wikipedian has generalized from one example to "some people" (when it's possible that only one person has ever believed that ____), but it's the use of vagueness to cover up a tiny-minority position, not the implication that it's something different, that bothers me.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Weasel_word is more accurate. Vagueness is weaselly but it is certainly not limited to attribution. --BozMo talk 10:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Funny" images
These "funny" images are out of place in P&G and imho exude a passive-aggressive vibe. Could a proponent of the images outline any benefit of having them in the page? --213.196.219.4 (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not a proponent of these particular images. However I think some image of a weasel and peacock is useful because they provide a point of reference (memory) in a changing and over-wordy policy jungle. Weasel and Peacock get refered to by text editors a fair bit and are some kind of fixed point (apart from when they get changed). --BozMo talk 06:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed next text on Weasel
Per above here is a proposed next text

"Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. Equally editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the Weasel template so to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue).
 * Reference
 * Put this here as a reference to all of those interested... Technical 13 (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * He tried it last fall, too:  and .  I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.  There are good reasons to avoid pointlessly fancy vocabulary words, and there are sometimes good reasons to use them.  Our goal is WP:Brilliant prose, not dumbing down our writing so that readers will never encounter an unfamiliar word.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is tantamount to WP:instruction creep. Bus stop (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not saying you should avoid using a vast vocabulary, but I am saying you should avoid using a needlessly vast vocabulary. For example, I could have written "I am not saying you should avoid using a lot of different types of words, but I am saying you should not in vain use a lot of different types of words." This would not have been an improvement, because the sentence would lose in brevity. However, many times texts could be made more simple, and become more readable. But I see the problem you guys have perceived: My examples just does not prove my point. I guess I will come back with better examples, and if I will not find any, then there probably was no problem in the first place. --Spannerjam 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you come up with a different wording that you think may persuade us, please present it here in on the discussion page and let's not go through the bold/revert part again. Let's just discuss.  Thanks. :) Technical 13 (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Seems to me this is already covered in the second paragraph of the wider MoS. If there's an ambiguous, jargony, vague or unnecessarily complex word or two somewhere, we're supposed to make it clear and concise. But I don't think we should list specific words. Sometimes a longer or less common word is the perfect one for the job. Sometimes it's just flowery. Should be judged case by case, with that second paragraph as a general guide. On that note, "needlessly unknown" is probably the most mysterious term I've heard in my life. Congratulations! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Where is this already covered in the "second paragraph"? --Spannerjam 20:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style. Second paragraph, last two lines. "Vague" and "unnecessarily complex" seem to be the kinds of words you dislike. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah there it is, what I was looking for. --Spannerjam 11:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, is this now moot? Of course one should not needlessly employ obscure vocabulary, and sesquipedalian showboating is poor form; but neither should an encyclopedia eschew the clarity afforded by precise language for the sake of abecedarian readers. Reading an encyclopedia with a dictionary at hand is a Good Thing™. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in unadulterated homologation with you. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just writing small because you're right. Moot InedibleHulk (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Lake Superior State banished words?
This external link seems non-relevant to the MoS. Might it be promotion? Notice on their FB page they are celebrating raising their trending (a link from the external link). Shall we have a consensus to remove it as non-relevant to avoid it popping up again?

I would think a more relevant link could be Chicago Manual of Style, which is important in literature and journalism. This would have readers understand the importance of a MoS and usage in editing. (one of my personal favorite references) Eturk001 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with either organization, but it seems a list of banned words is more relevant than the whole Chicago MoS is to this specific MoS section . If they have a similar list, seems fair to have it. Whenever a major page (any Wikipedia article, really) links to another, it's promotional. Can't avoid that, we can only keep them where relevant and refrain from praising them. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the actual list of "banned words". They aren't really banned by anyone and the list is not relevant to editors on WP using them. Is this a WP:RS? It seems it's just some random people's opinions of "annoying" words/phrases. It's more of a joke list. Should this particular list really be used as a guideline for WP? Eturk001 (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's meant to be viewed as a guideline for Wikipedia use. Only as an aid to people who wish to know more about which words they might want to watch for and why. If the "Why?" matches one of our rules, one can go from there. Having it here doesn't mean Wikipedia editors should remove any and all words on the list. More of a companion guide to our guideline itself, opening up avenues of thought.


 * Of course, if I'm wrong and it is an extension of policy, we should lose it (unless we're not allowed, I guess). If it's fine in that regard, I really don't care either way about keeping or leaving it. Just saying it's relevant and possibly useful. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind after reading it a bit. The amount of promotion to its Facebook and Twitter pages, and brevity of the list, have swayed me. I'll be bold and delete it (not too bold, though, since you suggested it). InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

only
I would deem this to be editorialization and therefor a word to watch. One can simply state "5-10% of X is due to Y" rather than "Only 5-10% of X is due to Y" Wondering if this should be added here? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I normally treat it that way, too. Unless it's clearly used in a comparison, like "Johnny Business made $100 million in 2008, but only $1 million in 2009." Without another thing in contrast, it always sounds like a judgment call to me. I wouldn't mind it on the list. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Unqualified use of many and most
An article nominated for good article status that I am reviewing contains multiple instances of phrases unqualifiedly using words like "many" and "most", such as (all my emphasis): Do those watching this policy believe that uses such as those contravene this guideline? FishGF (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Canada has adopted xxx for most purposes"
 * "xxx was one of the most influential figures in yyy"
 * "xxx are used in most areas where yyy are regulated"
 * "xxx were seized on by many newspaper editorialists as being yyy"
 * "xxx have continued to be used across the globe in many spheres including yyy"
 * Hello, FishGF. Manual of Style/Words to watch is a guideline, not a policy. And, for the matter you brought up, I feel that you should follow what the WP:Weasel words part of this style guideline states. There are going to be times when using the word many or most is appropriate and/or needed; one example is if the source does not specify an exact number. Another example is when naming specifics will create a laundry list (a word and/or WP:Link farm). Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Flyer22, thanks for the reply. As I read Weasel, it only applies only to unattributed and unspecified people, and not to unspecified inanimate objects. So, if my understanding is correct: "many newspaper editorialists" is weasel, whereas "in most areas" is not. Is that your understanding too? I wonder what policy or guideline covers the use for the inanimate type scenario. FishGF (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed change in "Contentious labels"
"may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution"

...to...

"may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case follow the policy set out at Neutral Point of View"

If the terms are "widely used", does it make sense to attribute them? How many sources should be used for attribution? The policy as it is currently written would seem to say it is OK to call Osama bin Laden a terrorist or Anders Breivik an extremist, but only if there is attribution, so you would end up with something ridiculous like "according to the Beano, Anders Breivik is an extremist" or whatever. Formerip (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not unsympathetic to your proposal, but you are aware that it would bring massive upheaval to WP? Frankly, I think that such a far-reaching change could only be agreed upon by a wide group of users, not just a couple of us. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do you think it would bring massive upheaval? I would see it is as just amending a guideline that it is not really possible to follow anyway. Formerip (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Because I have followed the long history of inserting and removing the term "terrorist" in the articles on OBL and Al Qaida and this would happen all over WP, if your proposed change comes into effect. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why? I think the only effect of this change would be that instead of automatically attributing claims, editors would be required to comply with the policy which is actually relevant. Formerip (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

"Only"
I think the word "only" immediately adds a negative connotation. I just read an article on Elisabeth Colbert that said she "only got 45% of the vote" compared to Sanford's 54%. That word is problematic to me. To me this word completely violates NPOV in these circumstances. Imagine if I had flipped it and written "Despite being defeated by Sanford, he only managed to get 54% of the vote.". I don't think this type of problem is covered in the article at all, so I wanted to see if any of you believe it should be added to the page as well. Feed back  ☎ 02:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I usually remove them when I see them. Seems like the same general problem of the other words in MOS:OPED. Wouldn't mind seeing "only" explicitly listed there. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Relative time references: As of
I'd suggest that explicit mention of the As of technique, as well as the existing See also on the section, is useful, as in WP:DATED. I've added the following text, subject to others' later edits.


 * Information can be written in a less time-sensitive way by using the as of technique, implemented in the as of template; it additionally tags information that will become dated. produces the text  and categorises the article appropriately. "A new widget is currently being developed" can usefully become something like "a new widget was under development ".

Pol098 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment
If anyone's interested, I'd welcome comments at Talk:Sicilian Defence. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Relative time references
The text as of now says: "Expressions like "former(ly)", "in the past", and "traditional(ly)" lump together unspecified periods in the past" (true), and implies that these are all undesirable (are they?). I tend to agree about most uses of traditionally ("solid-state drives are faster than traditional electromechanical drives"), but should "former(ly)" and "in the past" be deprecated? It's not like "currently" and "now", which are indeed a moveable feast; once in the past, always in the past. In the past traditional print media used these expressions about things that had happened formerly, but were no longer the case; why shouldn't Wikipedia? I won't myself make any changes which might be controversial, but suggest that the sentence I quote be modified to include only "traditionally". Pol098 (talk) 13:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My first take on this is I agree that such expressions should either be removed or changed to be specific. I then searched wikipedia for "in the past" and the first example found, in Retro style, seems Ok: "Retro fashion is a clothing style which consists in wearing clothes commonly used in the past." That wording works for me, but could it be made more precise? Maybe "from the past"? Otherwise, examples from Uses of English verb forms also look acceptable. This search for formerly finds examples which appear Ok (as adjectives). Your question has not gained any responses until mine, so it might not be a big deal to manual watchers. I guess we should judge each case on its context and understandability. -84user (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Active and passive voice
We used to explicitly prefer active voice to discourage weasel words and unreferenced statements. That seems to have been left out of the current version. I have come across sentences and phrases loaded with WW, W2W and passive voice but some editors don't see the problem and can't read enough into the MOS to figure it out. It's almost as if two bad styles cancel themselves out in terms of qualifying a weasel word statement. Bad phrasing (two types):
 * Despite his stellar character, some have alleged that John Smith murdered his wife.
 * Despite the overwhelming evidence, some believe John Smith is innocent.
 * Despite being wrong, some think they are right.

This seems to have qualified expression of doubt, weasel words, and passive voice. MOS should explicitly discourage passive voice as well as prepositional editorial expressions/qualifiers of doubt (not just words) such as "Despite ...". We no longer explicitly call them out. Preferred: Comments? Does this fit in with existing sections? --DHeyward (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The family of John Smith's wife stated they believe Smith murdered her. [1] John Smith has not been charged with a crime.


 * We have "Writing should be clear and concise" in the general MoS. Active voice is almost always shorter. We're explicit about WP:WEASEL and MOS:OPED here. If we follow these rules, passive voice will almost disappear. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your preferred version should read "John Smith's wife's family said they believe Smith murdered her." And try to find out which family member(s) said it. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether the active or the passive voice is better is entirely dependent upon context. Sometimes the active voice is better, but often the passive is much more appropriate, for instance when things are happening to the subject of the article (which is not exactly unusual in an encyclopaedia).
 * "Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas."
 * "Nuclear weapons have been used twice in the course of warfare . . ."
 * are entirely appropriate, and these examples are fairly typical of encyclopedic prose.
 * The people most in need of advice probably couldn't correctly identify a passive, anyway. --Boson (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, those don't suck (though "assassinated" has a bit of a classist ring to it, compared to those "killed" or "murdered"). I only want passive almost eradicated. I can (and will) trim a comma from the JFK one and two letters from the nukes, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good point. They were made up examples.  Manual_of_Style/Clarity made it easier to point out.  Real cases are part of fringe viewpoints and trying to cover the fringe viewpoint ends up with crappy style when simply direct is better.  The fringe view gets written in a passive voice which is easily recognized by , but that gets covered by the oped opening so it's not as obvious.  Similar to (made up again)


 * Despite the Warren Commission report, there are allegations of multiple shooters.
 * Who alleges it is lost, and the introductory OPED clause is used to hide it. It makes it sound less passive although two sentences would be clearer.


 * ''The Warren Commission determined there was a single shooter. X alleges there were multiple shooters.
 * For facts that are historical, passive voice would be okay. It's present, inconclusive or fringe that needs active voice, AFAIK.


 * John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, in Dallas by Lee Harvey Oswald. X alleges there were multiple shooters.
 * That's a mix of active and passive that I would consider as OK for entry especially for a historical fact that well documented or wiki linked to the source that establishes the fact. It's the vague "they" that needs to be active voice.   --DHeyward (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I still see no inappropriate use of the passive voice in any of the examples given. --Boson (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And "Despite the Warren Commission report, there are allegations of multiple shooters. isn't even passive, it's active. "Multiple shooters were alleged." is the passive form of that statement. This is just a case of unclear agency, which is already covered by guidelines about clarity. Editors make vague statements that elide agency using both active and passive voices. If we want people to be clear about agency, the best guideline is still "be clear about agency" rather than "don't use the passive voice because sometimes people use it to be unclear about agency". __ E L A Q U E A T E  12:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Make love have sex
I noticed someone who thought there was a problem with "make love" described it as "presumptuous". This violates NPOV. David F (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Backstory to present: The Titanic (1997 film) Plot section would sometimes have the words "make love" in place of "have sex" for the instance that Jack and Rose become sexually intimate. Other times...it would be vice versa due to people changing it because they believe that "make love" is flowery prose (a fancy/prettier way to state "have sex") or simply to abide by WP:EUPHEMISM; I pretty much told Ferrierd (David F) this after he'd change "have sex" to "make love" in June 2013; see User talk:Flyer22/Archive 12. Ferrierd did not care to change it back, stating, "'Make love' is artistic, 'have sex' is crass. ;^}." And I didn't care to fight him on it because I don't much care either way, though I do prefer "make love" in this case.


 * In October 2013, Connor Behan came along and changed "make love" back to "have sex." This led to a newly-registered editor putting in an edit request on December 31, 2013 to change "have sex" to "make love." Betty Logan turned down the editor, per WP:EUPHEMISM. Ferrierd showed up to the article today (which, by this action, makes it clear that it is on his WP:Watchlist) to relay that "Yeah, it's an euphemism, but it's a GOOD euphemism." See the link to that discussion (December 31, 2013 link). He then marked the answered question as "not answered." Doniago showed up to re-mark the question as answered and to seemingly indirectly disagree with Ferrierd. Ferrierd came to this guideline, which should have WP:Consensus for its changes (as stated on the guideline page), and changed the guideline to suit his argument at the Titanic (1997 film) article; he then begin WP:Edit warring with me over it, as seen here, here, here and here, insisting that WP:Consensus is needed to remove his changes to the guideline. Apparently, he has never heard of the WP:STATUSQUO and BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) essays. But that does not surprise me since he doesn't seem to be familiar with Policies and guidelines either, such as the fact that WP:Edit warring can get one or both parties blocked. Ferrierd's changes to the guideline, "make love is not preferred." in place of "the euphemism make love is presumptuous," is not an improvement, in my opinion; it is POV-ish, exactly what he claims use of presumptuous is in this case. Not preferred? Such strong wording that begs the question: Who does not prefer it? Use of presumptuous, by contrast, is simply telling you that you are being presumptuous if you use "make love" in place of "have sex"; while such a matter is not always presumptuous, that wording is better than Ferrierd's wording (again, in my opinion). Flyer22 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to reply to ad hominem arguments. Forget it. David F (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, "no time to reply" is how I feel about Wikipedia editors who can't follow simple Wikipedia etiquette, guidelines or policies. You are the one who felt that your wording is so important that you had to WP:Edit war it into a guideline without WP:Consensus. More than once you were pointed to what you were supposed to do, and you didn't do that. Do I get very frustrated by such behavior? Obviously, yes. You are lucky that this is not a policy page with many WP:Administrators watching it. As you've likely seen by now, another editor stepped in and reverted you after me, so that is that for now...unless someone else objects to the wording that you objected to. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be abundantly clear to anyone who uses this site with any regularity that pushing forward a policy change without appropriate discussion only to then cite the modified policy to ignore an underlying consensus in favor of one's own contentious edit is highly improper. I propose that the policy edit be reverted along with any related changes to articles. I have some other ideas as well, but I should hope that would be enough to resolve the matter. DonIago (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Doniago, as noted above, the guideline's text was restored. An editor reverted Ferrierd after I was done reverting him (I certainly was not about to violate WP:3RR). And, Ferrierd, I apologize for my above agitated tone toward you. I got upset because of the repeated reverting and you not seeming to consider anything that I stated, not deciding to at least discuss the matter before reverting again. Edits to policies and guidelines should have WP:Consensus (whether it's consensus by talk page discussion or you having made a WP:BOLD edit that went unchallenged). As shown by the aforementioned archived talk page discussion (the discussion that took place at my talk page), we have worked fine together before. Just like in that case, I know that you were only trying to improve the Titanic (1997 film) article in this case, as well as Wikipedia, and I harbor no hard feelings toward you on this matter. I hope that you harbor none toward me either. If you are still willing to propose changes to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch guideline, I am willing to listen. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I find "make love" presumptuous because it doesn't just mean that two people had sex... it implies that the sex must've been "good". It would be nice if there were a word for intercourse that was artistic but still neutral. Unfortunately, I can't think of one. Connor Behan (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Have sex" is the neutral one. "Make (sweet) love" leans to one side of artsy and "fuck" to the other. "Engage in sexual intercourse" might be slightly more neutral, but far too formal. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Use of "become sexually intimate." could also work, but "sexually intimate" can be more so vague; it covers far more aspects, and many people, for example, wouldn't classify only using one's hands to sexually please a partner as "having had sex" (to them, it's simply foreplay)...but they would classify it as "sexually intimate." Flyer22 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When I hear "sexually intimate", I think of the smiling old people in Viagra commercials. Not appropriate for the young Rose. Maybe that's just me. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, not just me. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "sexually intimate" does not work. Quit trying to tone it down.. This is an encyclopedia, not a story book for little kids.  "sexual intercourse" is more neutral and properly formal (formal is good).  Technical 13 (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not truly trying to tone it down; others are. I simply offered a suggestion to forward that cause. That stated, like I noted above in my initial post in this section, I prefer "make love" in this case -- for Titanic's Jack and Rose. This is because they are portrayed as deeply in love; James Cameron has been clear that this is a love story and that they fall deeply in love, so it's not presumptuous to me to state "they make love" (not for these two). As for Connor Behan's suggestion that "make love" implies that the sex is good, I never thought of that phrase that way until he brought it up. I suppose it does suggest that, but, if the way that the Jack and Rose sex scene plays out is any indication, the sex certainly was not bad. If we should quit trying to tone it down, we should stick with "have sex"...which isn't necessarily any less neutral (but certainly less technical/mechanical-sounding) than "have sexual intercourse" or "engage in sexual intercourse." Oh, and maybe I've read too many love stories, along with many scholarly works on sexual activity, over my lifetime, but "sexually intimate" can work just fine in some cases; I don't necessarily see this as not being one of those cases, but I agree that it's best not to use it for this plot matter. Flyer22 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I was shocked by the collective reaction to a ONE WORD CHANGE I made to a Wikipedia page that everyone is free to edit. David F (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You inserted a euphemism in place of the existing text, something which there is a policy addressing. Not so shocking at that point. DonIago (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Doniago, keep in mind that Manual of Style/Words to watch is a guideline page, not a policy page, though I obviously feel the same as you do with regard to Ferrierd's actions. Flyer22 (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies for misspeaking, but the point is that the underlying issue was obviously contentious enough in the past that editors felt compelled to write up something regarding how they felt it could best be handled. DonIago (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want to use the word sex... I think just plain old intercourse would also be appropriate.... Nickmxp (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

New section: Person or office?
I have boldly added a section: It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office (such as president) and an incumbent (such as Barack Obama); a newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction, for a newspaper "President Obama" and "the President" are one and the same from 2008 to 2016.
 * Person or office?
 * "President Obama nominates new justices of the US Supreme Court" – no, whoever is president at the time does.
 * "President George W Bush nominated John Roberts as Chief Justice" – yes, always true.
 * "The guest list included Charles, Prince of Wales" – usually OK, unlikely to be confused with Charles I of England, Prince of Wales until 1625.
 * "The guest list included Prince Charles" – usually, but not always, clear it's not Prince Charles, Count of Flanders (1903–1983).
 * "The guest list included the Prince of Wales" – no, will go out of date.

Review and change or delete as thought best. Pol098 (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not see the point. We should never btw say "Prince Charles" since prince is his title, grander than but similar to "Mr."  He was born a prince but became Prince of Wales when he was thirteen.  We may refer to him as the Prince of Wales because that is an office he holds.  TFD (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is simple: a reference to "the Prince of Wales" may mean either the person or the title, and is ambiguous, and, in the case of an incumbent, goes out of date. When Charles becomes King, I think customarily the title of Prince of Wales briefly becomes vacant, then William is awarded the title (or maybe he inherits automatically, I'm not sure). So a reference encyclopaedia article which says, for example, that a hospital had been opened by the Prince of Wales, becomes unclear without checking. This is never the case if more explicit information is given. Whether or not "Prince Charles" is appropriate is irrelevant to this general issue (though the text of the guideline should be corrected if this point is wrong). In point of fact "Prince Charles", whether technically correct or not, is often used in real life. Any other opinions? Pol098 (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Meh. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theory" is a contentious label
I think 'conspiracy theory' should be added to the list of examples of contentious labels. Any thoughts? Stax68 (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably yes, along with: addiction(?), communist, franken-, lunatic, Nazi, rabid (meaning fanatical, not meaning having rabies).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For conspiracy theory I don't think so. WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI, and WP:FRINGE shows we have to be able to separate fringe ideas, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience from reliable source-derived science and clearly explain them as what reliable sources tell us they are. We shouldn't apply the label if it's not in the source, but we also don't want to promote Astrology as "Alternate science" and give it false legitimacy. I also don't think a gigantic laundry list of examples of the principle would be more helpful. It's not a blacklist of disallowed words, it's to give an idea of what's meant about choosing words carefully. I'm pretty sure that any article that someone tried to add "Nazi" to (where no source said it), would not need to have it mentioned here to be remove as inappropriate. Extra clutter here won't stop any discussions down the line. __ E L A Q U E A T E  00:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But I'm not suggesting a laundry list; I'm proposing adding a particular phrase which is especially troublesome. Though since the article is about words to watch, surely providing instances is exactly to the point. 'Conspiracy theory' can be distinguished quite clearly from other terms put forward by Solomonfromfinland. Each of those other terms falls into one of two categories: 1. manifest name-calling ('rabid', 'franken-', 'lunatic') or 2. reasonably well-defined descriptive terms which are insulting, if at all, because they designate something unpleasant ('addiction', 'communist', 'Nazi').
 * The term 'conspiracy theory' falls into neither category. The peculiar defect of this term is to equivocate between abuse and mere description. As your own usage suggests, it is a deprecatory term, implying that its object is unworthy of consideration. In this sense, it expresses a judgement which can't be encapsulated by any definition. At the same time, it has a perfectly ordinary sense given by the constructive meaning of the terms 'conspiracy' + 'theory': a theory which posits a conspiracy. But these two senses of the term are commonly run together, so that one may label something a conspiracy theory because it meets the simple, well-defined and normatively neutral definition, yet by so doing, one may smuggle in the unfounded implication that the theory (claim, belief, hypothesis, possibility) is bizarre, outr&eacute;, 'paranoid' pseudo-history.
 * This makes the label very useful to polemicists, propagandists and POV-pushers; e.g. Tony Blair used it to discredit the - true - claim that evidence of 'WMD' in Iraq was being fixed around policy. Think of any conspiratorial event of the last 50 years or so, and you'll almost certainly find that those denying it attempted to dismiss it as a 'CT' - often with great success until the evidence became utterly overwhelming (at which point the line of defence tends to switch to attempted justification, or dismissal as 'old news' (e.g. the recent NSA revelations).
 * The section states "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, 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." This applies to 'CT' just as much as to the other examples; in fact more so because in most cases the term is applied not to the subject matter itself, but to certain opinions about the subject matter. Its use is thus inevitably prejudicial (even if in fact accurate).
 * This last point also applies, of course, to 'pseudoscience' and 'fringe theories', and ideally it should not be necessary to use those either. (The section already suggests that 'pseudo-' is generally likely to be a contentious label.) I'm not so concerned about those myself because the judgement they imply is 1. made openly and 2. a fairly objective matter with clear criteria. I therefore don't argue;; for their inclusion in the list of words to watch.
 * Even in those cases, though, it would be better to stick to the subject matter and point out the reasons why the viewpoint counts as pseudoscience/is widely rejected by experts. This idea occurs in the section itself: "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight." Precisely the same applies with 'conspiracy theory' in place of 'controversial'. If one thinks it's justifiable and important to call something a 'conspiracy theory', then one should not skip over this important point with a single phrase, but instead share with the reader the reasons why the view counts as a 'conspiracy theory' (by whatever criteria one is applying).
 * Note too, that the section exhorts the reader to avoid giving fringe theories undue weight - it doesn't suggest introducing fringe theories only to denounce them as being 'fringe theories'. WP:FRINGE does state "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." None of these categories, however, covers so-called 'conspiracy theories'.WP:FRINGE/PS gives guidance on how to identify a theory as pseudoscience. I think it is instructive to try formulating similar general guidance on identifying so-called 'conspiracy theories'. I don't think it can be done.
 * To address the other two guidelines you mention: WP:GEVAL only concerns omitting fringe views, not including and labelling them.
 * WP:PSCI is interesting - it deals with pseudoscience, and then states that "This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked." I think there are problems with that but I needn't go into those. The key point is that in preference to the colloquial 'conspiracy theories', a precise and much more verbose expression is used. Applying this to the relevant part of what goes before: 'The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such", we then derive the unobjectionable "forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence should be clearly described as such". The article not only avoids telling people to call things 'conspiracy theories', but goes to some trouble to do so.


 * (Apologs for delay in response.) Stax68 (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Further to Elaqueate's comments: "It's not a blacklist of disallowed words, it's to give an idea of what's meant about choosing words carefully." - false dichotomy. It is neither a 'banned' list nor a selection of merely illustrative examples. Instead it's a list of specific, er, 'words to watch'; I'd say it places the onus of justification on those using the specified terms (if challenged).
 * "Extra clutter here won't stop any discussions down the line." I think this is inaccurate, and misconceives the point of the whole article. The MoS is not just a primer for editors; it also provides 'soft' rules which can be referred to as an aid to dispute resolution. This kind of guidance is sorely needed, especially in the area of recent and contemporary history, which is both highly contested and (not unrelatedly) the topic area in (or about) which the term 'conspiracy theory' is applied (no-one describes theses about Imperial Rome or the Borgias as 'conspiracy theories'). If editor burn-out due to trying to deal with 'civil POV-pushers' is to be reduced (and it needs to be if WP is ever to earn a reputation for reliability in this kind of hotly contested area) then this kind of recurring issue needs to be decided, where possible, at the level of WP guidelines and policy, and not left to be re-litigated every time it comes up, with the more committed and intransigent party generally winning out and leaving bona fide, disinterested editors discouraged and disillusioned.
 * Elaqueate continues: "I'm pretty sure that any article that someone tried to add "Nazi" to (where no source said it), would not need to have it mentioned here to be remove as inappropriate." - but the fact that a source said it is not always sufficient to merit inclusion; indeed, I'd suggest that in cases where someone is keen to apply a contested label, they should report its application by a source, or the grounds for applying it, rather than simply applying it in the editorial voice and adding a citation; especially if the citation in question functions only to justify the use of the contested label. (Full disclosure: I have a specific example in mind here, but the issue is a general one, in which I have a long-standing interest, and it seems prudent to keep the discussion at a general level.)Stax68 (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. It is just a selection of illustrative examples, thousands of words could be added as "possible trouble". We can't start adding all of them without the page looking ridiculous. It isn't a list of all words to watch.
 * 2. Elaqueate continues: "I'm pretty sure that any article that someone tried to add "Nazi" to (where no source said it) and your response but the fact that a source said it is not always sufficient to merit inclusion;. This is a clear misreading on your part about what words I used. Regardless, the point is we don't have to have "Nazi" on the list for people to know it's a word to be watched in an article.
 * 3. WP:FRINGE is clear that what are commonly called "conspiracy theories" are included when it speaks of "fringe theories". Fringe theories should be documented as such.
 * 4. Are you being unintentionally ironic when you label people polemicists, propagandists and POV-pushers?
 * 5. Your response is a little unwieldy, you might want to remember this isn't a forum about what a conspiracy theory is, and you might want to review essays such as Wall of text and Too long; didn't read in the interests of actual discussion.
 * 6. Full disclosure: I have a specific example in mind here, but.... This isn't actually full disclosure. If you have a specific issue in a specific article, it's not usually a good idea to seek a change to the MoS to back up your interpretation there. Again, if you think the phrase needs in-text attribution on a page, the MoS currently points in that direction with its current wording. If it has to do with your struggles here then I'd suggest dealing with it there first. I don't think that changing the examples given in the MoS is going to affect that discussion in any significant way.__ E L A Q U E A T E  02:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. But my point is this is an important and non-obvious word to watch (as are most of the others), so it's worth including.
 * 2. I did misunderstand, but in a different way. I thought Nazi was on the list (as 'racist' is) - my point was that the inappropriateness of a contentious label is not dependent on its being unsourced: that is one of the points of putting words on the list. Had I stopped to think about the speific example, I'd have pointed out that it's not agood candidate for the list (as, BTW, 'racist' needn't be, IMO) precisely because it's not itself a value-laden term: it's a pretty straightforward descriptive term which happens to signify something very nasty (an 'uncontentious label', even). Thus, it is generally likely to be acceptable if reliably sourced. Contentious - value-laden - terms may well not be, especially since they may be used in a value-free sense in the source, but acquire a more evaluative connotation in the context of the article itself.
 * 3. a. That article focuses almost exclusively on pseudo-science - yet this is compatible with "pseudo-" being deemed a contentious label.)
 * ...b. It's reasonably clear that the one use of the term 'conspiracy theories' is restricted to 'ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view' - I, as you would expect, would have made that qualification clearer. The problem I'm concerned with is the prejudicial labelling of 'conspiracy theories' that do not seem to be pseudo-history (such as Wansee, Reichstag fire, minimal JFK conspiracy hypotheses, pervasive NSA monitoring, Iraq WMD deception, Tonkin Gulf, Gladio, Get Castro, etc.)
 * 5. Yes; duly noted, thanks.
 * 6. No, I was going to start invoking WP:SYNTH but pretty quickly decided that I was investing too much in the argument and it wasn't worth the hassle. See below. FWIW, I would probably agree that changing the examples given in the MoS isn't going to affect that discussion in any significant way. OK I'll shut up for a bit now.
 * Stax68 (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should "Conspiracy Theory" be listed as a contentious label?
.... here is the entire RfC discussion... See above; further or alternatively, should content be added similar to that dealing with 'controversal': "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight."?

Perhaps something like: "Similarly, avoid describing a viewpoint as a "conspiracy theory", as this term tends to have a subjective and potentially prejudicial aspect as well as a more neutral meaning. If reliable sources establish that the view is a fringe view or otherwise defective, say so explicitly and better still explain its defects directly." Stax68 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No This is different from "controversial", though its usage can be. That's a vague term, this isn't. I'd expect readers to only use it when describing something that meets our definition of conspiracy theory. That is, it can't just be a "kooky" or "fringe" idea, though that distiguishes it from plain conspiracy. There are plenty of kooky ideas floating around the Internet, and many might be expected linked on a conspiracy theorist's website, but only because they're both hot among a certain audience. That aliens control our media in itself isn't a conspiracy theory, because no aliens have denied (or confirmed) it. However, saying aliens and rich Earthlings are in cahoots would be, since rich Earthlings have given their (usually) conflicting side of the story.


 * In short, things that can be described (and sourced) accurately and concisely with a Wikilink should be. Those that can't probably aren't. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But what is that definition, really? A definition needs to fit with actual usage, and note that although the WP entry states that "A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses three or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation", it immediately qualifies this by pointing out that " In recent decades the term has acquired a derogatory meaning, and distinction should be made between the derisive use of the term and reference to actual, proven conspiracies."


 * This tends to confirm that, as I've suggested above, the term is somewhat ambiguous - as you state, it means both 'kooky' and 'concerned with a conspiracy'. But if one is discussing a conspiracy or a hypothesis about one, then the 'conspiracy-aboutness' will generally already be pellucidly evident, so there's no need to add the label 'conspiracy theory' in that neutral, descriptive sense; only if one wants to import the kookiness aspect would one then insist on retaining the 'CT' label. Note that all the items on that list probably have entries in WP which provide a descriptive 'definition', too, yet they clearly are considered contentious labels (potenially contentious labels would be more acurate, but the text makes that clear enough)..Stax68 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No. "Controversial" is both vague and euphemistic, and indeed can easily be used to grant a fringe viewpoint due weight. There's nothing "similar" about the use of "conspiracy theory", a pretty precise word that we have an explanatory article about. It isn't a contentious label. Bishonen &#124; talk 02:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC).


 * In the section above, I've tried (probably rather badly) to explain why what appears a precisely defined term is in fact as value-laden and subjective as 'controversial' - and in fact more pernicious for its appearance of objectivity. The second section of the WP article you mention, "Acquired derogatory meaning", itself states:


 * "Originally a neutral term, since the mid-1960s it has acquired a somewhat derogatory meaning, implying a paranoid tendency to see the influence of some malign covert agency in events.[14] The term is often used to automatically dismiss claims that the critic deems ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, or irrational.[15] The term often implies that the proposed explanation of events is perceived as violating Occam's razor or the principle of Falsifiability.[citation needed] A conspiracy theory that is proven to be correct, such as the notion that United States President Richard Nixon and his aides conspired to cover up Watergate, is usually referred to as something else, such as investigative journalism or historical analysis.[16][17]"


 * The next section, "Term of ridicule" is relevant too. I agree 'conspiracy theory' is not euphemistic; it's the opposite (whatever that is). It's not used to give undue weight to fringe opinions, but to deny due weight to non-fringe views by implying that they are akin to pseudoscience, without having to establish that. To deny due weight to one viewpoint is to give undue weight to competing claims. Stax68 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No - Although the term conspiracy theory may be used as an epithet, it is appropriate to describe irrationally held beliefs. It should only be used if there is consensus in rs that the term applies. TFD (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No - some subjects are uncontroversially and uncontentiously conspiracy theories. There's no reason to suggest those are "controversial". In other instances it might not be as cut-and-dry and describing something as "controversial" might be appropriate. Implementing a blanket rule doesn't work. Stalwart 111  09:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No. As I've said, the examples given on this MoS page are not supposed to be a comprehensive list of all words to watch. Fringe theories should be documented as what sources describe them as. The MoS describes the principle, it's not a venue for adjudicating the use of all possibly problematic phrases. That should happen based on case-by-case use, usually on the talk page of where the phrase is being used. It looks like the editor is trying to get a default judgement on their dispute Talk:Six-Day_War. They may or may not be right about the due weight in the use there (it might make sense for more non-involved editors to review it), but "fixing" the MoS is probably not a productive way to settle a situation marked by edit-warring and acrimony. __ E L A Q U E A T E  02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can see how you might think that (so I'm not particularly offended) but I can only assure you that I'm not going to all this trouble as a ruse to get a fairly obscure section amended. I'd certainly welcome another editor having a look at that section and its reference to 'Arab Conspiracy Theories' (if it's still there), but I'm nowhere near committed enough to resume that particular Sisyphean task, even if something like my proposal were to achieve consensus (a slim prospect on current showing, but I can dream).


 * BTW, I think a closer look at what transpired in that case would show that I didn't engage in any acrimony, and I don't think I should really be charged with edit warring (not as an aggressor, anyway, but I expect they all say that.) I'm an inexperienced editor, and wasn't familiar with what an edit war is, exactly. I've read a lot more on WP policies as a result of that rather dismaying encounter. The connection between that dispute and this request is not direct. It's more a case of a common cause: I am generally interested in and opposed to the pervasive polemical use of this term in all contexts; I came across what I took to be a particularly glaring example of the term being introduced into an article solely as a prejudicial label, and tried to change it.


 * Regarding 'instruction creep', that's all very well but I'm not asking to cover every eventuality; just one that I think needs addressing because the POV-pushing potential of this term is less obvious than that of many others. There must be plenty of other similarly frustrating disputes going on, discouraging many earnest, judicious and fair-minded editors, and consequently many other defective WP entries, in which the term is used to deny due weight to perfectly reasonable and widely-held views. Alongside that, enless bickering and repetitive discussion, and presumably in some cases an arbitration process of some kind, which takes up peoples' time and is inevitably going to be influenced by the arbitrator's opinion on the 'conspiracy theory' in question, and by how familiar they are with the ambiguous and value-laden nature of the label.


 * Providing a bit of gentle guidance here would help to clarify and often resolve such disputes - if someone is using 'conspiracy theory' to mean 'allegation of conspiracy' or 'suspicions about collusion', etc. they should not object to using a precise descriptive phrase; if they mean to explicitly signal 'delusion', 'unfalsifiable belief system', etc., they shouldn't mind saying so. Having a modest statement flagging this 'phrase to watch' would assist in clarifying this to bona fide editors. The result - greater consistency, less editor burnout, better WP articles, less time spent by admins on adjudicating petty misunderstandings and wildly over-inflated disputes, more focus on genuinely hard cases, increased harmony, world peace, and free pizza.


 * I therefore humbly ask you to reconsider - my suggestion for the wording and even the specific content is entirely provisional and up for discussion. My aim is certainly not to ban the phrase; only to flag up the fact that there is an issue here, and that the term is capable of being used in a prejudicial way. Stax68 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggest slight changes to Peacock terms
I am not sure that the current wording of PEACOCK is clear enough in respect to such terms and attribution. Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

I would rewrite as follows (explanation below): Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable unverifiable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance. Peacock terms and peacock like language used to describe subjects, concepts or other facts in an article attributed to reliable secondary sources are permissible. (Bold for added text)
 * "secondary" added per Nickmxp below --Mike Cline (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The rationale here is simple, if a peacock term or peacock like language is cited to a reliable source that uses that very language or terms, then it should be allowed in the article. Too often editors just remove what they think is peacock language, cite this MOS and seem unconcerned as to whether sources actually support the language. The first sentence talks about “without attribution” but the “with attribution” aspect of this is lost. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest adding reliable "secondary" sources.... Nickmxp (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with loaded language in quotes. But when it's not, we're supposed to paraphrase the spin out of it. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My rationale behind the secondary source suggestion was due to numerous amount of opinion articles on everything if the term came from a secondary source it would give a better siense of notability for that opinion... I could be wrong but that was the reasoning.NickMxp 21:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs)
 * We (in theory) shouldn't have much opinion at all in an encyclopedia. In Reception/Criticism/Controversy sections, sure, but elsewhere it should simply be erased, not sourced. People magazine is a (largely) independent source which calls 100 people "beautiful" every year. That doesn't mean we should add the word to every lead, but we could cite the fact of the ranking in an Awards section, attributed to People. Problems arise with your proposal when those same 100 people are also featured on another list of worst-dressed or such, where they are called dumpy, lumpy, frumpy or just plain gross. Who is truly correct? Nobody. Just opinions. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think confusing what we are talking about here with "opinion" is in error. Unless there is empirical data to support some fact, most content reflects someone's (individually or collectively) opinion. I review and reference a lot of scientific papers and books related to articles I work on.  They are riddled with opinions and conclusions made by the authors.  We include such content as fact and cite them accordingly with reliable sources and no one objects.  In many cases, they are extremely POV and biased.  Yet when the same types of reliable sources uses one of our "peacock" words we dismiss it as pure POV.  My personal pet peeve is the term "World Class".  It is well defined in dictionaries  yet when the term is used in reliable sources to describe something, we find it easy to dismiss as POV or opinion completely disregarding what the sources say, sources that are authored by experts who know what they are talking about.  That's not right. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think opinions are sometimes notable... like being on the best/worst dressed list... But I think it should be only worth noting if someone noted someone elses opinion... like if I wrote an opinion piece saying someone was the worst dressed at the oscars.. it shouldn't be noted... but If CNN noted the opinion of my article (in relation to the topic at hand of course)... then i think it's okay... so maybe changing it to "Reliable secondary sources in relation to the topic at hand are permissable, but never use them in the lead" would be a better approach..Nickmxp (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional terms for inclusion in list of example Peacocks

 * Amazing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.1.89 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hate groups
I think we should add a guideline section of when to refer to groups as "Hate groups"... I'm pretty new to wikipedia but I've already seen this label used twice to push a point of view... once in the GQ controversy section of the Duck Dynasty article... citing that phil recieved support from three anti gay hate groups.. and once in the lead in on the stop the islamization of america article... there is even a great deal of discussion going on in the talk section of how to characterize the groups characterization the petitioners as anti gay... I consider the tid bit to be a bit of a point of view push because it referenced no article except for a list of anti gay hate groups.. and of course those who disagreed with his remarks also labeled them as anti gay.. but that's beside the point.. I think that SPLC labels are needed in some instances about a subject but only as a tid bit.. like in the body of main article it would be appropriate to note the group was labeled as a hate group.... but I think we need to stay away from using the label everytime the group comes up... I wouldn't consider it to be a word to avoid but surely there seems to be a need for a section in the guidelines on how to apply such labels properly and relevantly.... the argument seems to be that since the splc lists them as hate groups then it's appropriate to also list them as hate groups... but to use that rationale one could write an article about stem cell research and list one of it's critics as an anti-gay hate group... which would just seem silly... Nickmxp (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I say "hate group" is fine, if it's called that in the source used to back whatever objective claim is made. Combining the factual source with a second list of groups labelled hate groups (by anyone) to make a new point is WP:SYNTHESIS. Not using any sources is even worse. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In the Duck Dynasty instance, best to just list the three groups by name. That footnote to the rationale looks deceptively like a reference, in the body. Can't fix it myself, apparently there were page-locking fights there. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The Stop Islamization of America one is a bit more fair, as it's directly about the group, and the designation is clearly attributed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * the SOIA page is a little bit coy about labeling.. which is why I though it was a good example, as I agree that the part at the end stating it's been labeled a hate group... I don't think the very first sentence calling it an anti Islam anti Muslim organization (the type of hate group it has been labeled) is very neutral... it would be like having the first sentence of the family research council state that the family research council is an anti gay organization founded in 1862... (or what ever year it was founded in ) and then at the end of the description saying it was called a hate by the SPLC.. the duck dynasty page got locked over a conflict over this very subject... Nickmxp (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hadn't even looked at the first sentence. Now that I do, yeah, that's a bit shady. Also defies WP:LEADCITE. Whenever I see a buttload of citations next to anything, it rings my "somebody's trying to prove a point" bell, and it looks more dubious than it would have with none.


 * And when I see the words "Islam" and "United States", I think 7th most controversial topic meets 13th. Those are unlucky numbers, so I'm afraid I can only offer moral support. I'm a scarred veteran of Wikipedia's 4th worst warzone, but at least that was fun. These religious and political battles are all basically the same, and never end. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason I see the SOIA thing as a point of view shift is simply because that first sentence couldn't be used to describe their mirror organization stop the Islamazation of Europe because the SPLC doesn't label groups outside of the us even though they have essentially the same objectives... Nickmxp (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I definitely prefer their lead. Nice and factual. No citation clutter. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Denmark and Norway's SIO articles are also quite alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Which is why I believe a guideline for when and how to use labels applied by third parties should be included... it could stop alot of edit war headaches... (personally I'm now staying out of the editing part concerning these labels although I do make my objections known... I tried to condense the GQ section... rookie mistake... lol) Although the mis application of labels can be covered using other guidelines, it seems to me that when other guidelines are pointed out it fuels an already tense debate by both sides discerning the applicability of such guidelines to that situation... It would seem there is a need to have a go-to section for clarity.Nickmxp (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It should have the same requirement for other labels in WP:LABEL. Which, unless used widely in multiple reliable sources, should be avoided.  Same as "cult."  --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen people try to explain the wp label only to be met with stuff like the SPLC is a highly reliable source.. after all the lead in sentence on the SIOA has a list of sources backing up it's label up but it doesn't read neutrally... it reads as a well sourced point of view... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickmxp (talk • contribs) 00:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The requirement is "widely recognized." One group is not enough.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

True but most hate groups are widely recognized as such due to the labeling of one group.. a list of hate groups is widely recognized.. I think in terms of general guidelines it would be more neutral to open an article about a group with how that group labels themselves.. and then stating the labels of others.. and to apply the term hate group only in frame of the people who reported on the issue if the labeling was widely reported.. example with the gq section.. if multiple news stations reported an anti gay hate group was supporting Phil.. then it would be reasonable to arrest that Phil was being supported by an anti gay hate group.. but if multiple sources state only the groups name then only the groups name should be reported.. and if you got multiple sources using the name and only one or two using the label.. the name should be applied as it the group was most noted by name. It seems the labeling is being used in this instance to promote motive behind the support that Phil received that was not generally noted by sources as the rationale for support... because generally what I've seen I the term hate group is being used to imply motive as fact... even if it contradicts other motives and the label if used improperly can give license to the opinionated to state their beliefs as fact and their opponents beliefs as questionable all under the authority. Of the word hate group.. Nickmxp (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe labels that even hint at being contentious should not be used. Contentious labels, particularly value-laden labels serve no purpose other than to further agendas and POVs.  It could be construed as WP:PROPAGANDA, and WP:SYNTHESIS depending on what links are used in the template.  For example, editors need a better understanding of the effects of value-laden labels such as Islamophobia, and the important differences in the words Islam/Islamic and Islamism/Islamist extremism.  I recently posted the following to a threaded discussion on an RFC: Does the use of the Islamophobia template in this article violate wikipedias policy on NPOV?---> I feel this is extremely important (emphasis my own) - WP guidelines "Value-laden labels" state: Emotive arguments and loaded language are particularly persuasive because they exploit the human weakness for acting immediately based upon an emotional response, without such further considered judgment. Due to such potential for emotional complication, it is generally advised to avoid loaded language in argument or speech when fairness and impartiality is one of the goals. Anthony Weston, for example, admonishes students and writers: "In general, avoid language whose only function is to sway the emotions". The Islamophobia template does just that through the use of "Islam" and "phobia". Together, the words sway emotions, and indirectly promote a cause which in this case inadvertently happens to be Islamism. Organizations that investigate and collect data for the purpose of exposing Islamist extremism are not phobic, should not be labeled phobic, and should not be connected to contentious labeling in a phobia series. The Islamophobia template links to articles about genocide, and Qu'ran burnings which are unrelated. In fact, it may even be considered WP:Synthesis. It is neither the purpose of WP nor the job of editors to link unrelated articles they "assume" may be of interest to readers, especially when such linking is done through value-laden labeling.
 * Newsweek published a very informative article distinguishing the difference between Islamic and Islamist. It is titled Islamic or Islamist? Pluralist and secular Muslims are certainly able to discern the difference as evidenced in multiple reliable sources. In fact there is an excellent article about Islamism in WP. With no intention of offending anyone, it appears to me that the Islamophobia template may have originated from ignorance about the differences between Islam, and Islamism/Islamist extremism. WP is spreading that ignorance by the continued use of the Islamophobia template. It is of the utmost importance for WP editors to understand the differences. Atsme  &#9775; talk  13:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"Adventurer"
Re. the lede of Chris Terrill, does it violate WP:PEACOCK to call him an "adventurer"?  It Is Me Here  t /  c  11:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If no sources call him that, and it's not in the main body in any way, then yes. If sources call him that or an equivalent term, then no. That lead needs work no matter what. It should also summarize any significant or notable specific work and career experiences. The main body text needs some rewriting to avoid peacock phraseology. However, this isn't really a noticeboard for other articles, so you should work on it at that article's talk page.__ E L A Q U E A T E  11:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I brought it up here since my main question regards whether or not that substantive counts as a Peacock term. (By contrast, e.g. "lawyer" presumably wouldn't, even if unattributed.) I linked to the article just so people could see the context I had seen the word in.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  13:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In that context I think it's a little unencyclopedic and imprecise (like listing someone as a "romantic", even when it's arguably true and not being used in a promotional or peacock manner). The fix in this case would be to remove "adventurer" and state more about what the subject is notable about in the lead. I don't think the word is necessarily "promotional" in all cases but I don't think it's useful there. The article does have many other instances of overly promotional and editorializing language, so I think you're right to look at it, e.g. brought together his two passions (the military and the theatre) in a remarkable way. There are also some possibly BLP-problematic issues where we quote him bad-mouthing and being bad-mouthed by his ex-fiancee, which seems a bit against WP:NOTGOSSIP. Hope this helps.__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Request edit in Unsupported attributions section
The second phrase: I subjectively think "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis." could be improved by writing instead "A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet without substantial basis.". This view is ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE. But it's worth reading (in my subjective opinion).189.138.250.29 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been meaning to address Codename Lisa's change to the beginning of that section, and this is because her change is bit redundant to the second sentence, the sentence the IP cited above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I kind of prefer Lisa's edit, as it is somewhat easier to understand. It's kind of redundant, yes. Also, I'd kind of prefer "Weasel words are statements..." over the current "Weasel words are words...". >.< This needs more attention. Hopefully this other reply will do the trick. 189.138.245.69 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As you might have seen, Lisa implemented your request. As for the rest of what you want changed, if no one watching this page objects soon, I suggest you be WP:Bold and make the changes yourself. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)