Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 7

RfC: Change our usage of "stampede" for crowd disasters to reflect word definitions and not race, regardless of sources?
There is a great difference along racial lines in how we apply the term "stampede" to crowd disasters. Should we change our usage of the word "stampede" in crowd disasters to reflect English definitions and not race, regardless of sources? Dcs002 (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I just added the first sentence in italics to clarify the reason for this RfC. Dcs002 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment* We need to make a system-wide change in how we use the word "stampede" when it applies to crowd behavior. Our current use is strongly racially biased, contrary to expert opinion, and at variance with any credible dictionary definition of the word.

Data on racist usage in Wikipedia: On September 28, the WP article List of human stampedes linked to 47 articles and several more article sections describing such events. I looked at the article names only, and I found the following:
 * 24 linked articles concerning events that happened in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
 * 23 linked articles concerning events outside of these regions.
 * The word "stampede" was used in the title of 20 of the 24 articles (83%) describing events that happened in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
 * The word "stampede" was used in the title of 3 of the 23 articles (13%) describing events that happened in other regions.

I posted this information on the talk page for the 2015 Mina stampede. There was a good deal of discussion, and the article was moved back and forth to different namespaces. It was locked at 2015 Mina Stampede, and an RM was opened, in which I participated heavily. The discussion was closed with 8 !votes in support of the change and 6 opposing the change. (One of those 6 stated shortly after the close that he had learned new information, and he would have changed his !vote to "neutral" had there been time, which would have resulted in 5 opposing and 8 in favor.) The result was no move. The closer suggested, given the reasons for objections to the word "stampede" in the title, that an RfC be opened here to address the more systemic issue of our use of the word "stampede."

On October 8, 2015, shortly after the RM discussion was closed, Carl Henderson posted a similar analysis of our use of the word "stampede" in article titles and section headings. He found the following:


 * 2 articles (10%) describing predominantly white crowd disasters used the word "stampede" in the article title.
 * 18 articles (90%) describing predominantly white crowd disasters did not use the word "stampede" in the article title or section heading.


 * 33 (70%) articles describing predominantly non-white crowd disasters used the word "stampede" in the article title or section heading.
 * 14 (30%) articles describing predominantly non-white crowd disasters did not use the word "stampede" in the article title or section heading.

Excluded from Carl Henderson's analysis were 6 articles that had been created or changed since the beginning of the RM discussion, as well as the 2015 Mina stampede article, all of which currently have the word "stampede" in their titles, and all of which happened in non-white countries. If we include these articles, then 40 (74%) of titles or section headings in articles in non-white regions use the word "stampede," while 26% do not.


 * *note: I had tried to divide my own analysis by race, and I moved Haiti to the non-white group, but I neglected to move Brazil. That is why my numbers here are slightly different from what was posted there. Also, my analysis only considered article titles, not section headings, and only articles linked from the List of human stampedes page on September 28, which is why our totals are different.

Both Carl Henderson's analysis and my own show an undeniable racial bias in naming our articles and in section headings. These articles describe the same phenomena, but use different terminology.

Academic experts in crowd control object to the use of the word "stampede" for events like what happened in Mina. Vesuvius Dogg linked these from The Guardian and The New Yorker, and the article also refers to Newsweek as sources for expert opinion on the use of "stampede" to describe this and most crowd disasters.

There appears to be agreement among experts who study crowd behavior that disasters like the one in Mina are not stampedes, though stampedes can and do occur. There is nothing about the word "stampede" that makes it racist, but the sources above describe its connotations of animalistic behavior and individuals acting out of self interest rather than the reality that the individuals involved have no choice.

Finally there are dictionaries. Not one English language dictionary could be cited that defined a stampede without referring to impulses, suddenness, or reaction to a triggering event. The crowd in Mina was not moving in reaction to anything except that it was time to stone the Devil. They did not suddenly begin moving, and their movement was not impulsive. Nor did they invade or take over a space (in another proposed definition). The WP article on stampedes has this definition:
 * A stampede is an act of mass impulse among herd animals or a crowd of people in which the herd (or crowd) collectively begins running with no clear direction or purpose.

No one in WP wants to be thought of as racist, and no one wants to bow to political correctness. I contend that our sources are the source of our bias. Most sources describing the disaster in Mina call it a stampede. But given the overwhelming mathematical evidence that our usage has been applied racially, given the opinion of experts who decry such usage of the term, and given that the word "stampede" is defined in credible dictionaries as something other than what happens in most incidents being described as such, I think a system-wide change is needed. I think it is proper to use other terminology, such as "disaster," "crowd disaster," or "crowd collapse" to describe these events, regardless of the terminology used in the sources. We have a serious problem to fix. Right now, our usage is racist. The word is not the problem. Our use of the word is. Dcs002 (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at 2015 Mina stampede, which is cited above, and checking the references the first four references all call it a stampede. That's two cites to the BBC News, one to CBS News and and one to the International Business News.  (The fifth reference doesn't call it a stampede, it refers to deaths.  There are 163 references in that articles so I just looked at the first few.  Does someone want to compile statistics on how often the references for these articles call them stampedes?  If the references we are basing the article on call it a stampede is it in appropriate to call it a stampede? RJFJR (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I am asking that we adopt a standard that we use a reliable dictionary definition for each article instead of adherence to the RS in order to reduce the disparity in usage along racial lines.Dcs002 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I closed the most recent RM on the 2015 Mina stampede as not moved because although those that supported the requested move may have a point, it was apparent to me that blindly following their position would create significant tension between our WP:COMMONNAME POLICY and the academic interpretation of the word "Stampede" (and I gather implicit racial implications). The word is used in a sufficient number of article titles and content that deciding the efficacy of its use in WP one article at a time would only lead to and endless series of contentious RMs and content discussion. Thus I suggested this RFC when I closed the RM for much wider community discussion on its use. We (Wikipedia) won't change how the media and other sources use or misuse the term, so there will always be tension between common name policy and scholarly interpretations and bias. I look forward to a lively discussion. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I've already weighed in heavily in the discussion, and have taken up Dcs002's suggestion that awareness needs to be raised among newspaper headline writers. In private correspondence with New York Times reporter Benedict Carey, who wrote an article on September 24th (the day of the disaster) headlined "Mecca Stampede Shows How Crowds, Usually Calm in Crisis, Can Panic", I raised this semantic issue. With apologies to Mr. Carey, whom I hope will not mind my quoting him, I received this reply: "Yes yes, I'm very aware of the misuse of 'stampede' in these cases, and it's why I stayed away from the word in the story. I also passed on instructions not to use it in the headline, to no avail."


 * "Synthy" as it may seem to some to bring up this outside email, to cite crowd control literature in general, or to perform statistical analysis of "white" vs. "non-white" coverage of crowd crush tragedies on Wikipedia (which, to my mind, is the most damning and nefarious aspect of all this), we ARE at Wikipedia headline writers in our own right. Rather than just blindly following the journalistic headline-composing crowd, we should strive to avoid a highly prejudicial, contentious, and misleading term like "stampede" when a neutral and accurate descriptive alternative exists, such as "crowd disaster", "crowd crush", "crowd collapse", and so forth. I've done extensive homework on this&mdash;among others, John Seabrook in his 2011 New Yorker piece ("Crush Point") makes the point that terms like "stampede" and "panic" are regularly used after the fact by authorities to deflect responsibility from crowd management failures. As I've pointed out, all the leaders in crowd management safety studies, notably Keith Still, considered the godfather of the field, firmly and vociferously reject the term "stampede" by headline writers. In fact, some of them suggest the continued use of the term "stampede" (along with "panic") inhibit crowd control officers and first responders from giving useful on-the-scene remedial action, for fear of crowd reprisals.


 * It's understandable, perhaps, that the New York Times headline writers overruled their own reporter, given that the immediate and emphatic use of "stampede" by Saudi press officers and media, who control Mecca coverage to the absolute exclusion of foreign reporters, created a ripple effect in headline coverage around the world. Yet the word's implicit "blame the crowd" connotation, taken in concert with the Saudi government's initial effort to disparage African pilgrims for supposedly failing to take instructions (sub-Saharan Muslim victims currently form the majority of those still "missing" after the September 24th crush, by the way), combined with the Saudi government's preposterously low announced death toll of 769, unchanged since the day after the disaster (when, in fact, the currently known aggregate toll according to the AP and BBC is already almost twice that figure, clearly surpassing the record Hajj death toll from 1990), all point to a kind of semantic loophole through which the Saudis are still trying to thread a needle. By our continuing use of "stampede", the Saudi's preferred term-of-art, are we helping to promulgate a false impression of what really happened? Are we complicit in perpetuating the Kingdom's irresponsible management and cover-up? We can change one title word here and make a difference; we owe it to the Mina victims, I think, just as much as we owed it to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster not to characterize them as "rioting hooligans", to be accurate in this instance. Why can't we do just that? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment, Vesuvius Dogg. I do not think it is WP:OR or "Synthy" to assess what we are doing on WP. We are responsible for our own articles, and we need to know if we have an internal problem (as I contend). We cannot rely on an external RS to tell us we have a problem or we need to fix our problems. Dcs002 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

*Opposed - There is nothing racial about the use of the word "Stampede"... the second definition at Dictionary.com is: "any headlong general flight or rush". That said, whether the term (and its definition) fits a specific incident (or not) is another question... however that is something that needs to be settled on a case by case basis at the article level, and not at the Policy Level. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * also... be aware that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVNAMING may come into play here... if a tragic event is routinely referred to by sources as "the X stampede", then by policy that is the name we should use. Blueboar (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for weighing in, Blueboar. It is these policies that I seek to be overridden with this RfC in order to bring our articles inline with actual definitions and, more importantly, to reduce or eliminate the current racial bias in our usage (data above). I am afraid my proposal is somewhat ambiguous in this regard (I have just added a clarifying opening sentence to the proposal's question.) I think we should follow a definition for "stampede", and we should apply it evenly to all articles. I am content with the definition you provided, as long as it is applied evenly until a racial balance is approached, if not completely achieved in our articles, regardless of prevailing use in the cited RS. The current racial disparity is enormous, and IMO unacceptable. I might need to tweak the wording of my RfC to reflect that. Dcs002 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There is absolutely no indication of "headlong general flight or rush" playing a role in the Mina disaster. From what has been reported, an apparent confluence of two streams of pilgrims occured within a restrictive bottleneck, resulting in an increasingly immobile crowd's progressive collapse, with mass death due to compressive asphyxia. There was no reported "flight", no "rush", and no "headlong" impulsive or animalistic movement by the crowd. This is precisely why experts use the term "progressive crowd collapse" and reject the word "stampede" as misleading. If we are looking at this on a case-by-case basis, the term "stampede" fails quite specifically in the 2015 Mina case. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This sounds similar to arguing that the Boston Massacre was not an actual massacre, and therefor Wikipedia should not use that name as an article title. Sorry, but that's not how it works... Multiple policies make it clear that we can not impose our own names over the those of the sources... even in an attempt to appear more neutral.  In fact, there is a strong argument for saying that not following the sources, and inserting our own bias into the decision, is actually less neutral than if we simply follow the sources.  If sources call something a Massacre or a Stampede (or whatever), that is what we should call it as well.
 * That said... It is often the case that sources don't actually name the event "The X Massacre" or "The Y Stampede"... they merely describe the event as being a massacre or a stampede. That may well be the case with the events in Mina.  This is why I say you have to look at all of this on a case by case basis.  I do not know enough about the events in Mina (and how the sources refer to them) to give an opinion on that specific case... my opposition is to changing the policy generically ... in ways that would prevent the appropriate use of the word Stampede. Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

*Support - Cited my reasons in detail at Talk:2015 Mina stampede, do not want to go over them again although i can copy/paste them if need be. Sh eri ff (report) 17:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose this shouldn't be a special case exemption of COMMONNAME, and while I read in numerous places that the NYT has learned its lesson and no longer uses it, or that it's the headline writers over-ruling their reporters, that's utter garbage I'm afraid. Just a couple of days ago an article in NYT used stampede in the title and the prose, and was written by a Middle Eastern author.  If people don't understand the word "stampede" (and why some people are referring to the utterly unreliable source of Wikipedia for the dicdef is beyond me) that's not Wikipedia's fault.  This particular article has the word "stampede" used well over 100 times, any attempt to claim racism or misuse of the term are clearly superseded by our policy of WP:V based on WP:RS.  If, in years to come, this particular incident becomes known as something (e.g. Hillsborough disaster) then we can look in more detail.  In the meantime, every case must be judged on its own merits.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contributing, The Rambling Man. To clarify, I cited an article in the New Yorker above, as well as the Guardian and Newsweek as sources for expert opinion. In a previous discussion during the 2015 Mina Stampede RM, One editor cited a trend in the NYT (which I reiterated during that discussion), showing its use of "stampede" was decreasing, not eliminated. That may no longer be a valid trend. I don't know, so I did not cite the NYT here for that reason. However, Vesuvius Dogg contacted the writer at NYT, and that writer confirmed the tension at that newspaper. While personal correspondence is not a RS for article content, it does provide evidence (and you can choose how much value you give to that evidence) that this is an unresolved issue among our sources as well. Dcs002 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose banning (or nearly banning) the use of this word, including efforts to override COMMONNAME by changing this guideline. Support editors in copyediting to reduce the sloppy use of this word throughout articles.  The word is present in about 6700 articles at the moment, and I doubt that anyone would be sorry to see that number halved.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment WhatamIdoing. To clarify, I am not proposing to eliminate or taint the word "stampede" in any way. I only want us to use the word correctly. Dcs002 (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I find myself unable to fully comprehend the cited case without knowing what other words were used - unless I missed something, the summary only refers to "stampede" and not the alternatives. Having said that, I find the suggestion by some others that COMMONNAME should not be overridden for specific individual words to be a good principle. Samsara 19:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For this specific event, we've proposed "2015 Mina disaster", "2015 Mina crowd crush", and "2015 Mina crowd collapse", all of which are supported by RS secondary sources. "2015 Mina disaster" already redirects to 2015 Mina stampede but may not in itself be sufficiently descriptive. We rejected "2015 Hajj disaster" (and variants) because preparations for this year's Hajj also produced another disaster, the Mecca crane collapse which killed 111 and injured another 394. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was actually wondering about list of human stampedes since I understood that was the motivation for the query. Samsara 21:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is what you are asking, but on the list of human stampedes page, in articles not using the word "stampede" in the title, by far the most common alternative is "disaster". Less common alternatives include "fire" (if appropriate), "tragedy" (2 uses), "crush" (1 use), "accident" (1 use, redirected from a link using "crowd crush"), and "incident" (1 use, redirected from "disaster" link). In the sources cited, academics use the terms "crowd crush" and "crowd collapse" to describe the two main types of crowd disasters, which describe most of these events. I hope that answers your question. Dcs002 (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Partial Support - In considering recentism, I can see a lot of sources jump on this word that is potentially racially charged, and we have the capability as a tertiary source to select equivalent but less-charged words for such events; because the event is too new, it's hard to say COMMONNAME really applies because there's too little time for agreement to come to that point. That said, as time progresses and such events may remain historically relevant, if the years-out sources primarily use the word "stampede", then the article should be titled as "stampede". It's basically waiting to see how long-term sources stabilize on a name. --M ASEM (t) 21:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Bot-summoned - Oppose policy change since it is arguing against WP:COMMONNAME which is based off of WP:V, however Support usage change within Wiki's articles to reflect true definitions of crowd management failures. That seems obvious as we aim to reflect the truth in a similar manner to encyclopaedias which, while admittedly failing some measure of WP:OR, would be best served by the core policy WP:IAR. This is just my opinion however and we'll see what the general consensus is. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the move discussion, correlation does not imply causation. It would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to disregard common usage in an attempt to counter a perception of bigotry prejudice (which might not even be an actual factor). —David Levy 23:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Also, in fairness to Dcs002, I'll note that he/she has attributed the disparity to our sources and repeatedly stressed that it doesn't reflect racism on the part of Wikipedia's editors. —David Levy 02:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC) We certainly shouldn't purposely offend people, but selecting "inoffensive" language is easier said than done. Until the 2015 Mina stampede discussions began, I had no idea that anyone regarded such usage of the word "stampede" as offensive (beyond my blanket assumption that practically anything can offend someone). In my dialect of English, the word "stampede" pretty much exclusively refers to a headlong rush of animals, The Australian, The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Canberra Times, News.com.au, Sky News Australia and The Sydney Morning Herald appear to disagree. —David Levy 05:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I oppose this attempt to "override" Wikipedia's policies in an effort to right a great wrong.
 * Just saying, the perception believed to be at play here is "racism" not "bigotry". A person can be racist without being bigoted, and vice versa bigoted without being racist . Saying someone is bigoted is essentially the same calling them stubborn, muleheaded or recalcitrant but typically with a negative political connotation of being an extreme conservative. So it is not a major factor in play except for a hypothetical handful of all the users editing any of the pages. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of the comments from the aforementioned move discussion seemed to reflect the perception of bigotry, but "prejudice" better conveys my intended statement, so I've revised the message accordingly.
 * Mild support, at least as a recommendation to editors to try to choose language that is as inoffensive as possible, while still reflecting the situation. In my dialect of English, the word "stampede" pretty much exclusively refers to a headlong rush of animals, it is truly unfortunate that this language is being applied to human movements, but it seems mainly where it pertains to non-Western people.  We don't lose anything in most cases by using a word other than "stampede" in these cases.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
 * Mild support, at least as a recommendation to editors to try to choose language that is as inoffensive as possible, while still reflecting the situation.
 * Opposed. I agree with  that "There is nothing racial about the use of the word "Stampede."  And I agree with the rest of what Blueboar writes about it as well. Richard27182 (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Bot-summoned - Oppose policy change, there is nothing racial about the word "stampede" ... and therefore this shouldn't be a special exemption to COMMONNAME, the word has a clear usage, which is often innocent, 'fans stampeding to get the singer's autograph', HOWEVER, the word when used to describe a disastrous event, is characterising the crowd's actions, rather than the outcome, which MAY account for why news sources are less sensitive about its use for 'foreign' events. Sensitivity on a case-by-case basis would be a better result than (effectively), banning or imposing a non-general definition on the word. Pincrete (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Blueboar. WP:V makes the determination, not individual editors. Perhaps it would be different if we were journalists. Atsme 📞📧 00:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment without commitment: I broadly agree that the analysis above shows a problem with the current usage of the word "stampede", but I don't know that the solution is to not use it at all. For example, perhaps the word is underused in situations where a white crowd is the predominant situation.  Would simply using it more often in those situations not fix the problem?  ***NOTE:I'M NOT ACTUALLY ENDORSING THAT AS A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM, MERELY USING IT AS AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE***.  That is, I agree the analysis shows that it is a problem, but I'm wary to enact a facile solution to the problem which could itself lead to unintended consequences; the "just stop using the word stampede altogether" seems too facile a solution.  I want to agree the usage is a problem in exactly the way the OP describes it to be a problem, but I am unsatisfied that the solution the OP proposes is sufficient or proper.  -- Jayron 32 03:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Better starting with a discussion about facts
From the List of human stampedes page, we have a series of 92 events, many of them having an English Wikipedia page, quite all of them being sourced by accessible references. Many comments above are using some kind of statistical arguments about tendencies that can be inferred, so that it can be useful to organize the data at our disposal into a database. Therefore, I have reorganized the many lists given in the original page into a single sortable list, explicitly stating what is discussed, namely the key word used and the geographic localisation. This list can be found at User:Pldx1/Sortable_list_of_crowd_crushes. Before trying to obtain a consensus about the conclusions, can we have a consensus about the column 'cat', i.e. about how to describe what is written, as of now up to now, in the Wikipedia pages ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, first off... What we write in Wikipedia should be based on what the sources say, not what we would prefer. Second... Where did you come up with the terms you use in the column "cat"... were they based on the terms that sources use when discussing the events, or are they based your own analysis and conclusions about the events?  Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Pldx1 for compiling all that the data. To make sure we're not comparing apples & oranges, the data I presented above included article names only, and only articles that existed and were linked from List of human stampedes on September 28, so the total was only 47. The data analyzed by Carl Henderson only included article names and section names, and I think his analysis was posted October 6. (A lot of articles have been created and edited in the wake of the Mina crowd disaster, making it difficult to stay current.) Your data is certainly more comprehensive, but I think we should be cautious when comparing terms used only on that list page (i.e., events without their own articles or article sections) with term usage in titles. With that in mind, you have given us a great dataset to work with. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, you are totally right in asking such a question. The discussion started about a possible bias in the Wikipedia articles whatever could be the cause, due to sources or to a local bias. What I have done is founded in totality on the List of human stampedes, that was started by User:Red Slash and continued by many others (by the way, what a great job !). The algorithm I have used is as follows.
 * column 'src':
 * if the event is reviewed in an English Wikipedia article, then column 'src' is set to wp and should be read as not a source but, nevertheless, a pointer towards sources (each of these articles contain at least an external source).
 * if no source at all was given, column is set to none
 * otherwise, column is set to the language of the article (and the reference is appended).
 * column 'cat':
 * if 'src' is none, column is set to none. Should be non controversial.
 * if 'src' is neither wp nor en, column is also set to none. Rationale: the source surely don't contains 'stampede', but this proves nothing.
 * if 'src' is wp and this article uses 'stampede' in its title (factual) or as its main keyword (my personnal opinion about this article, to be challenged), then column is set to stam
 * if 'src' is wp and this article neither uses 'stampede' in its title (factual) nor as its main keyword, then column is set to what appears to me as the main keyword. Rationale for 3&4: reusing the editorial choices of the people that were involved in writing the article.
 * otherwise criteria 3/4 are applied to the given external source.


 * One more time, the idea is to obtain a database describing how these 92 events were described here, in English Wikipedia, up to September 2015. And to have a consensus about how this database describes correctly its topic, i.e. our current description of a set of 92 events. After that, my intent is to proceed to some statistical work over this database, in order to discuss some of the assertions contained in several former messages. Pldx1 (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying your algorithm. It's probably clear from my above post that I didn't quite understand your method, and I was scratching my head while looking over your table. Your 'cat' column, if I have this right, considers the actual usage within the article, and not the title? That makes your table completely different and complementary to the data Carl Henderson and I collected, as well as representing a LOT more work. Thanks so much for doing that! Dcs002 (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Distinguishing between names and descriptions

 * OK... In many ways this is beginning to remind me of the debates we once had (several years ago) over the use of the word "Massacre" in titles (see especially the archives of List of events named massacres).
 * In those debates, we realized that we needed to distinguish between NAMES and DESCRIPTIONS... IF sources routinely used the word "Massacre" in the context of presenting a NAME for the event (The Boston massacre... The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, etc.), then it was appropriate for Wikipedia to do the same... and and to use the word as part of a NAME in our titles. However, if the sources merely described the event as being a massacre, we agreed that it would be inappropriate to use that word in our article title  (although we might use it descriptively it in the article text).
 * I think the same solution may work for the word "Stampede". ONLY use stampede in titles if sources use the word as part of the NAME of the event... not when the sources merely describe the event as being a stampede. Blueboar (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm obviously pretty passionate and outspoken about this issue, and this sounds like a workable solution to me, as long as we can apply it evenly. (I have no idea right now what effect this would have on the article titles.) But after doing so, what do we do then if we still have a huge disparity (a little disparity doesn't bother me) like we do now in the names of the events, along racial lines? I am not a member of a minority or any group that I think might be affronted by our usage, and maybe this is the line to draw. I don't know who will be offended by what. My whole case here is based on our vulnerability to allegations of racism. I'm a white, non-Muslim guy who lives in Minnesota. I have no horse in this race. I guess if we follow your suggestion we will have a defensible position, and editors will have some sort of guidance if this idea reaches consensus. IMO, it's not ideal, but maybe right now it's the wise thing to do. (I know that stubbornly holding out for ideals can be a bad idea - letting perfect be the enemy of good.) Drcrazy102 said above that s/he opposes policy change but supports usage change, and I think what you propose is along similar lines. I don't mean to speak for anyone else, but I think this is the direction where we might find a consensus. (I hate "no consensus" closes.) Thanks for caring enough to work this problem! Dcs002 (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, our position is defensible when our usage of terminology reflects that of reliable sources. We would invite accusations of bias by overriding this practice and substituting our own preferences in the pursuit of an outcome that we've deemed "inoffensive" or otherwise desirable.
 * Of course, this doesn't preclude the possibility of replacing "stampede" with another word or phrase commonly used by reliable sources, particularly for the sake of clarity. I suspect that your proposal would draw less opposition if it were presented in this context (instead of framing it as a mission to counter racism and/or the appearance thereof).  —David Levy 19:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a workable alternative solution for me as well presented by Blueboar in his last post. Sh eri ff  (report) 19:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blueboar's suggestion seems an eminently sensible one. From the original proposer's position, it may do nothing to 'correct' inequality of usage in sources, but is the only workable solution. Pincrete (talk) 07:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not a very short contribution !
1 First, a blind linear treatment

Taken together, statistics and probabilities give us a double edged sword that allows to cut into the data, in order to capture the signal and discard the noise. Poorly using this sword can result into discarding the signal, or even into "how to lie with statistics". From the previously collected data set, and discarding those items with no given English references (i.e. where cat=none), we have a n=77 sized data set.

We can shape 6 numeric variables: the sequence number (num), the date, the toll of death, the wp value (wp=1 in when an English Wikipedia article exists), the key value (set to 1 when stampede is the keyword) and the B value, aka the pink-factor (set to 0 when the country is seen as US-like (i.e. pink), and set to 1 otherwise, (i.e. not pink) ). And now we can launch the computers, and obtain the following two entries table:

$$\left[\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}VRF&num&date&toll&wp&stam&pink \\ num&    \infty&  2.5232&  1.0069&  1.0639&  1.3155&  1.4661\\ date& 2.5232&     \infty&  1.0564&  1.0896&  1.1219&  1.5656\\ toll& 1.0069&  1.0564&     \infty&  1.0142&  1.0006&  1.0003\\ wp& 1.0639&  1.0896&  1.0142&     \infty&  1.0897&  1.0462\\ stam& 1.3155&  1.1219&  1.0006&  1.0897&     \infty&  1.1771\\ pink& 1.4661&  1.5656&  1.0003&  1.0462&  1.1771&     \infty \end{array}\right]$$

where VRF stands for variance reduction factor. For example, VRF(num,date)=2.52 tell us that using num to obtain a first degree prediction of the date (or conversely) leads to a variance reduction measured by factor 2.52 (the variance is divided by 2.52). This value is important to understand the power and the limits of statistical tools. First of all, the relationship between num and date is, beyond any reasonable doubt, of causal nature since items are sorted by date. Nevertheless the VRF (that only captures the linear dependency) is far from VRF(num,num)=$$\infty$$.

This is, perhaps, the most important finding: the data set is biased towards present. This is quite obvious from the raw data themselves. Among the 93 recorded events in the full list, the score is 55:38 for the 15 most recent years. From the 77 in the 'only English' list, the score is 46:31. This can be explained partly by a poor coverage of the past (e.g. Pldx1 should write an article about the 1955 crowd crush in Busan!). But this can also reflect the fact that human population density skyrocketed in the recent years, and the crushes as well.

All the other linear VRF are near 1, so that no linear trends are existing: more careful explanations are to be found, if any.

2 Strong time trend

Now let us go back to the asserted key/pink bias. For the sake of the discussion, let us admit the scientific value of the grouping together all the pink perceived countries into a category while grouping all the others countries into the same other category. Proceeding that way gives the following results: $$ actual=\left[\begin{array}{rrrr} &cat&crush&stam\\ B&77&37&40\\ pink&25&19&6\\ nopk&52&18&34 \end{array}\right], ~ should\_be=\left[\begin{array}{rrrr} &cat&crush&stam\\ B&77&37&40\\ pink&25&12.&25.\\ nopk&52&13.&27. \end{array}\right] $$

The first table gives the actual figures: among the recorded 25 pink events, 19 were keyed as crush and 6 as stampede. A straightforward proportionality would have given respectively $$25\times37\div77=12$$ and $$25\times40\div77=13$$. Since the figures are that different, we can conclude that some causality was acting somewhere.

From what has been obtained before, considering the dates of the events is our next task. We obtain:

$$ actual=\left[\begin{array}{rccc} &both&crush&stam\\ B&1989-06-02&1977-03-16&2000-09-19\\ pink&1958-07-15&1956-03-28&1965-10-24\\ nopk&2004-04-07&1999-05-04&2006-11-16 \end{array}\right] $$ in other words, the average date of all the 77 events is 1989-06-02, the average date of all stamp events is 2000-09-19, while the average date of the 'crush but not pink' events is 1999-05-04. These figures are showing a strong time trend, that has to be explained.

3 Average versus variance

Therefore, we have to examine what is carried by the word 'stampede', in order to determine the meaning of such a strong time trend. When analyzing any "en masse" phenomenon, one must at least consider the central tendency (using the average or a similar parameter) and the dispersion (using the variance or a similar parameter). This applies as well to trafic control, financial analysis, gas modeling and even to crowd analysis. When a crowd crush occurs, people are crushed. When people are crushed "en masse", we have a crowd crush. This is not an attempt to imply any causal process, it is simply a way to categorize the event, in order to allow comparisons or any other scientific treatment.

When newspapers are reporting about death toll, we can (quite) trust them. Because even a news reporter knows that cross sourcing and proper attribution are required in such a case. And, indeed, they are reporting that 'Iranian government said' or 'Saudi Arabia officials said' or even 'Saudi Arabia officials have not published...'.

When the same reporters are using 'stampede', this is another story. Either this is a scientific term, backed by some scientific authority, purposely used to imply that the main causal factor was the central tendency of the speeds of the involved people (and not the dispersion of these speeds). Or this is only a weasel use of a word, resorting to snobbery (or to something else). In the first case, we are bound (by the scientific authority). In the second case, we are not.

Moreover, carrying and endorsing the false information that a given crowd crush what caused by a rush "en masse" when this was not the case (as analyzed by crowd control specialists) is not simply using some weasel words. This can also derail the way the organizers (or the should be organizers) will try to correct their past actions.

4 Weasel words versus complicity

Another angle of study is the following remark. Everyone can perceive that "rush en masse" is not the only meaning conveyed by the world 'stampede' as orchestrated by the "new naming trend". Using this word is also asserting a cattle behaviour. And obviously, this is the first line of defense of the failing organizers. Should the Victoria Hall (Sunderland, England) have been build otherwise or not, should the regulating bodies have taken more efficient measures or not? The answer given in 1883 was yes, largely echoed by the press, who purposely used the word disaster. As a result, a set of safety measures were taken.

When 1428 died in 1990, news reported "tragedy", while the king said "this was God's will, which is above everything". And more buildings were added. In 2015, 1554 died (perhaps largely more). Saudi Arabia officials have reiterated their "God's will" motto... and added that "deaths were possibly caused by some pilgrims who didn't follow the guidelines and instructions issued by the responsible authorities". All together, a not so new attitude.

But the times are changing, aren't they? And, for the 2015 event, quite a large part of the news has echoed the governmental aspersions about cattle behaviour. Should we participate to such a news stampede?

No, we shouldn't. For all the reasons given above. Let us say "crowd crush" when people are crushed, and "crowd rush" only when an actual rush occurred. Moreover, don't help anyone when he tries to avoid his responsibilities.

--- All the preceeding remarks are not to be taken as criticizing all the good work that have been done here by the team that collected the List of human stampedes data. Such a work was requiring a working title, no less, no more. And only from such a large data set, can the trends be analyzed. -- Pldx1 (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy wow Pldx1! Until now I had no sense of the time component here. You have put so much effort into assembling and analyzing your dataset in some pretty sound ways.


 * For my part, I have spent the last 3-4 hours looking through the biomedical literature (not sociobehavioral, where a lot of the quality literature will be), and I have found plenty of use of the word "stampede" in the more recent literature, but there is absolutely no uniformity in how it's used, not have I found any article that offers a definition. It appears that, when "stampede" is used, it is a loose catch-all word for a crowd condition that results in crush injuries, crush asphyxia, and/or trampling injuries. There is a field that has emerged in recent decades called Mass Gathering Medicine, and crowd disasters are just one component of what they study, but for anyone doing lit searches or Google searches, remember the keywords "mass gathering," because they seem to be the preferred terms in biomedical publications. (Unfortunately, unless or until I get an Elsevier or other account here, most of what I can read is limited to PubMed abstracts and PMC free full text articles.) The worldwide biomedical literature overwhelmingly, perhaps exclusively, uses the word "crush" to refer to being squeezed or crushed by a crowd. It seems to be the accepted medical term for these conditions - the outcome of whatever caused the crush. The end product is still called a crush. Dcs002 (talk)
 * Pldx1, I haven't worked with statistics software for almost a decade, and I'm forgetting stuff rapidly. (My old familiar Statview software won't run on Win7. It's too old. And I hate SPSS!) But I managed to run a few multiple regressions and ANOVAs, and if I only use the data for the past 10 years (I got tired after entering that much data :P ), there is a significant interaction between time and "whiteness," but the effect of time does not stand on its own. Whiteness has a p value of .022, which makes it a statistically significant correlation (more reliable than a trend). We can never derive cause from statistics though. A statistician would punch me for saying this, but you can think of that as very loosely suggesting that between 2005 and now the different usage got even more different. But there is a problem. I only see 5 incidents in predominantly white countries in the past 10 years (all of 2006 through present), only one of which is labeled "stam" in your table (the Long Island Wal Mart Stampede). But there are 33 incidents in non-white countries, 19 of which are labeled "stam". (I included those marked "none" as non-stampede events. My stats were stampede yes or no.) It's statistically not good to use these tests when the groups being tested are so different. What this trend might mean is that the use of the word in non-white countries is about the same, but in white countries, we only used the word once in 2008 and not since, but we've had very little opportunity to use it. I'll do more data entry tomorrow when I'm awake. Night! Dcs002 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah - We can only look back, doing retrospective analysis. To determine cause, we have to change a variable and look prospectively at the outcome. But we don't need to worry about cause, or to explain the correlation. It's a descriptive question. Is there an imbalanced use of the word "stampede" along racial lines? Yes. We can look for evidence of where it came from, but I think knowing we have a problem (or at least an imbalance along racial lines, which I personally consider a problem) is enough information. We see the correlation, and we can do something about it, without having to find a cause. If you get a flat tire, you don't call the CSI team to investigate the tread surface with a scanning electron microscope. You just fix it.Dcs002 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Video footage from inside a similar event, so we know what we're describing as stampedes
I found some rather chilling video footage on You Tube (part 2 and part 3) that shows what it looks like from the inside of one of these disasters (the 2010 Love Parade in Duisberg). You can see everything that's been described in interviews with the experts cited above. At first it looks pretty crowded, but ok, no one seems too concerned. Slowly, very slowly, it gets very scary. You can see the "crowd quake" pressure waves (when everybody grunts and groans) and the effect they have on these people. You can get a sense of how calm they are until they start getting knocked around by the waves and really squeezed. Look at part 3, and note the short blonde woman at 3:30 - 3:45. (Shorter adults and children get killed the easiest.) Just a few meters in front of this camera, 21 people are dying and 500 are being injured. (Nothing gruesome in the video.) But from the height of their heads, they can't tell at all what's happening. This might not seem germane to this discussion, but I thought it might be important for context.

The WP article for this event was "Love Parade Stampede" originally, and it went back and forth before settling on "disaster." The title was changed, according to the article text, because a scientific analysis said it was "crowd turbulence," not a stampede. If a scientific analysis determines that this event the 2015 Mina Stampede was something other than a stampede (as opposed to trying to come to consensus on the name designated by the press, which is so full of gray area and room for subjective interpretations, and which could also mean prolonged disagreements), how about we re-consider this issue and adjust the title accordingly?

I think we should know the type of event we are calling a stampede. This event was very similar to the event in Mina in that the crowd was huge (1.4 million expected at Love Parade) and this crush was also the result of two crowds coming toward each other from opposite directions (actually 3 crowds in this case). BTW, the people were trying to get to the stairway and a lighting tower to climb out of the crush. The foot of the narrow stairway is where the fatalities happened.

I am still amenable to the solution proposed by Blueboar, but even more concerned now that we know this is a more recent trend, as shown by the hard work of Pldx1 above. World events in the past few decades (including two US wars in Iraq and one in Afghanistan; the rise of Al Qaeda, ISIL, and the Taliban; and arguably more political instability than there has been in the region since the 1960s) have led to increasingly ugly perceptions of people who live in the Middle East, at least among Americans. The language trend seems to track with political and military trends. Roll your eyes, go ahead, but I wonder what Encyclopedia Britannica would do if they discovered such a trend? I think they would choose a title based on academic usage. (Sorry, this post is also long, and kinda disorganized. I'll stop now.) Dcs002 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, Dcs002. That Duisberg/Love Parade footage is sobering; after seeing that, it's hard to believe anyone ever called it a "stampede". But it is instructive to see how distant the tunnel (from which the crowd was emerging, and apparently the only point where people were actually moving) is from the actual crush point itself. It's awful, too, to realize that the visible hope of escape, i.e. the individuals on the staircase and climbing ladder, perhaps inspired those behind to press forward in hope of finding relief. As experts have said, it's almost impossible in such situations to know how people are suffering only a few meters away, even harder to do anything about it. And it's worth reminding ourselves that concert organizers were afraid to stop the music and cancel the event, for fear of causing an even greater "panic".
 * The existence of the Love Parade footage should remind us that, in response to Prince Khalid al-Faisal's immediate remarks on Saudi-owned al-Arabiya TV blaming "pilgrims of African nationalities" for the Mina tragedy, the chairman of Nigeria's National Hajj Commission said that "at this time of electronic age and the closed-circuit cameras installed in Mecca and environment, the authorities can easily know how the stampede started and what caused it,’’ adding that he as certain people of African origin could not be blamed. That said, whether outsiders ever see such footage, or it is "God's will" that any investigation (or accurate injury and fatality count) will be performed without the specific goal of excusing Saudi mismanagement, is quite another story. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Vesuvius Dogg. About the CCTV cameras around the Hajj sites, I saw a graphic in a magazine (again, old man memory strikes again, I can't remember the source) showing the areas covered by CCTV. (If it becomes important, I can find it again and cite it, maybe in the article if it's important.) Given that most crowd disasters in the area have happened on the bridge, that's where the cameras are pointed, on the approaches and egresses, as well as the five levels of the span. They have uninterrupted coverage. But the location of the crowd collapse was well out of CCTV range. And even if it were within CCTV range, officials in any country would be extremely reluctant to release footage of people dying to the public. The CCTV coverage of the Love Parade that was released to researchers was cut one minute before the first reported fatality, out of "respect for the dead." That was in Germany. I seriously doubt that the world will ever get the full story from the Saudis, but I have some confidence that they will learn from their own investigation and improve their planning. They have been doing that now since 2004 (planning - I think that began after the 2004 disaster), with construction and other implementation beginning in 2006, after another deadly disaster. In the areas they have improved, there has not been a crowd disaster since. (No, I am NOT a Saudi apologist. Just trying to offer a contrasting POV.) Dcs002 (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Is there an equivalent video of this year's Hajj stampede to compare it to? Or any of the other Hajj stampedes that have taken place over the past twenty years? And it's worth re-iterating, it's not what "we" describe as a stampede, it's what reliable sources describe as a stampede.  That's why we have WP:V using WP:RS.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't seen similar footage from the Mina collapse, and I doubt we will. I really wish there were videos like this one. That would make it easier for us, but that's nothing compared to the thousands of families, officials, academics, and activists who would have some understanding about what happened. (If anyone, I think Iranian media would be the ones to find it and get it posted.) I think pilgrims are restricted in what they are allowed to wear and carry while performing the Hajj rituals. There were allegations that Saudi officials confiscated cell phones and cameras immediately after the event, so I might be wrong about that, but I assumed those were recording devices used by people watching rather than people in the crush itself. But from accounts we use in our article, it was a progressive crowd collapse like this one, with the same cause (two-way traffic flow in a confined space), only on a much larger scale. The Love Parade collapse is far more detailed in what we know about it, of course, because there are somewhere between 100 and 200 known video recordings of the Love Parade collapse (nearly all of which are available on You Tube, as referenced in one scholarly article - which I can't find right now, but that's how I located these videos - if I find it, I'll link it), and a very transparent official investigation, with parallel investigations by the press and academic experts and scholarly articles and analyses that will probably not be permitted concerning what happened in Mina. One reason is that non-Muslims are not allowed in the holy city (as a sort of suburb to Mecca and a major ritual site for the pilgrimage, I am assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that this rule also applies to Mina), and another is that Saudi officials have claimed exclusive rights of investigation, and therefore control of all known evidence.


 * Note: For now I am using "progressive crowd collapse" to describe the event and "crush" to describe the part of the event that caused the injuries and fatalities. ("Crush" was used this way in nearly all abstracts and articles I found in the biomedical literature) in this discussion because it is the specific type of crowd disaster and immediate cause of injury and death as described by academics. (The cause of the progressive crowd collapse at the Love Parade was "crowd turbulence".) I am not being obstinate about the name, just specific about the type of event, and this is just the talk page, not the article. I have endorsed Blueboar's proposal for resolving the overall issue about usage in articles. But remember, this discussion is not intended to focus on the Mina collapse, but on all similar articles in Wikipedia, including the 2010 Love Parade, and I think that article sets a good precedent in determining usage of the word "stampede" based on a scientific analysis two years after the fact that concluded it was not a stampede. We might want to apply that precedent to the Mina collapse in a few years, if or when there is scholarly analysis of the Mina collapse, and to other crowd disasters that already have coverage in WP. Along those lines, I have advocated elsewhere that we wait for formal investigations before assigning blame (or spreading rumors of blame) in the Mina collapse. It would be hypocritical of me not to accept that same standard to determine the type of crowd disaster (and therefore the name of the article) that happened in Mina.


 * To further clarify, this whole discussion is about how we describe such events. We have a responsibility for our own content, and that is why I proposed changing our usage of "stampede." If rigidly following the news media sources results in racist application (as indicated by our current numbers) of a word with negative connotations (as indicated in expert opinion), we are still independently responsible for how we present that information, and I don't think we can abrogate that responsibility, because our articles represent our own synthesis (as in summary, not the same as WP:SYNTH) of the sources we choose by our consensus to use. WP:V and WP:RS are excellent arguments for using RS (e.g., dictionaries, scholarly sources) to find proper usages and definitions of the words we use, especially if the usage is (or might be) contentious. That is the very question at hand, and though we have made excellent progress, we have not yet reached a resolution. Dcs002 (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A new consensus? Something we can all agree on?
Blueboar brought this concept up earlier about looking in RS for how the event is named rather than how a word is used, and it seemed like we were headed toward consensus, but the discussion stopped. In WP:NCE, "Maintaining neutral point of view" section, that idea is summarized nicely. Can we agree on that? I would like to give something for the closer to work with. Dcs002 (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. When creating the article, a working title could be 'Neutral and carefully written report about the	Mina crowd disaster, 24 September 2015 '. This is surely not a title, but this is nevertheless a fair abstract of what should be the report itself. Apart of what is relevant from the editorial duties of the our writers, a general guideline should recommend to examine the possibility of a scientific pov push "crowd rush" v. "crowd collapse", and of a political pov push "cattle behaviour of the crowd" v. "vulture behaviour of the organisers". More precisely, the writers should determine if any use of 'stampede' in a news report is done as an editorial choice of the journalist, or as a Panurge multi copy of the same (perhaps biased) Communiqué. And here, when it comes to decide what the title could be, '2015 Mina crowd crush disaster' seems to be a good starting point. Pldx1 (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * These are all excellent points to consider, but I need to point out that this RfC is concerned with "stampede" as a word to watch. Should we treat it as a loaded word and have guidelines for its use according to English dictionary definitions, as opposed to the current usage, which for one reason or another falls closely along racial lines. This discussion is meant to be more general than the 2015 Mina stampede. That is only one of many articles that use the term "stampede" according to RS use rather than using the English definition, and only one of many that follow a strong trend to use the term along racial lines. In general, I think the closest we have come to a consensus is Blueboar's idea. I was hoping more editors would sign off on that idea so we could have a consensus to work with. Dcs002 (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I still see no real reason other than some imagined issue or political correctness to stop the usage of stampede. The vast majority of reliable sources use that term, and continue to do so. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, it's not here to re-interpret words/phrases used by verifiable sources. I seem to recall we have an principle: VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH. If we go down the path of translating reliable sources into PC, (allegedly) "non-racist" language, we're re-designing current events, we're re-factoring history. What absolutely must happen is that we re-visit this argument in 10 or 15 years when we've had time to digest the tragedy, its context, similar issues, but right now, it's a stampede per WP:V and WP:RS and converting it to something that appeases a handful of sensitive editors is in direct contradiction of V, and a true and absolute violation of Wikipedia's core beliefs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

In his statement, The Rambling Man only addresses the wrong part of the discussion. (1) Indeed, using stampede when writing about the 2015 Mina crowd crush disaster is not the result of some racial prejudice, due to some pink, BBC-tutlers, Western reporters casting aspersions on the not-so-pink deceased. (2) The 'racist' part, that is obvious and needs to be taken into account, is by a caste of powerful people governing Saudi Arabia casting aspersions on other people, even from their own country. By the way, this behaviour is rather social than 'racial'. The press releases of the government where mostly about those Iranians or Nigerians or anyone else that allegedly did this or that, while nothing was said about the responsibilites of the organizers. The reporters that used the word 'stampede' in their reports were not acting as Reliable Sources, but as propaganda activists of the Saudi officials (perhaps acting only in god faith stupidity). And now, some of them are expressing this kind of concern, i.e. acting now as Reliables Sources, that should be followed. We have to maintain an educated neutral point of view. Using 'stampede' in the title is taking side because in this crowd crush desaster, one of the topmost question is 2177-769: what about the buldozerized corpses. Pldx1 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, please remember this RfC is not about the recent disaster in Mina. I initiated this RfC to discuss and question our word usage as Wikipedians, not the Saudis' or our RS' or anyone else. Blueboar offered a simple solution. Can we agree to name articles according to event names in RS rather than according to terminology used in the RS? That's just going by WP:NCE. Can we agree on that much? (Edited after 10 minutes. I shouldn't re-argue my points here.) Dcs002 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are two ways for building a corpus of laws: civil law, versus common law. My opinion is that the recent cases can provide some clues for the next to come desasters. The strong time trend relative to using 'stampede' in titles is a fact. We have to consider if this is a shift towards a more scientific naming scheme or a Public Relations driven move. The name given today by an Encyclopedia to the Victoria Hall disaster (occured June 16, 1883) has no legal consequences, since the matter was settled long time ago. On the contrary, the name given today to a nowadays desaster matters greatly. Pldx1 (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to turn this discussion back to the impromptu study's methods. Are we sure we're not comparing apples and oranges here? How can we be certain there's no other attributable factor that might be influencing this discrepancy in stampede usage? I.e. are the white vs non-white events taken into account similar events (with regards to number of people involved, setting, etc.)? This seems to me a basic question that needs to be answered before we jump to racism conclusions. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  19:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * FoCuS, That's a very good question, and I am willing to take it on, but I will need maybe two more days to gather data and analyze it properly for this. I think it's important to know though. If I understand you correctly, what you are suggesting is a comparison with matched controls. Another type of analysis would look directly at the same factors and see to what extent (if any) they contribute to the likelihood of an event being called a stampede. (That might be a more powerful analysis because we can use the entire dataset, not just the matched events. Events can be hard to match. For example, if all crowd disasters during religious events are in non-white countries, we have no matches to compare with them.) In either case, we need to choose the variables to match or to analyze. Number of victims, size and setting of the event (fire, sports, religious, music, total crowd size, etc), event date, and I think predominant sex and age of the victims should be looked at. (I think children seem to stampede, but women and children seem to have disasters or tragedies. Why not test it as a hypothesis?) This is "data mining" (looking at an existing dataset and trying to find correlations), and it is easily biased on the front end by only looking for the factors that the analyst wants to consider. (I.e., if I'm only looking at race as a factor, then that's all I'm going to find - race either is or isn't a factor.) So what do you think of these factors? Dcs002 (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I'm thinking of. This RfC seems to be based on a false assumption, or at least a hasty one. We can't just look at a couple of articles and say Wikipedia is racist because such and such used a word and such and such didn't. As you adequately pointed out, we need to look at the variables involved in such an analysis, and make our conclusions based on appropriate data, not from a hand picked selection. As you've also hinted at, I don't think I've ever heard of similar events to the muslim Hajj, for example, in other major religions. As such, we need to be careful with what we're comparing, and how we're comparing it. I commend you on your willingness to analyse these events and look forward to hearing back from you once you have something to report. Regards, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * FoCuS. Perhaps have you read all that is written above, but saying We can't just look at a couple of articles and say... doesn't give this impression. The original remark was stated using circa 40 (fourty) items. Being surprised with the result, I have undertaken another survey. You are free to have your opinion about the conclusions I have drawn, but a factual fact is that the survey User:Pldx1/Sortable_list_of_crowd_crushes was using 92 (ninety-two) items, not "just a couple" of them. If we make abstraction of what can be done with the pink factor and the stam factor, it can indeed be seen that these two lists of 92 values have a behaviour that is far from what can be expected form two random sets of independent variables.
 * And now, let us examine the relevance of the pink factor in all this discussion. In my opinion, the very idea that the racial prejudice casted or not upon the victims of the many Mina crowd disasters could be measured by the pink factor is a shameful example of how pink-biased can be some discussions here, at Wikipedia. Pretending that the pink factor could be a relevant indicator is pretending that using 'stampede' cannot be caused by racial discrimination exerted by Saudi Arabia government against all these Iranians, Nigerians and other deceased. If someone cannot imagine that a not-pink could be discriminative against any other non-pink, perhaps just opening the eyes could be useful. If someone cannot imagine that Saudi Arabia government is more influent in Saudi Arabia than any foreign newspaper, here again, opening the eyes could be useful.
 * The fact that, in this 92 items list, the time index has a strong correlation with the stam factor could be due to an increasing transform of the newspapers into webnews, replacing their role as sources (biased or not) into a role of quick parrots of the official statements. Pink parrots are mostly parrots, rather mostly pink. The idea to see what happens when the disaster occurs somewhere else than Saudi Arabia is great. One cannot exclude that this was the reason why I have compiled a sortable list.  Just click on the head of the column country. India, perhaps ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I am still working on the statistical analysis. In a few hours I will post some preliminary data that should be meaningful to this discussion. I have not run any numbers yet because I have not collected the necessary data yet. I just wanted to let you know I am working on this, and if anyone is considering closing this RfC, please give me a little more time to do this analysis, because this could provide the most important evidence on which we should decide this issue. If my original assertions in this discussion were misplaced, no one wants to know more than I do. I will post my methods with the data so anyone else can review what I have done and provide criticism and/or replication of my analysis. Thanks for your patience everyone. Dcs002 (talk) 01:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Statistical analysis

 * Note: See final analysis in a nutshell at the bottom of this section. Dcs002 (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary statistics
I have run a test on the numbers I have so far, including the year of the event, the number killed, and a geographical variable, which Pldx1 called variable "w" in the dataset used. All events are divided into two groups, A and B, as follows:

Group A: Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Scotland, Spain, and USA.

Group B: Angola, Bangladesh, Brazil, Cambodia, China, Côte d'Ivoire, DR Congo, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Hong Kong, India, Iraq, Japan, Mexico, Nepal, North Korea, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Simplified result: So far, the strongest predictor (of those I have tested) of our usage of the term "stampede" is geography, which loosely follows along the lines of countries that are predominantly white vs. countries that are predominantly non-white. The year of the event is also a significant factor on its own. This means we use the word more for recent events, but regardless of when it happened, we are still far more likely to call it a stampede if it happened in a group B country.

Important: This was not exactly a test of race as a factor. Race is not universally defined, and there are a few events in predominantly white countries that involved mostly or entirely non-white participants, such as the Shiloh Baptist Church event, the City College New York charity basketball game, and the E2 Club event. I will be working on a system using race explicitly, but it will surely have some intrinsic weaknesses.

Technical information I first ran this test as a multiple regression. I set group A to a value of 0 and group B to a value of 1 for this test to allow the regression. I also set the dependent variable to 1 = use of the word "stampede" and 0 = use of some other word to accommodate the binary dependent variable. The model was significant (F3,69 = 5.293, p = 0.002), but the only variable within that model to achieve significance on its own was geography (p = .018). A t-test of geography on its own is significant (p < 0.001). A regression of year of event was also significant (p = 0.004). Geography and event year do not interact (even after removing the variable of the number dead in the event, event year is only p = 0.317), but each is significant on its own. (Separate tests are proper as both were a priori hypotheses.) The way I interpret this significance and lack of interaction is this:
 * Events in group B countries are far more likely than events in group A countries to be called "stampedes",
 * Events that have occurred more recently are more likely to be called "stampedes", and
 * This increased use of the word "stampede" for recent events has not changed the bias toward using the word "stampede" in group B countries. I.e., Events long ago were less likely to be called stampedes, but among those events that were called stampedes, there was still a heavy bias toward using the word for events that happened in group B countries.

Still to come: I am going to analyze our use by event type - music, religious, sport, etc. I also want to look at who was in the crowd and who was killed (men, women, & children), and whether there was a sudden triggering factor in the event. That's all for now. Dcs002 (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

More preliminary statistics
Article and section names: (Skip down for plain English if statistics bore you.) When looking at word usage in article names and section headings, I used data current as of September 28, 2015, when I first compiled and posted this data. Four article names have been changed since then, all by one editor, and all on the following day. All four were changed so they now use the word "stampede" in the name. Two of those events occurred in England, one in Belarus, and one in the US. Also on that same date, four new articles were created, all by a different editor, all covering events during previous Hajj pilgrimages, and all referred to as "stampedes". The first four article names were used as they were on September 28 for consistency, and because these changes, which were made the day after (and possibly partially in response to) the original numbers being posted, by one editor, to articles only from group A countries, would unduly bias the data. The last four articles were not used for similar reasons. They were created the day after (and possibly partially in response to) the original numbers being posted, and the addition by one editor of four articles of the same type using the same word in the name would again unduly bias the data.


 * Plain English: Both geographic group (A, "USA-like", or B, not "USA-like") and the year of the event strongly predict our usage. Newer events and events in group B countries are more likely to be called stampedes, and this time we can say that as events are more recent, we are somewhat more likely to name group B (not "USA-like") events stampedes in our article names and section headings. Usage in a title or section heading is not at all related to the number killed in the event.

Event types considered were fire, musical, public event (festival, etc.), political (rallies, protests), religious, retail/giveaways (includes food and clothing relief), sports, theater or hall, and war. Note that any event involving a fire was put in the fire category, regardless of whether it was musical or theatrical. Note also that several events had no usable usage information.

In article or source usage, as defined in Pldx1's table, all political events (3) and all retail/giveaway events (4) were called stampedes. Of the 19 religious events with usage information (excluding the newest Hajj articles and those that had been recently renamed), 17 (89.47%) were called stampedes. Music (9) and public (10) events were evenly divided, with 4 and 5 (44.44% and 50%, respectively) being called stampedes. Of the 18 sporting events, 4 of them (22.22%) were called stampedes.

In article name or section headings, both of the 2 political events and 87% of the 15 religious events were named stampedes, along with 57% of 7 public events, 40% of 5 music events, 20% of 15 sports events, and 0% of 4 fire and 3 theater/hall events.


 * Plain English: A few political and retail/giveaway events were looked at, and all were called stampedes, though no retail/giveaway event had an article or section heading. Religious events were the most common type to have crowd disasters reported in WP. Such crowd disasters were called stampedes 89% of the time in articles and 87% of the time in article names & section headings. The second most common type of event to have crowd disasters reported in WP are sporting events. They are called stampedes far less often than religious events, 22% of the time in the articles, and 20% of the time in article names and section headings. Crowd disasters at music events and other public events (festivals, non-religious celebrations) are about evenly divided in usage of the word "stampede".

Technical information: Geographic group and usage in title (stampede yes or no) were transformed to 0 and 1 for multiple regression analysis. Geographic group, event year, and total dead were used as independent variables and title usage was the independent. Geographic group and event year were both significant (p < 0.001 for both), while total dead was not. An interaction between event year and geographic group yielded p = 0.053, a marginally significant trend.

Single factor AVOVAS with Fischer PLSD post hoc analysis (two-tailed, sig. =/< 0.05) were done on event type, with stampede as the dependent variable. In article or source usage, religious, retail/giveaway, and political events were significantly more likely to be called "stampedes" than all other events. For name or section heading usage, religious events were significantly more likely than other event types to be named as stampedes, with the exception of political and other public events. Sporting events were significantly lower than these three. Music events were different only from religious events.

Note: I have been away from research now for 8 years, and I am trying to learn new statistics software as I do this, which isn't easy with my brain. Please feel free to check the validity of these types of analysis. It's not for a research journal, so I think splitting hairs isn't necessary, but this is why I'm providing the details.

Next up: triggering factors. Dcs002 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * BORING! I know. I have all the data entered and sorted. Final data will be up tomorrow, in case you were waiting. Here's a teaser - Crowd size is a predictor of our use of the word "stampede", but number of fatalities is not. Crowd size, religiousness, and race all go together, and each predicts use of the word "stampede", but when combined into one model we can see which one is most predictive and which ones follow. I need to confirm this stuff when I'm awake though. Dcs002 (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Final analysis in a nutshell
The analysis is complete. Race is the primary predictor of our use of the word stampede in article names and section headings. Common dictionary definitions of the word are applied randomly.

See the plain English summary here. More data and technical information will follow, but the findings are there, hopefully in an easily-readable format. Dcs002 (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job! I'm astounded as to the amount of work you put into this. Just wanted to pertinently state that even though race (or whatever people want to call it) might be the primary predictor, that doesn't mean the use of the word is racist, which in part was what this analysis was trying to determine. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  23:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you FoCuS . I'm honored that you read it! (I wasn't sure anyone would. Very dry stuff, and I am an interested party to this RfC, so people have to assume bias on my part, as well they should.) Very early on, perhaps in the original RM discussion for the 2015 Mina stampede, I specified that my use of the word "racist" did not mean racial hatred, but a numerical bias along racial lines. I think that's a sort of "academic-speak". My own use of language throughout this discussion has most likely contributed to the perception that this is about a knee-jerk reaction driven by political correctness. I was trying to be specific in describing the direction of the bias, but in a discussion in which the public perception of the meaning of a word is a central issue, I could have chosen my words more carefully. I hope I was careful about specifying the RS rather than WP editors as the most likely source of the bias.


 * I'm really glad (and thankful) you brought this up - the need to consider other variables. Race is a very powerful predictor of the use of the word "stampede", and so is time. So is geographic region (US/Europe vs. elsewhere). More of the "variance" is accounted for by race than year of the event, but they stand alone. But I'm not too bothered whether we make an effort to correct for the recency bias. It has fewer social implications than race, geography, and what I hope to analyze next, crowd management factors. (More work on this issue would be pretty much because I want to do it and share it rather than making the case for change within WP.) Failures in crowd management by event organizers is IMO likely to be a motivating factor in whether local authorities, and therefore popular press, use the word. I think it was Pldx1 who brought that into our discussion? Or was it you? (Forgive my tired memory.) That's the hypothesis anyway. That would make it an even more important W2W, IMO.


 * BTW, I will be adding to the analysis for a while. I discovered a small error in my data (a few columns from 4 events got shifted somehow), so the numbers might change slightly, though I doubt enough to affect the conclusions. Also, I want to write a proper intro and discussion, just like an academic paper. I'll post something here if there are any changes that affect the conclusions. Dcs002 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now what you meant by the term racist, and I agree with you along those lines, in that race in this sense is utilised as a mere descriptor. Furthermore, the way we categorise the events per race might in fact be a consequence of social or other characteristics enshrined in the particular cultural setting. For example, security precautions taken by the pertinent authorities might vary geographically, wherein religious events in certain parts of the world could be prone to such tragedies, as compared to events like the Heysel Stadium disaster, where a handful of participants might bear the brunt of the blame. I believe in these cases race is, by extension, an answer we provide in lieu of a better description of the variables that influence the events and how they come to pass.
 * At the same time we need to consider the cultural biases as you mentioned with regards to press coverage and such. It's not such a simple endeavour! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  03:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So true, FoCuS . It's not simple, nor easy (nor entirely necessary for our purposes) to parse out the factors. That would really need to be done one event at a time by those investigating each event. The way I categorized race for this analysis was pretty simple: events in Europe and the US were considered white unless it was clear that the majority of participants were non-white (which meant three African American events were considered non-white). It's not precise, obviously, nor can it be, but I hope it's close enough. Race is definitely an important consideration in many scientific activities. For example, studying disease and treatments for disease must consider racial differences, because there are differences in risk. American Indians have enormously elevated risk for diabetes, and they may not respond the same to diabetes medications. In social sciences, perception of race obviously plays a huge role. My categorization scheme was based on my best guess at what would be most universally perceived.


 * Race should not be a factor in the language we use to describe a behavior. The behavior should determine how we describe the behavior. Even if religion, geography, or the alignment of Jupiter with Mars are all significant factors, the world we live in frowns on using separate language for the different races (and I concur). If our sources are using language that is divided along racial lines, we should not parrot that usage unless we are quoting directly. Sources for the Shiloh Baptist Church tragedy in 1902 spoke of Negroes, and how fortunate it was that no white people were killed. We should not use that language unless we are quoting the source.


 * Race is not an explanation for any of these events, and I'm not sure anyone has offered it up as one, but it is the dominant determinant (among those studied) of the language we have used in Wikipedia to report such events. Security precautions are definitely different in some parts of the world. For example, 577 people have been killed in 7 non-white events (one in the US, one in Peru, and five in African nations) by police or security using tear gas or pepper spray on crowds in confined areas. In India, crowds are often controlled by police hitting people with long wooden sticks, which triggered one event. (It is possible that the belief that they were going to do so triggered that event.) Also in India, the crowds at religious events can be in the tens of millions, and crowd management is often minimal. (Government entities, I presume, would probably prefer to let pilgrims practice their faith with minimal interference.) A badly parked car (it might have been broken down, right in the path of a few hundred thousand pilgrims) is believed to have initiated one fatal crowd collapse in that country. I suspect a nation's wealth comes into play at some point. Can the Zambian government afford to build a safer stadium that would be large enough to accommodate Africa Cup matches safely? That can't be the main factor either, because the Saudis are extremely wealthy, and their record of safety in large pilgrimages is dreadful.


 * It gets emotionally difficult to read again and again about the same mistakes being repeated and more people dying. It's also emotionally difficult to see pictures of children in Phnom Penh being crushed to death against a bridge rail by the stationary, non-white crowd that is "stampeding" behind them, most of whom are also dying (347 dead, very young crowd, lots of children). It gets difficult to be dispassionate. Dcs002 (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is still following this, I added a table of all data I used for this analysis here. I couldn't figure out how to make a proper table of this, so in the end I just shrunk my view in Excel and took a screen shot. Anyway, you can see what subjective judgements went into this analysis if you want, and it's easy enough to run the numbers again with changes... if anyone's interested... Dcs002 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Different definitions, slightly different results: I just ran the numbers again using the proposed racial categories for the 2020 US Census. These proposed racial categories consider people of Middle Eastern and North African descent to be white, and people of Hispanic descent (European and Latin/Central American) are considered to be non-white. I'm not sure this is representative of how average people worldwide view the concept of being racially white, but I ran the numbers anyway. In that analysis, race is still a very strong factor in our use of the word stampede, though when compared to event year, religion, and crowd size, it ranks 3rd behind religion ad event year. This difference can be accounted for by the widespread use of stampede for Hajj events, which are considered white under this standard. Incidents in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen were included as racially white, and incidents in Portugal and Spain were considered non-white. I ran this analysis to be fair with the numbers and to provide a contrast against my own view of race. Dcs002 (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Blueboar, etc. Despite a trillion words typed here on the topic, I don't see any reason for policy change to restrict use of this term, which is both common and dictionary-correct. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Syntax missing?
Sorry,, what do you mean? What "syntax" is missing? Do you mean WP:Shortcuts? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply Drcrazy102! I expected while opening this page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch) to know how to insert one of those comments (eg. WP:VAGUE) into an article. I have still no idea how to do it. I did try WP:VAGUE but it does output as a normal link, and not as expected. All these WP:Shortcuts I saw on article were written in small caratcters (discrete) as superscript (like those "citation needed"). I tried  or   did not work either. Any idea how to insert properly these shortcuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nestashi (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Never transclude a page, i.e., unless that is your express intent. Transclusion shows all of the content for the target page on the page written with the transclusion source code (see example provided previously). I have edited your comment to avoid the transclusion of WP:VAGUE/WP:Words to watch.
 * I am not 100% sure which template it is, though WP:W2W uses the style guideline template to include "shortcuts" such as WP:VAGUE. However, I think you may be looking for Vague which is based off the guideline written here, but is actually something separate. This is how Wiki splits things for the most part;
 * WP:Example name is for any pages that are only relevant to contributors so that they may understand how Wikipedia works, and other contributor-specific articles or pages
 * WT:Example name is the talkpage for any WP: page
 * User:Example and User talk:Example are for user pages and user-talkpages
 * Template:Example template gives you the template page
 * So you are looking for "template" pages but are searching in the wrong areas, WP-pages. Try searches for "clarify", "according to whom", "citation needed" with the "Template:" prefix. Hope this helps you, and you may want to check my user page as I have a list of links that are good to have handy on Wikipedia rather than searching for them each time. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, your really helped me. I was very confuse with the wiki concept of "template", I wonder why they call it "syntax" instead, that would have been much more intuitive (for me). I'm embarrassed now, I see the syntax was given for each one of this article. I apologized for that. I'll check you user page, thanks! (I did not even know they were such things as "user page" on wiki actually!).
 * By the way, that could be interesting to insert a simple sentence in the introduction "check the syntax of what will follow on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inline_cleanup_templates". If we want the people to edit it, it must be simplified. With the little time I can afford, I nearly gave up.

Appropriateness of "Pulitzer prize winner"
During a copyedit at White privilege, I removed "Pulitzer Prize winner" from the line "The film White People itself, produced and directed by Pulitzer Prize winner Jose Antonio Vargas, is a documentary that follows". Yanping Nora Soong reverted, and we've been going in circles on the talk page re: the wording at WP:PEACOCK. Could we get some voices to chime in? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it falls under WP:PEACOCK so much as WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTH. Bringing up the director's Pulitzer status feels irrelevant unless reliable sources have drawn the same connection between the Pulitzer and the film. It's even more of a stretch to throw it into the White privilege article, unless and until reliable sources have made the same connection. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Faceless Enemy: Would you mind making your point at Talk:White privilege? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't know he was a Pulitzer Prize winner until I read it in reviews of the film. Numerous reviewers mention this in their reviews. Will cite when not on a phone. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion centralized at Talk:White privilege. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the one that brought it here? :S Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I announced it so people would participate in that conversation. That is standard procedure. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

CLAIM query
Out of interest, I see the word "cite" is not on the list and yet I feel this is by far the best for neutrality since it is irrelevant whether what is being "cited" is truthful, dishonest, careful or careless. In fact it is just that bit more formal (i.e. encyclopaedic) than the common "said".

Additionally when it comes to courts, especially controversial establishments such as international criminal tribunals (often rejected by prosecuted parties, and invariably some scholars from outside affected region), I personally believe that rather than a person being "found" guilty, he should "ruled" guilty, or at most "deemed" guilty - since deem and doom have the same origin and denote fate. My concern is for the first point though. Any opinions please? --OJ (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you give us some examples? I don't see where you could replace "said" with "cite"—e.g. "Alice Cooper cited his latest farewell tour would be 'the most awesomest'" (?). Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In your example, neither "said" or "cite" are good, I would have said "hyped"! Not encyclopaedic, but if we are using the term "awesome" you might as well go all the way. I generally meant in place of "claim". --OJ (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OJ: Okay, but I thought you'd get the point that you can't just substitute "cite" for "claim". Alright, then: "Alice Cooper cited that he his latest farewell tour was the shortest". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know who's saying what, but "Alice Cooper cited that he his latest farewell tour was the shortest" make no sense.  E Eng  00:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (even without the he)  E Eng  00:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good, so someone got the point. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was slow but the penny has dropped. In that case, "hold/maintain" will definitely be a good solution to "claim" for much of the time, (the opposition holds that the figure does not exceed 10,000, this surmises they claimed it in the first place but to "hold" it reaffirms that whilst they may not be correct, they are not disingenuous. --OJ (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"Served"
Is "served" appropriate in the context of government or military jobs? For example, "Bill Clinton served as the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001" or "George W. Bush served as the 43rd President of the United States from 2001 to 2009". Why not just "was" (e.g. "Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001")? "Served" implies that by holding public office someone "serves" their constituents, or is doing it out of some sort of selflessness. I don't think the encyclopedia should be implying that in its everyday language. According to dictionary.reference.com, definition 1 of "service" is "an act of helpful activity; help; aid". We don't see it used in the government/organization sense until definition 7. By using definition 7, we are actively implying that someone's term in office (or in a job) was a net benefit, which is non-neutral. Thoughts? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "served" in this sense is standard English--1) check the dictionary [Webster Unabridged: to hold an office: discharge a duty or function: act in a capacity *served on a jury* *served as mayor for several years]. 2) It's used worldwide: Lentz (2014) says "Kolisevski was a member of the Collective Presidency of Yugoslavia from 1972 and served as vice president from 1979 until 1980. He succeeded Marshal Tito as president on May 4, 1980." 3) The American Counties: Origins of County Names Page viii (2005) states: "Of these, there were 175 counties named for 66 men who served as both senator and representative including the 30 listed in the governor group who served as senator, governor, and representative for whom 59 counties are named." 4) it's used by opponents: Red State/Blue State by Justin Cord Hayes (2006)  writes: Republican Martinez has served as senator since 2005. You can vote him out of office in 20l0. Martinez served in Dub-Yuh's cabinet as the Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban ... Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see where is coming from and the user brings up a very good point but "served" is used universally. It does come off a bit promotional but as a public servant, these individuals are "serving" their constituents. The term "served" is used on every politicians page so replacing each use would be a daunting task. Meatsgains (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be daunting, in volume and in scornful opposition from page-watchers and editors adding new content. Besides, we'd lose that careful distinction between a person and the role or office they fill(ed). "He was a soldier" defines and subsumes him in a way that "he served as a soldier" does not. NebY (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , if it gained consensus here that "served" was an idiom, euphemism, or puffery (I feel it's a bit of all of the above), then we could simply point any objectors to the relevant section of this page. I don't think I agree with the point about subsuming identities though. I don't "serve as" my job title - I just "am" my job title. It's understood that I'm more than that, just as I am more than my gender, religion, or ethnicity. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , if it's worth doing on one page, then it's worth doing on all of them. Tools like AWB would make it easier to do. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , good point, especially about the opponents' use of terms. However, I think where it really gets iffy is that we wouldn't say someone "served as a bank teller", but we would say that they "served as mayor" or "served in the military". Wikipedia should not implicitly argue that being a bank teller is more or less of a public service than being mayor or being in the military. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We need to follow the RS and the dictionaries are unanimous in supporting to hold an office: discharge a duty or function: act in a capacity *served on a jury* *served as mayor for several years Rjensen (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether it appears in a dictionary. The whole "words to watch" page is full of words that appear in a dictionary with the definitions they would presumably be used for. The question here is whether it introduces bias. In this case, we imply that "serving" on a jury, or in elected office, is of some selfless benefit to someone else (presumably society as a whole). Moreover, by not using the word "served" for certain professions or positions, we imply that those professions or positions are somehow less valuable. Faceless Enemy (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Standard English. And WTW isn't for "words that can ever, possibly be inappropriately used", it's for words that are problematic.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm trying to make the point that its use is just about always problematic; it always conveys a small, positive bias towards certain jobs or positions, the people who work in those careers or positions, and their tenures therein. We don't say that "John Doe currently serves as a Walmart greeter", but we do say "Pat Robertson serves as chancellor and CEO of Regent University and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network." It's not the encyclopedia's place to make a value judgment as to whether it's more admirable to be CEO of Regent University than to be a Walmart greeter. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it clearly isn't usually problematic. So, there's that.  It's problematic when it's used, as in the example you provide, to liken an entirely civilian job to a non-civilian one.  When it's used for non-civilian jobs (the standard usage), it's not problematic. Note that this thread is 'Is "served" appropriate in the context of government or military jobs?', not 'Is "served" appropriate the context of government or military jobs?'. If you want to ask the latter question, it's a different thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If it isn't appropriate outside of that context, doesn't that point to its inherent bias? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. It's just a standard construction when used in reference to military work and a few other fields, just as "appointed" and "named" are used in others. If I say I was appointed as the janitor at a local high school, or named to the position of burger flipper at McDonalds, obviously that's PoV/peacock wording. The words are not "inherently" problematic, it's the out-of-context usage that's off-kilter. If I was appointed to the Supreme Court or named as the new US ambassador to Russia, these terms would not be out of place.  No words are "inherently biased"; they're just arbitrary symbols. What their use in a particular context implies is what may carry bias.  All that said, I don't feel very strongly about this one.  I do feel strongly that this page doesn't exist for blacklisting words that someone can sometimes abuse if they try really hard. It's to advise caution regarding terms that are consistently likely to be controversial (to the extent we actually want it to serve any kind of "word list" function at all; several previous discussions have leaned toward rewriting this whole page as an actual guideline, advising the type of situations to look out for and including some contextual examples, instead of the present form as something like a censorship checklist of "wiki-dirty words").  Speaking for myself, I would normally not use "served as", even in reference to military work/service in writing an article here (and "elected" makes more sense for political offices) but I'm skeptical this rises to the WtW level.  It's more a matter of poor word choice than evidence of a desire to snow the public.  It has a résumé-like tone. But lots of words do, and we don't list them here, and arguably should not. That's all, really.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I've mulled your response over for a couple of days. Is there any case where "served" is the most appropriate and neutral word? (Other than "the waiter/waitress served them food" or something.) And I agree that certain words on the WtW list are fine in context (such as "alleged" for legal issues), but by and large to me this does make sense to use as a "no go" words list, if only because better alternatives usually exist. Perhaps it makes sense to have a "words that are probably replaceable by a better alternative" list? Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an entirely subjective matter. WP doesn't have any rules about, or methods for determining, the " appropriate" way to phrase something.  Seems a bit like deciding the  ice cream flavor. :-)  I do agree that this page needs to be re-focused, but having it in the form of a list of words we don't like is probably never going to be effective.  It should probably be a list of problematic uses of language as a context and implication matter, using in situ examples.  A paragraph on negative implications of words that are often seen as loaded. A paragraph on usage that was once common/normal but now often seen as offensive.  A paragraph on puffery.  Etc.  If the  are identified instead of specific words being maintained in an add-this-and-remove-that-one shitlist, disputation here would be a lot lower, and the page would be more useful. Think of the way WP:AADD is organized.  There is not a separate line-item for every possible poor argument; they are grouped into general classes of poor argument, and common examples within each class are listed, from which people can reason and extrapolate.  We don't need to list "Irishman" and "a Chinese" if we have a section that already shows how "Chinaman",  "Negro", and "Jewess" can be used in offensive ways, as an example.  This page would be much easier to digest and apply if it were a catalogue of faults, not of every imaginable example of the faults.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We Want Was! This has long irked me, but never quite enough to speak up. Now that you have, I'm outraged. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" revisited
The inclusion of "ethnic cleansing" as a euphemism for genocide seems out of place. I realize the archives contain several other proposals to remove this phrase, but in the absence of consensus nothing changed. Ethnic cleansing is not euphemistic; it is one of the most serious international crimes, and although similar to genocide, these are distinct terms with their own meanings. Is there a compelling reason to continue to include this term?  The Blue Canoe  22:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Um ... Reword opening statement of this section for clarification., you seem to be saying that you would prefer to have the technical (/true/proper/etc.) definitions of genocide and ethnic cleansing followed on Wikipedia, except you then throw us a curveball question that is essentially asking for the removal of one of the two terms as if they are the same, despite your post having just stated that they have different meanings. Could you please clarify if that was your intent, i.e. to remove the usage of one of the two terms, or if the question is (at time of writing) misleading in its intent. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 05:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, my proposal is to remove the text that reads "nor ethnic cleansing for mass murder or genocide" from the list of euphemistic language to avoid. The Blue Canoe  18:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Any objections to this proposal?  The Blue Canoe  03:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. They are two different issues (like manslaughter vs. murder). Obviously one shouldn't be used in place of the other, but it's not a euphemism; it's a different crime altogether. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ethnic cleansing can include expulsion as well as murder, whereas genocide refers to murder. I do not feel the term softens the impact of what is referred to at all; it is not a euphemism and cannot simply be replaced by "genocide" as they are not the same thing.-- Joren (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Done. The section is a bit bare without this example, so if anyone can think of other common euphemisms that should be added, that would probably be a helpful addition.  The Blue Canoe  00:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ethnic cleansing as a term was coined in the 1990s and was originally coined as a euphemism to obscure the sinister facet of expulsion. Although no different from earlier notions such as "population transfer", the term soon gained notoriety when it shifted from informal to formal through measures such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 780. As such, now it is a real thing. One legacy of the "euphemistic" element, and one that may indeed cause people to think before using it when "expel" will suffice, is that one needs to ask who or what is being cleansed. The answer is: the land. So it is wrong to make human beings the object of the verb "ethnically cleanse". Instead, those people were the victims of ethnic cleansing. But then what does it mean to "cleanse"? It means to sanitise, sterilise, to make something cleaner than clean. So for a victim to admit he was the subject of ethnic cleansing is just as good as admitting that he was the "vermin" that dirtied that land which had to be "cleansed". With me originating from Mostar, and having first hand experience in the wars of the 1990s, I would think before I applied the term "etničko čišćenje" when talking to somebody there (the town is mixed Bosniak/Croat with a small Serb population). As regards "genocide", just make sure what you claim to be genocide is genocide, and make sure it is not referred to anywhere externally as "ethnic cleansing" because there are times when that what one source considers "genocide" can be referred to as "ethnic cleansing" in another source equally reliable. --OJ (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fun Fact: Indiana used to have Indians. Seriously though, "cleansing" is a filthy word, like OJ says. If it involves mass killing and deculturalization/relocation, just say both things happened. Easier than making a survivor feel like shit or finding a source for "genocide" that somebody won't call unreliable. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the question here shouldn't really be "is it a euphemism" - it's clearly not, and as your experience demonstrates, the question might well be "is it a racial epithet". My first exposure to the term was reading about that very atrocity in the '90s, and my childhood memory is of "cleansing" being used with the nuance of getting rid of undesirable people, hence the use of the word almost forces taking the point of view of the people perpetrating it.  I had the same thoughts regarding the word "cleansing", and I'm wishing I'd brought it up in my initial reply, but the word is so standardized now and I couldn't think of a synonym that is both accurate and not seeming to take the POV of those perpetrating it.
 * Population transfer, IMHO, would be a euphemism, as it obscures the typically forced nature of it, and could technically apply to voluntary migration or a host of other processes (it also doesn't encompass the killing of people based on ethnic identity). Even words such as "purge" have issues similar to those of "cleansing".  Would value your opinion on a word both accurate and non-POV, though I wonder if there is one with enough notability to be understood widely :(  I suppose it's possible the existing terms have been in use long enough that they may well have lost the POV quality by now... in any case, your perspective is greatly appreciated.  Thank you for sharing.  -- Joren (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ethnic cleansing is a standard term of art in political science. It's not a claim that some ethnicity was unclean and were cleansed away, it's a claim that some mass-murderous group treated another as if they were unclean and needed to be cleansed away. Its turning the language and views of the mass-murderers against them. The term was originally given in "scare quotes", like "politically correct", which are no longer needed because the term is not being used as its originators used it, but in mockery of their use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If the term was created by a perpetrator and not a victim, and that perpetrator as you say "treated another as if they were unclean and needed to be cleansed away", why would a victim embrace the same term? It is obvious why, people heard the expression, totally misinterpreted it, applied it negatively and eventually, the victims came to use the term. My own great aunt fled Drniš in Croatia to live in Split for the 1991-1995 war there, though given no harm came to her neighbours, she probably didn't need to escape; either way, she hated the term čišćenje which in English translates to "cleansing". She considered herself expelled, or forced to evacuate. --OJ (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well said, User:SMcCandlish. This is my understanding as well. The Blue Canoe  01:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thx. Another way of thinking of this: When we speak of "objectification of women" we don't mean that women are in fact being converted into objects, but rather than the objectifier is mistreating/labeling/viewing them as if they were. It's a parallel construction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

"Since" editwarring
There's ongoing WP:EDITWARring about including the word "since" and providing an example of its use ("president since date"). Our section on dated statements is already festooned with instances and examples, and the resistance to this addition seems to be based on this fact, not on the word itself. It's actually highly dubious that all, even most, uses of "since" are "words to watch", and this yet again points out the the problem with this guideline trying to serve as a "bad word list" instead of guidance on that should be avoided. I'm of the mind that the entire section on this can be rewritten in a way that conveys this about statements that will not age well, but without trying to list every possible construction that could lead to such a situation, since that is what has inspired this edit war, and will just inspire another one and another one as someone else comes along and thinks of a differently worded case that suffers the same problem, mistaking this section for a list of constructions that can lead to the problem instead of a concise explanation of what the problem is no matter what exact wording is used to cause the problem. &lt;sigh&gt;  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorist" or "Conspiracy Theory"
I don't think it is much debated that conflicts of interest and insider trading are a widespread problem in modern society. Conflicts of interest typically require some form of collusion. However, at any point that there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, whether collusion is apparent or not, such concerns are readily dismissed rhetorically with the lable "conspiracy theory." This is obviously a pejorative, and should be recognized as such by Wikipedia.Wikibearwithme (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone brings this up here pretty much every other day, and the answer is always the same: The phrase is not problematic when used correctly. Your argument is not cogent at all.  Conflict of interest has nothing to do with collusion; see conflict of interest.  Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists have nothing to do with conflicts of interest.  Sometimes the alleged conspirators have some kind of conflict of interest, but so what? They also sometimes involve people with brown eyes, or Europeans, or people under the age of 45.  A conspiracy theorist is someone who theorizes (technically, hypothesizes) a conspiracy.  That's not pejorative.  It would be pejorative in some sense to incorrectly label someone a conspiracy theorist without any reliable sources suggesting this, but then it's a matter of an unverifiable claim being made about that person, not something pejorative.  There is no "ban" on pejoratives. If someone's proven to be a murderer, WP will say so, not euphemise around it with something contorted, like "alleged to have and found guilty of having taken a life unjustly."   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice: Request for comments: "simple islanders"
There is a discussion going on at Talk:Sea Mither‎‎ regarding the appropriateness of the wording "simple islanders" in the articles Sea Mither and Nuckelavee. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Added a link to this discussion on the Suicide talk page DanBCDanBC (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC) )

I believe that it does and that "committed suicide" is the generally accepted term. However, there appears to be no consensus on the matter so far. ⁓ Hello  71  15:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Died by suicide" is very clear. There's no hint of euphemism there, unlike for example "took their own life".  Further, while "committed suicide" is common in the US it's less common outside the US, and worldwide the usage is changing away from "committed suicide".  The "committed suicide" phrasing is strongly rejected by many people - the Wikipedia article on suicide has some useful links.  Here's the link to that page's definition section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Definitions  and here's the cited link from that section: http://www.psychology.org.au/Content.aspx?ID=5048  Here's a link to (English) The Samaritan's guide to reporting suicide: http://www.samaritans.org/media-centre/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide/advice-journalists-suicide-reporting-dos-and-donts Here's a link to the UK National Union of Journalist's PDF guide to reporting mental ilness and suicide: https://www.nuj.org.uk/documents/nuj-guidelines-for-responsible-reporting-on-mental-health/  Page 8 of that guide says "Remember suicide is not a crime so it is inaccurate to use the word ‘committed’. Describing someone as having ‘committed suicide’ reduces the person to the type of death or implies criminal or sinful behaviour. An alternative term is "died by suicide"". Here's a link to the BBC Editorial Guidelines http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/harm-and-offence/suicide  I believe these three independent international sources show the move away from the phrase "committed suicide" towards the phrase "died by suicide". It's important to note that I am not trying to prevent people from using "committed suicide" on Wikipedia.  I'm not purging all (or even most) uses of "committed suicide".  But once per article it's useful to introduce the internationally accepted modern language of "died by suicide".  I'm not searching out the phrase on WP, but when I find an article that uses it I change one instance from "committed suicide" to "died by suicide". --DanBCDanBC (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I posted a link to this discussion on the death/suicide project talk page. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Death#RFC_.22Does_.27Died_by_Suicide.27_constitute_a_euphemism.3F --DanBCDanBC (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A good argument might be made for committed suicide being the opposite of a euphemism because (as mentioned above) the committed bit refers to the notion of suicide being a sin or crime, though I don't think it's commonly perceived this way anymore, except in certain religions circles. Personally I think killed himself, committed suicide, and took his own life are about equally acceptable, but each has its own negative: the first is a bit blunt, the second carries the slightly negative connotation mentioned, and the last sounds slightly poetic. Died by suicide sounds... I don't know... like died by his own hand, which is definitely slightly euphemistic.  E Eng  19:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Killed himself" lacks the connotation of intent; it is possible to "kill yourself" by doing something dangerous. Suicide has a definite meaning, which includes intent. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, "Killed himself" (like, I suppose, "filed a lawsuit") lacks the denotation of intent, but it certainly carries that connotation, just as "broke his leg skiing" lacks the denotation of accident, but certainly carries that connotation.  E Eng  04:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sonny Bono tried to end his own suffering with pills before killing himself skiing. The implication? Most foul. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Hulk.  E Eng  01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good evening. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you visited the museums lately? They bring murder back to the userpage -- where it belongs.  E Eng  05:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keeping the past alive, like Night Gallery, but for the weird stuff. Good work. Presented for your consideration, this modern portrait of a man who shot himself to death while shooting himself for posterity. Accidentally, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hah! I can beat that one!  E Eng  08:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that'll take the cake, but for completeness, here's an accidental/incidental homicide. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Died by suicide" is clearly descriptive, not a euphemism. "Committed suicide" has PoV problems; it's the Judeo-Christian view that it's a sin/crime being . If I'm dying slowly in agony of pancreatic cancer with no qualify of life, just unending torment, I'll happily myself relief; I won't be "committing" anything [in my agnostic reality tunnel]. Re: "commonly perceived": So, why did my Facebook page get hit with a meme-pic the other day ranting about how suicide attempts are not a plea for help or anything but a  and should be prosecuted as one? I think that pic had 17 mil. shares or something like that.  It definitely  a judgmental PoV, a conservative religious one. Anyway, "killed him/herself" can be used in a way that doesn't imply accident just by writing clearly; it's rarely taken to imply accident, and we would not normally use it that way. And "Died by suicide" is clear, it just does not always flow well in every sentence. I don't even think "committed suicide" is necessarily a PoV problem, just often one; depends on usage again.  "Died by his/her own hand" isn't really a euphemism, it's just archaic, like "spoke unto thee". "Took his/her own life" is also descriptive and not particularly euphemistic, but I gather that some here think it's euphemistic for some reason.  I would think there must be a thesaurus of such terms somewhere in a death-related resources. Given a clean slate article, I think I'd use "died by suicide" in the lead, and then "killed him/herself" in the body.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As should be apparent, I really don't care much. Let me add one more phrasing to the mix, and y'all can duke it out: "died by self-inflicted [gunshot, poisoning, etc]".  E Eng  04:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an unhelpful addition. Self inflicted poisoning could be an accidental death. This discussion is not about the use of the word "suicide", but about the use of either "committed suicide" or "died by suicide".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBCDanBC (talk • contribs) 11:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Think twice, Mr. Know-it-all. This discussion is clearly about appropriate and inappropriate ways to refer to suicide, and the suggestion of "self-inflicted" is a helpful addition to this discussion since, whether it's a good or bad choice, the thinking about that should be memorialized along with the rest.  E Eng  20:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Suicide is by definition self inflicted. Including the phrase self-inflicted is redundant.  You don't appear to be aware of how this RfC started, you might want to look at that before you tell me I don't know what this RfC is about. Again: since you don't care much either way, you might want to stop adding unhelpful, uninformed, off-topic opinion to an RfC that has a narrow focus. Or alternatively if you actually do care you might want to start a broader RfC somewhere else. DanBCDanBC (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, NPA. DanBCDanBC (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah. Despite this RfC's over-narrow opening formulation, clearly more is being discussed whether you like it or not. Throwing in other related phrases for consideration as either good or bad makes sense. Also, COMMON SENSE.  E Eng  16:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the only person bringing in pointless distractions. For someone who doesn't care you make many comments.  A gentle reminder - "Blah blah blah" is a personal attack, and it's not a constructive contribution. DanBCDanBC (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the only person fussing that it's a distraction. Can't you just let others decide for themselves whether they care to discuss it? Please do be my guest and have the last word now. Blah blah blah blah blah blah.  E Eng  12:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Died by self-inflicted [gunshot, poisoning, etc]" is a descriptive phrase that might be useful in some contexts; it's not a substitute for a note that someone died by suicide, for the reason DanBCDanBC gives. It's additional information.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "a note that someone died by suicide" -- that would be a suicide note?  E Eng  15:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No policy recommendations should be made about stylistic details like this. Get a consensus for what is appropriate in a specific article. Just say no to micromanagement and instruction creep.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This entire page, as has been discussed many times before, needs to be re-done as a guide to how to avoid wording problems, using contextual examples drawn from the present list, instead of trying to serve as a "banned word and phrase list".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah2.  E Eng  21:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC) P.S. Hi, !
 * Died by suicide is okay but if we know if they shot themselves or poisoned self then we should put that as this is an encyclopedia where the facts should be not censored from the article, see Censor Policy. RFC Volunteer Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, there was an RfC level consensus that "committed suicide" was perfectly acceptable back in 2013. See here. If the intention here is to reconsider that finding then I believe a notice of this discussion should be posted at Talk:Suicide. If not, carry on! DonIago (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That discussion is useful. Some most people in that thread don't mind if "died by is used" (even if they prefer "committed"), and the use (or not) of "died by" is what's being discussed here. So, it seems consensus from 2013 is that died by is not euphemistic. DanBCDanBC (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, for Christ's sake where have you been for the last 30 posts?  E Eng  01:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I like to let these things build up for awhile before I make an appearance. More dramatic that way! DonIago (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well played, then. Can someone close this?  E Eng  01:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Whatever other issues there may be with the phrase, "died by suicide" cannot possibly be taken as a euphemism. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think "committed suicide" reads better, but I wouldn't call "died by suicide" a euphemism. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading info Suicide and Language - Robert Olson, Librarian, BA, MLIS, Centre for Suicide Prevention, 2011 -- Moxy (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Died by suicide is a simple description of what has occured. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Died by suicide" is not a euphemism, but it is awkward wording; this may be because it's not as common as "committed suicide." I prefer "committed suicide" because it is the standard terminology and I'm used to it. I could not care less about the "criminal" implications some people have with it. I'd never read a religious POV argument regarding it until SMcCandlish's comment above. Note: Issues with "committed suicide" was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (with WP:Med editors also weighing in); see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That discussion also shows that SMcCandlish had a different take on the matter in 2014, but, hey, opinions change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Committed suicide is only the standard terminology in the US, and even there it's losing ground among researchers and health professionals. But this discussion is not about preventing anyone from using "committed", or abut replacing all occurrences of "committed", but about whether it's okay to change "died by" to "committed". DanBCDanBC (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that "[c]ommitted suicide is only the standard terminology in the US." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And this discussion is about whatever people are discussing. The opening question was whether "died by suicide" is a euphemism. The consensus clearly is that it it's not. Others are also raising PoV questions about "committed", and whether DanBCDanBC wants that discussion to happen or not, it is happening.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, but going off topic is unhelpful where two editors are trying to work out whether "died by" is euphemistic or needs reverting. There are plenty of places for you to talk about the general topic. This tiny little thread started with a nicely defined, tight focus that arose from an actual interaction between two editors. DanBCDanBC (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Died by suicide" is not a euphemism, but it is a bit blunt. It is not my perception that this is in normal use in the local media coverage. Whiteguru (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No. It seems OK to me.  It's a little wordier and less familiar, but it's not a euphemism.  A euphemism would obscure what happened, but this is still clear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Summoned by bot. No not a euphemism. Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Attempt to summarise: "Died by" is not seen as a euphemism by most people in this discussion, and previous discussions have said that "died by" is acceptable. So long as people aren't replacing all instances of "committed" with "died by" there shouldn't be a problem.  I don't care about the rest, other people can summarise that. DanBCDanBC (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I prefer 'died by suicide'. Demographically, I am in the southern United States and 'committed' has a very negative slant. For example, if I express suicidal intent to my counselor, I will be 'involuntarily committed' to a Pharma doping center. People 'commit' homicide, and all manner of crimes right down to the littering in Alice's Restaurant.  The wording of died by suicide explains in stark non-euphimistic terms what someone has done to end their own life.  Fylbecatulous talk 15:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regime
Many of my recent edits have focused on cleaning up passages where the word "regime" has been used not for its primary meaning of system of governance but for its secondary meaning where it is used to editorialise: a substitute for "government", "rule", "administration" or even the name of the country itself, chiefly in cases where the government in question is not in favour with mainstream media (typcially referred to as authoritarian in these cases but not always strictly so). Obviously if it is used in sources then there is no crime in introducing it into text, though when an editor changes it to a word also used in sources (e.g., "government") then problems can arise when an editor reverts him to the "regime" display. My belief is that "regime" is politically loaded and one-sided but I would like to hear the views of others, especially anyone who favours its usage. In due course, I'll explain why I believe it to be one-sided (violating NPOV) but for now, let's have some thoughts and we can cross-examine each other and give examples as we go along. Regards. --OJ (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it definitely has negative connotations. I don't see any reason to use it at all when "government" is plenty usable and far more neutral, whether or not the sources use "regime". Our job is to present neutral, balanced information backed by reliable sources, not parrot loaded language. Faceless Enemy (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am taking part in a related conversation on Talk:Apostrof. --OJ (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Completely agree; this is a rhetorically loaded term.Wikibearwithme (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Depends. There's no PoV problem in referring to Pol Pot's regime, Idi Amin's regime, the Italian Fascists' regime, Franco's regime, etc., as regimes, because RS routinely do so. Referring to Thatcher's UK government as a regime would raise an eyebrow or two or a million, because of how the word's day-to-day meaning has shifted. "Regime" is also a term of art in various contexts, especially legal/regulatory ones; e.g., "post-Internet changes to the U.S. copyright regime"; here it means "system of rules", in lay terms.  It's also part of the French loan-phrase Ancien Régime, often not capitalized, and anglicized as "ancien regime", when used metaphorically (with the same meaning as "the old guard".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * RS often use lots of other loaded words or phrases, but we should avoid using them if we can convey the same meaning with more neutral language. Faceless Enemy (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is not a consensus that we should always do this. It depends on what the propensity of the sources say. To fall back on the stock example, if most sources say that the Nazi regime murdered millions of Jews and others, we say so, we don't use euphemistic language like "resulted in the deaths of".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware there is no consensus, that is why I began this thread. My question is not on the propensity of the sources but whether the term is loaded (i.e. is it a label or is it actual?). Authors, journalists and reporters are free to use whatever language they choose; here we are required to be formal and non-controversial. Your response to Faceless Enemy states that if sources say "the Nazi regime murdered millions of Jews" then we should not say, "resulted in the deaths of". That was not his point, nobody said "use the passive and not the active", the question here is, what would be wrong with saying "government"? Take the following passage: In all, about 12 million men, women, and children were murdered by the Nazi government of Germany and its followers. Six million of them were Jews - the only group specifically targeted for complete extermination. - do you see a problem with this kind of presentation from here? Do you believe that this would be improved if an editor switched "government" for "regime", and if so, why? --OJ (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think my point just had to do with passive voice, you're missing it. I'm not sure I have opinion on your question, and it doesn't strike me as relevant. No one ever suggested that every possible of use "regime" would be ideal. The discussion is about whether it's ever permissible. An obviously permissible case would be that "Hitler becoming chancellor was a regime change that was [something about the press coverage of the day could go here]".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the above post, it is a perfectly acceptable example of how the word should be used. In the first place, the word is used in its primary non-loaded context (ruling system) and in the second, the word "change" distributes the term equally between outgoing in incoming entities. I never meant to oppose its usage 100% as you can see, and I certainly accept that when it is used in the source that there is no guideline breach when inserting it onto mainspace. My question pertained to the other context whereby the term is viewed widely as a label - and I say widely because there is no question that authors and politicians alike (on all sides of political fences) are fully aware of this which is why they fail to apply the term to themselves, allies or to any favoured state. CNN knows the "Putin regime" even though it is highly unlikely Nemtsov will have used the term when working alongside Russian government, while at the same time Novorossia knows the "Obama regime" although this never declared war on Moscow (yeah, I'm laughing at the two articles this end as well :-) !!). But the issue here is when an editor such as I should make the relevant tweak such as here, I am interested to know if anyone believes that I should not have done this, is my edit in itself loaded (and if so why), and does anyone feel inclined to revert on any principle. My belief is that I replaced a loaded term with a neutral term which is also used in sources. (Thanks in advance to anyone who deliberates here) --OJ (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular issue with your above post or the earlier version. It's not that the term cannot be abused, it's just so obvious when it is, it seems unlikely to need guideline coverage. This page isn't a list of every term than can ever be used in a misleading way. I don't have a huge objection to addressing abuse of this one in particular, as long as we don't treat its legitimate uses as "tainted".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Piracy"
Watchers of this page may be interested in a discussion at WP:VPPOL regarding the phrase "piracy" (as in, "copyright infringement"). --Izno (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thread was renamed, and is now at WP:VPPOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions from an English Wiktionary paper
http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02120 produced wikt:Special:PermaLink/32322352 which I consider to be interesting findings on the English Wikipedia writing style because it lists some phrases which are common on the English Wikipedia (as of 2010) but were not defined by the English Wiktionary. For instance, Special:Search/"or something to that effect" currently has 14 matches and, except quotations, they all point to badly written paragraphs. Nemo 09:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hyperbolic constructions, especially involving numbers
The entire first section covers exaggerations that pose neutrality problems, but there's another kind that needs to be addressed, especially since it's actually fairly common in popularization-of-science materials. I propose adding the following to the section "Expressions that lack precision", immediately after its "Clichés and idioms" subsection (which doesn't quite cover this, and neither does "Euphemisms"):

Hyperbolic (and often exaggeratory) phrasing is essentially unencyclopedic, and has a Sagan-esque quality of oversimplification for the unsophisticated. When there is an underlying truth to the matter, provide the information more explicitly: The number of galaxies in the universe can only be estimated, by using the best space telescopes to study a fractional percentage of the visual universe and extrapolating from those findings. Especially avoid self-contradictory constructions, like Countless lives were lost in World War II, including at least 21 million soldiers and 48 million civilians. Do not describe anything as infinite unless reliable sources consistently do so.

There might be some common but numerically unrelated hyperbole that should be covered as well, but most of the cases I can think of, that aren't puffery or other controversial, biased claims, are numeric. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Markup cleanup
Four things to clean up: — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The misuses of in this page have to be replaced with a non-quotation template. This template, like the other quote templates, generates  markup which is specifically and only for direct block quotations from a source, not for decorative layout of examples.
 * We should only be using  shortcuts in here.  For any   shortcut, make sure the   version exists and is listed, then remove the redundant   one, since it serves no purpose to "advertise" shortcuts that are the same apart from what comes before the colon.  This is cleanup we've been doing across the MOS pages, and this one is next. :-)
 * Use MOS's consistent markup for examples: Desirable/correct is ; undesirable/incorrect is ; neither preferred nor deprecated is ; and  is.
 * Use other semantic markup, e.g. or its  element for variables,  or its  element for emphasis (as distinct from italicization of words as words), etc.

"Unacademic" concerns re: "cult", etc.
this edit actually had some merits, though I agree with the reverter of it that "unacademic" is not the WP-relevant concern. The general gist of the change is probably reasonable and worth considering, just with a better term. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The edit (and it's followup) took some terms already in one of the "naughty lists" and moved them to a new section with a inapt name. What's the point?  E Eng  20:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Using prose to explain what the issue is, instead of making naughty lists, pretty much what we've concluded we need to do in every other conversation on this page for the last 6 months or so. I agree the name was inapt, and I'm not challenging it being reverted, I'm suggesting that something can be salvaged from it, whatever that something is is probably how more of this page should be re-done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * These three words are back under under contentious labels, which explains adequately that other wording may be better. If you can improve that explanation, fine, do it. What are we discussing here? Is there a need for finely divided lists of a few words each, each with a tailor-made writeup?  E Eng  07:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we just need to continue the work of identifying problematic kinds of writing and giving examples, instead of trying to build a "banned word list" based on subjective and often incorrect assumptions. The majority of the discussion on this talk page for the last few years has been campaigning (and resistance to it) about specific words/phrases various people have a personal distaste for, instead of programmatically identifying what sorts of misuse of terminology we don't want to see in the encyclopedia.  Fortunately, the actual crafting of the page has mostly improved in the programmatic direction, instead of being mired in more of the attempts to censor without regard for context.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Slurs: proposed sentence
I would like to propose adding the following sentence (or a variation thereof) to some place in the article: "You should try to avoid using a word that is in the religious slurs or ethnic slurs articles in a prominent place, such as the first sentence or as a subsection heading title as a description". Ninefive6 (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm worried about the wording here. Words listed in "list of ethnic slurs" include "ape", "apple", "banana", "brownie", "Charlie", "crow" – and that's without going beyond "c".  Clearly there are legitimate reasons to use all of these words in prominent places in articles.  And using ethnic/religious slurs as slurs is already a violation of WP:NPOV (specifically WP:IMPARTIAL).  So I'm not sure what problem this will solve, and I worry that it will give rules lawyers more ammunition to argue with.  It looks like a solution in search of a problem to me... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But I have seen many editors argue that they are from nonprudish backgrounds claiming that certain inflammatory words are legitimate. How about if I alter the proposal from "... as a description" to " ... to describe people". This would be useful because I have seen half a dozen arguments about what counts as vulgar and what doesn't with a seeming deadlock. Ninefive6 (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have any examples of this? I'd be interested to have a look...
 * I think that "to descibe a person" would be better, though frankly I don't like the fact that this is needed at all. This should obviously fall under existing guidelines such as WP:NPOV and WP:TONE. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Giving one or two example wouldn't do justice. For example some pejoratives are eventually removed after lengthy debates. Some are more subtle, but you only feel it when you've read wikipedia extensively. Ninefive6 (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I hope everyone knows this, under WP:NPOV, but it will just be easier to have it spelled out. May I suggest that it be better if we remove "articles" and replaced "in the" with "a" so that it would read: "You should try to avoid using a word that is a religious slur or ethnic slur in a prominent place, such as the first sentence or as a subsection heading title as a description" Well we were at it we could delete "in a prominent place, such as the first sentence or as a subsection heading title as a description" and replace it with "Except as part of a quotation". We could add " ... to describe a person or a group" as per above. Maybe also consider linking to WP:OM? Sorry if I got a bit finicky about phrasing, but this is a guideline, so we need to be careful. Does this address everybody's concerns? Tamwin (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes!! I wholeheartedly support that suggestion. Are you going to make the addition/edit? Ninefive6 (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, the suggested new phrasing is:


 * I can't think of any immediate problems with the wording here, and would be happy for this to be introduced, but I still think that it's fundamentally unnecessary as it is already covered by WP:NPOV, WP:TONE and WP:GRATUITOUS. And WP:NPOV at any rate is policy, whilst this is "merely" a guideline.
 * What I would say, though, is that I wouldn't link to the list of [religious|ethnic] slurs articles, following WP:BEANS. I also think it's at best silly to explicitly prohibit just religious and ethnic slurs; I can just see some idiot using that to argue "but calling [subject of article] a bitch is a gendered slur, which is not prohibited in WP:WTW".  Also, "try" is weaselly.  If an editor cannot succeed in not putting slurs in wikipedia's voice, they have no place in editing here. So if people really do want to include some variant of this, I would suggest:


 * Anyone have any other nits to pick?
 * I fundamentally still think this is a case of if it ain't broke don't fix it, though Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Once another person agrees, I support amending Tamwin's phrasing to your variant if it contains a compromise between the two so that the main elements of both are included. Ninefive6 (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Caeciliusinhorto's version. By the way a lot of this page could probably be deleted under the "already covered" argument. Guidelines like this exist to expand upon and explain policy's like WP:NPOV and WP:TONE.
 * Ninefive6 appears to have added my previous version to the page, which may have been slightly premature, given that this is still under discussion. I'd like to see a bit more consensus before enacting this. I was kind of hoping we could turn it into a paragraph with examples, like WP:PEACOCK, with methods for correcting and such, this being an MOS page. We could consider giving it WP:SLUR, possibly with a link to WP:CIVIL in case of confusion.
 * We should probably let the RFC run its course. Also, this being one of our more linked-to guidelines, it might make sense to get some past editors over here to review this. I was thinking Flyer22 Reborn, SMcCandlish, and SlimVirgin. Do you think they might be able to help? Tamwin (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to think of this addition; I almost reverted because of articles that deal with such words, but I stopped myself because I think people will generally understand the context of the addition. Either way, I don't think that Ninefive6 should have added it while this RfC is still going. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I tend to concur that it's unnecessary; it's already covered by the general neutrality bent of this guideline, and the WP:NPOV and WP:NPA policies. If we were to have something this specific, use the shorter wording, without all the "You should try to avoid" blather. "Either do or do not; there is no 'try'." — Yoda. Also agree that adding the contested language to the guideline in mid-RfC isn't appropriate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Would someone please provide a diff of where an unattributed slur was added to an article where the wording was not removed by the first sane editor. This guideline should not be expanded with obvious statements unless a problem is first demonstrated. Johnuniq (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did in fact ask this further up; no evidence that this is a problem was given... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reasonable points. There appears to be a consensus against the addition. Want to end this now, or wait for the RFC to expire? I'm for the former option. Tamwin (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I support the shorter version. So does Caeciliusinhorto. SMcCandlish seems to support it too. That seems like a 3-person consensus for the shorter version. Also, I'd like to add there have recently been prominent media criticism of wikipedia relating to the difficulty of newcomers to wikipedia with altering guidelines with power concentrated in elite editors. The closing admin should note this in his/her judgement. Ninefive6 (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I support no change over even the shorter version, though, and if I am reading right, so do they.  Both of us say that the shorter version I proposed is better than the longer version, not that it is better than what is currently there. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2016
 * I don't support adding the shorter option, but using the shorter option if consensus concludes to add something like this. I.e., I see the shorter option as the lesser of two evils.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that under wp:close, non-contentious RFCs don't need to be closed, and they definitely don't need to be closed by an admin. Tamwin (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose any change at current time. Though a shorter version is better than a longer version, no case has been made that a change is currently necessary or helpful. --Boson (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd tend to brush this off as WP:CREEP too because of WP:NPOV and the fact that NPOV is a policy and MOS merely a guideline, as pointed out by, but this line of reasoning is complicated by the observation that there is a WMF Resolution pertaining to this matter: wmf:Resolution:Controversial content. Somewhat inconsistently, what the Resolution says about the principle of least astonishment has only been implemented in terms of images (WP:GRATUITOUS and MOS:IMAGES) and not words, despite the Resolution calling for this kind of treatment for all content. Of specific concern regarding this RFC is WP:LEADIMAGE, which mandates that: "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; [...] For example, using an image of deportees being subjected to selection as the lead image [...] of Holocaust is far preferable to the appropriate images that appear later in the article that show the treatment of the prisoners or corpses from the camps." I think we should look at this issue in terms of the question: have we fully implemented the WMF Resolution when it comes to words? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose any change at the current time. The shorter version seems to mean that we couldn't say that someone is considered to be a pseudohistorian, white nationalist, anti-Muslim, etc (even when, as all such statements should be, it was well sourced). Doug Weller  talk 18:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The concern is covered in NPOV. If anything, it sounds like this RfC should be aimed at buttressing guidelines within NPOV, not WTW. Fdssdf (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a mistake
Last paragraph of Puffery section contains the phrase "can be worded loaded both ways". "Worded loaded"? I'm guessing the author meant to use only one of those words. Meve Stills (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake. It should be "can be worded loaded both ways".  Please correct it.68.148.186.93 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016
Please change this paragraph (it is needlessly vague and leaves too many basic questions unanswered, like who was JJ Watts' coach(es) at Central Michigan)

from "Watt received a scholarship offer from Central Michigan University and matriculated there. Watt has stated that he was led to believe[by whom?] that as tight end, he would have the opportunity to score touchdowns. At Central Michigan, he played 14 games, compiling 77 receiving yards and 8 receptions.[15] Watt's coaches[who?] suggested that he move to offensive tackle, but Watt decided to forgo his starting spot and scholarship to walk on at the University of Wisconsin, where he played as a defensive end.[16]

to

"Watt accepted a full scholarship to play tight end at Central Michigan University under then-head coach Brian Kelly -- long before Kelly's current tenure as the helm of the University of Notre Dame's gridiron squad.

Disappointed at the dearth of scoring opportunities he was given, Kelly (and his then top-Assistant and ultimate successor) Butch Jones encouraged Watt to try his hand at offensive tackle. Watt has since admitted tha he was, indeed, approached by Central Michigan coaching staff, who asked him to consider trading in the wideout position for the offensive line. But Watt admits that, in the end, it was his desire to return home and live in Wisconsin, that ultimately made him walk away from the full ride at Central Michigan and try his luck aa a walk-on at Division I and Big 10 powerhouse, University of Wisconsin.

"Yes it is true I was approached to move to tackle. But in all honesty it wasn’t so much the move to tackle as it was my desire to move closer to home. I also wanted to go to a place that would let me play defensive end and I felt like Wisconsin presented me with the best opportunity to do that. Just the way the offense was working out there at CMU, there wasn’t really any opportunities for me to grow as a player. I had to do what was best for me."

Watt's bold move from scholarship athlete to walk-on was regarded almost universally as a tremendous risk at the time. "Leaving that all behind, what I had at CMU, it was one of the toughest things I ever had to do. But leaving it all behind was a risk I was willing to take. I was trying to be the best defensive end in the country and I thought Wisconsin was a place I could achieve that. I could have easily fallen flat on my face but the hard work I put in at CMU carried over to Wisconsin. In the end, it paid off in spades."

ESPN's Adam Rittenberg summed up the varying forces at play in Watt's decision-making a bit more bluntly: "Watt initially committed to Central Michigan, switched to Minnesota when Brian Kelly left CMU and then switched back to the Chippewas after Minnesota fired Glen Mason. Although Watt appeared in every game for Central Michigan in 2007, he didn't feel right there. He returned home for six months, delivered pizzas and took classes at a local community college before transferring to Wisconsin and walking onto the team."

But surprisingly, Watt's stint delivering pizzas set up one of the one of the most trans formative moments in his life. USA Today's Jim Corbett captured the brief exchange Watt had with a young boy, that marked at turning point in Watt's life:

"Watt played tight end at Central Michigan until his food-service industry sabbatical in 2007. He was taking classes at a community college in Waukesha, Wis., when a wake-up call came from a local kid who recognized the former Pewaukee High star on one of his deliveries.

The 10-year-old boy at the door turned that pizza run into a career-changing epiphany when he asked Watt why he wasn't playing football.

"That was a powerful day in my life, a humbling moment that reiterated my drive to be great and get to the top as a football player," Watt says. He re-shaped his body, contacted Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema and after sitting out the 2008 season, Watt earned All-Big 10 2009 and 2010 honors.

Mbros1 (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Manual of Style/Words to watch.

Notice of closure
Note that I have closed the earlier discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 7. There is clear consensus that "died by suicide" is not a euphemism and that we should not advise editors to avoid it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's standard -- eg "BBC Documentary broadcast April 2016 entitled: Help is at Hand: Support after someone may have died by suicide Rjensen (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Did you know?
That this part of the Manual of Style does NOT apply to semi-protected articles such as the one about Donald Trump, which has lots of editorialization and leaning towards specific POV's based on the use of words that the article tells us not to use like controversial or best-selling or popular or a decade later, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.53.34.144 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wording issues at Template:According to whom
Opinions are needed the following matter Template talk:According to whom. As noted, I responded in the section below that one since I wanted my reply to clearly address what is stated in both sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Unspecific quantities like "hundreds", "thousands", "millions"
Should these words be added to this page as being too unspecific? The words have widely varying meanings. E.g. "millions" can refer to 3 million, 20 million, even 400 million. At best it sets an approximate lower limit (circa 2 million) but there is no widely agreed upon upper limit. Gap9551 (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Committed suicide"
Following on from a similar discussion at Talk:Heinrich Himmler, I thought it worth raising it here. Our article on suicide has:

"The word "commit" was used in reference to it being illegal, however many organisations have stopped it because of the negative connotation."

Could we suggest replacing "committed suicide" with "killed him/herself"? A modern encyclopedia should use modern language where possible, and the BBC and the Guardian are pretty good sources for style. Exceptions might be where someone in former times was prosecuted posthumously for the act. Thoughts? --John (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This was discussed exhaustively on the article's talk page and decided against.GideonF (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"indeed"?
This seems like a word that should probably be avoided; most of the time I've seen it used on Wikipedia, it is used to prop one position or another as being "true", and this is also essentially the case for how I've seen it used outside Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "Indeed" is covered by WP:Editorializing. It's not explicitly mentioned, but it doesn't need to be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. If anyone reverts me next time I remove it I'll point them here. Cheers! Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported weasel words is tantamount to original research
Wikipedia articles should not use weasel words not supported by the source. Adding a modifier to a sentence not supported by the source alters the original meaning of the source. When a source only indicates a vague or ambiguous claim then the content added to an article should also indicate a vague or ambiguous claim. The text should not change the intended meaning of the source. The bigger problem with saying "some" or "most" when the source only indicates a vague or ambiguous claim is that it is original research to claim it was "some" or "most". The wording in the article should reflect the meaning of the author. If the author doesn't explicitly quantify it then the wording in the article should not quantity it.

Not having a modifier such as "some" or "many" does not imply a wider unanimity of consensus than the source does. Editors should not be able to freely add a modifier to change the meaning of the source when it is not supported by the source.

For example, "Public health experts are concerned that nicotine is highly addictive." If the source did not indicate it was "some" public health experts then the unsupported weasel word is original research.

I think the section on WP:WEASEL needs to be clear more on this. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru, interesting points. I've seen the type of mess you mentioned. The "Public health experts are concerned that nicotine is highly addictive." sentence does not need "many" or "some." It is the consensus of the medical field that nicotine is highly addictive, and "many" and "some" downplays that consensus. Even if it weren't the consensus, stating "Public health experts" does not have to mean "all", in the same way that "Critics felt" doesn't have to mean "all." Since "some" can sometimes be needed to avoid the type of WP:In-text attribution that can mislead, I'm not sure about agreeing to the type of strict editing you are arguing for, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In the lead of the Nicotine article, we simply state that it is addictive, without any qualification; not even "highly" is used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: "Highly" was recently added to "addictive" by QuackGuru at the Nicotine article. I'm noting this so that it's clear that I didn't simply miss the word when I looked at the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported attributions (Draft)
Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has 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.

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, 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. 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.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources; alternatively, they may be tagged with the weasel, by whom, or similar templates to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue).

Comments on Unsupported attributions (Draft)
I copied per verbatim the exact current wording of the guideline. The original discussion is at. I think we can make this guideline a lot more clear than it is. QuackGuru ( talk ) 21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have any opinions on QuackGuru's concerns? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My view is that most adjectives wind up getting sourced or tossed. But to summarize content, such as in a lead, sometimes a phrase like "many scholars state" is not inappropriate.     Montanabw (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment How about adding to the end of the first paragraph, after the "have no place in Wikipedia articles", Note that if a reliable source says, for example, that "Many scholars state", it is inappropriate to change this to "One scholar ([name of source's author]) states".? My reasoning is that WP:WEASEL is frequently (constantly) cited by editors who disagree with scholarly consensus, who would rather not state the scholarly consensus in articles on, say, the authorship of the epistles of Saint Peter. This kind of change is inappropriate because it assumes that the authors themselves hold to the consensus view they are simply stating as the consensus view, and it gives the (usually false) impression that the the view is not widely held. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that it has to be a case by case basis, worked out with various articles. Usually, the best approach is to "teach the controversy" and say something like "foo sources say X, but foobar sources say Y."  It's not false equivalence to do so, rather it is a restating of what exists.  Seldom will you find a RS for a statement like "this is the scientific consensus" or "many scholars agree" that itself is not an editorial statement. I'm not seeing a problem here that can be solved with a general rule.  Montanabw (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well in the cases I am talking about, it's only fundamentalist sources that say X, and numerous reliable sources written by university professors not only say Y, they directly state that the majority of scholars say Y, and occasionally they state that the only scholars who say X are fundamentalists. But in some cases, they don't even directly say Y; they just say that most scholars say Y. Additionally, the problem is usually with drive-by IP editors who only edit the lead of such-and-such article, and the lead is certainly not the place to "teach the controversy" if the article body doesn't do so. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In case you can't tell, I'm deliberately equating this with the classic case of "teach the controversy" (creationism vs. evolution), where Wikipedia definitely doesn't do so except in dedicated articles about the controversy, and even there we specify that only fundamentalists hold to one view. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also the problem that, technically, a peer-reviewed, scholarly source that says "Most scholars say X, but I disagree" is likely to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's claim that "Most scholars say X"; if someone changed it to say that "One scholar says X" (the implication being that the one scholar is the author of the source) it would completely misrepresent the source's opinion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 03:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Liberation lingo
Howzit all.

If this is not the right place to start this discussion, kindly redirect me elsewhere. I've been directed here by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.

I work mostly on WikiProject MilHist related articles, and something I've increasingly noticed is the use of "liberation lingo", describing wars and conflicts as "liberation struggles" and the parties that waged them as "liberation movements". WP:LABEL says terms like "freedom fighter" are vale-laden labels which attempt to skew the readership's opinion, so my question is do the former two also fall into this category?

Liberation-this, or liberation-that is, I believe, an example of loaded language (except when used as a proper noun, such as National Liberation Front). It's use is common in describing the liberation of European territories from Nazi rule following WWII in the First World; however, in the Third World the word is mostly derived from communist terminology and used to denote a successful guerrilla war or an insurgency. Often both sides would claim to be fighting for freedom. Use of this language in that particular context is currently grossly pervasive in some areas of the encyclopedia. It doesn't help that the United Nations has a list of "liberation movements" it recognises, but then again the UN isn't subject to the rule of NPOV.

If indeed liberation lingo is an enormous breach of WP:WORDS and WP:LABEL as I suspect, we should add it to the list of terms to avoid.

Thanks, -- Katan gais (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

On Old Testament, I recently replaced the phrase "can be divided" with "is traditionally divided by Christians". Both are passives, but the former is less precise and helpful to readers. Is this kind of non-specific wording covered here? Should it be? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict - "result" or "outcome" parameter?
Please see the not-quite-RfC at Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 3, on a proposition intended to help avoid misinterpretation of a "just the facts" infobox parameter as being a place for extensive, freeform, subjective cause–effect assertions that may be better handled in well-cited, contextual article prose. This is primarily a semantic confusion due to imprecise wording issue, and MOS:WTW seems like the most relevant guideline in that regard, or at least the most likely to be populated by editors who think carefully about such matters and in a good position to say whether the proposed change is onto something or an off-base overreaction. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Blackface
I would like to change the loaded word `blackface make-up` and `blackface costume` in the article about `Zwarte Piet` to the more neutral `black make-up`.

The word `blackface` links to the Wiktionary article which both explains the word as:

- only white people use it - it is to portray a negro

Other sources on the internet describe the term as `(indirectly) racist` and `used to ridicule black people`. To portray Zwarte Piet, non-white people also use make-up. That Zwarte Piet is a portrayal of a Moor is just one of the interpretations (next to it portraying a disguise, Odin's raven, devil, chimney soot, darkness, opposition, etc.). Black Pete is not a race, nor is its portrayal in folklore and culture ridiculing (Black Pete is respected). Besides all this the `blackface` custom is highly America-centric, and not related to the Dutch culture of Black Pete (which dates back before slavery).

I also started a discussion on the Talk page of Zwarte Piet, before any edits on my part. I would like input/feedback of more experienced Wikipedians, especially in the field of word use, and avoiding POV. Thanks!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwarte_Piet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zwarte_Piet Calveer (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Commented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Synonyms
I have read many articles and it seems that the content does not discriminate against particular term usage, so the addition may be applicable to broader circles and communities of contributors. Furthermore, the previous version appeared to emphasize uncommon and nonstandard words, while the addition would be more broad by also covering extremely rare and obsolete terms. Uytppo (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

"Where the use of a neologism is necessary ... its meaning must be supported by reliable sources"
MOS:NEO Isn't this redundant?

Material not directly attributable to reliable sources shouldn't be included in Wikipedia in the first place, and if the reliable source doesn't use the neologism in question, then clearly our use of it would be unnecessary. Shouldn't we say "it should be used in the same way the cited reliable source uses it".

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No because it may be a term of art not used outside its speciality. It may be a translation from a foreign source by a Wikipedia editor, or a word from a work translated by a professional translator (or the author) into English and subsequently published in an English language publication, in an otherwise reliable source. But that does not make these sources reliable for justifying the use of a neologism. -- PBS (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016
in the description of weasel words i suggest that two phrases be added to the boxed example "I'm hearing" and "People are saying" Fridjiit (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

❌ Enough examples are already in that section; we don't need to put every permutation of weasel phrasing in the list. Besides, the first phrase in your request likely would not be used in Wikipedia articles anyway, except in direct quotes, due to it being first person. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

List of forbidden words
Is there any specific list of forbidden words on English wiki pedia ? AksheKumar (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. See the opening sentences of WP:WORDS: "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding "protologisms" to the "Neologisms and new compounds" section
I have twice reverted Uytppo on adding "protologisms" beside "neologisms" to the "Neologisms and new compounds" section (see here and here) not only because protologisms are not the same thing as neologisms (going by some sources anyway), but because WP:NEO and MOS:NEO were designed with neologisms in mind and substantive changes to the guideline should reflect consensus; the page states this (the consensus angle) at the very top. Wikipedia has not concerned itself with protologisms much at all, and adding "protologism" to the guideline as if the section was talking about protologisms is nothing but a creep addition.

Uytppo, this is a guideline. It is not a page for you to make up whatever rule you want to make. You should have consensus before making edits like these; you should not be edit warring over the issue. If you continue to edit war over it, I will take the issue to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I would rather whether or not "protologisms" should be added be discussed here instead of implemented without discussion. This is why, when reverting Uytppo, I twice suggested that Uytppo make the case here for the addition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since according to other sources a protologism is "a new word" (i.e. a neologism) or "a neologism that has not yet been accepted as a useful or substantiated addition to the vocabulary", and given the statement of one author that "there is no law determining the transition of a unit of speech (protologism) into a unit of language (stable neologism)", I don't see any problem adding protologism to the guideline somewhere. There seem to be valid, reliably sourced arguments that a protologism is a type of neologism. The meaning of protologism fits the basic text of the guideline: "Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted". Since the distinction between the two is not yet in wide use, maybe adding and also "protologisms" (with the word inside quotation marks) would hint to readers that the two ideas are similar but not identical.
 * I think concerns about so-called "instruction creep" are overblown here. WP:CREEP is not a policy or guideline. Even so, adding one word here is unlikely to result in "too much instruction, resulting in very long, complicated pages". And if it is true that "nobody reads the directions" anyway, then I don't see how adding one word makes any difference. — Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that every experienced editor here knows that WP:CREEP is not a policy or guideline. It is, however, widely adhered to, much like WP:BRD. The concept of a protologism is so poor that it might as well be merged into the Neologism article. Why should we add "protologisms" to the guideline when it is very rare for Wikipedia to host a protologism article? The fact that WP:NEO and MOS:NEO have gone years without mentioning protologisms shows just how insignificant the mention is. Neologisms are used more often and we have a number of neologism articles. In the case protologisms, we don't need to be directing our editors or readers to yet another "avoid this" rule. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since "protologism" is exactly the sort of neologism that MOS:NEO cautions us against using I find the argument that it should be added here incomprehensible. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The guideline in question pertains to words used in articles only. Nevertheless, it says that "In most cases, [ neologisms] do not appear in general-interest dictionaries". Peacock term, on the other hand, does not appear in dictionaries, yet it appears under Words that may introduce bias as a useful shorthand for vague flattery and/or aggrandizing language. If peacock term is OK, why not protologism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC) (updated 06:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
 * We rarely agree, but, again, I don't grasp your reasoning. The "true neologisms" aspect is clearly your wording, and I repeat: Neologisms are used more often and we have a number of neologism articles. What protologism articles do we have? Yes, I know that WP:NEO and MOS:NEO are two different things. They are two different things that see no need to mention protologisms. If going by the view of distinguishing the terms, use of protologisms are rarer than use of neologisms; this is why it's very rare that we will use a protologism on Wikipedia. So why should the guideline concern itself with protologisms? If going by the view that the two are the same thing, why should the guideline concern itself with protologisms, especially if it's ever the case that the Protologism article is merged with the Neologism article? The mention would be an unnecessary distraction, and not true to sources that distinguish the terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources that distinguish the terms – such as...? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have modified my previous comment to say simply "[neologisms]". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources like the Epstein source in the Protologism article you are editing. That source clearly distinguishes a protologism from a neologism. Some sources either distinguish the two or state that a protologism is a kind of a neologism (which is still distinguishing them in a way). D. Gary Miller, in the 2014 book "English Lexicogenesis," from OUP Oxford, page 10, even states, "This book is about the mechanisms for the coining or invention of novel words. It is customary to distinguish between NONCE formations, or spontaneous, utilitarian coinages (Bacchielli 2010), and NEOLOGISMS, which have lost their status as nonce formations but are still considered new by most members of a speech community (Fischer 1998; Cook 2010). In practical terms, most nonce formations will never be known (Munat 2007a: xiii). Mikhail Epstein's PROTOLOGISM (2005) for a word waiting for acceptance is inadequate because its composition suggests a very different meaning." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I addressed Epstein (2012) and Miller (2014) in a comment further down the page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to add "protologisms". Paul August &#9742; 23:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple of contributors have said that there is "no need" to include the term protologisms in the section under discussion. Well, is there a need for a "Words to watch" guideline itself? Is anything at all on Wikipedia strictly needed? To me, arguments based on the evidence of reliable sources and existing policies and guidelines have more weight than flat assertions of "it's not needed", which may as well say "I just don't like it".
 * According to World Wide Words, "protologism is quite often used within the Wikipedia community, [and] has ascended to the status of a neologism and also that of jargon". The term has been used in more than a few deletion discussions regarding topics that were apparent protologisms. The reason for including protologism here is that it would be a useful shorthand for a certain type of neologism. Since it is evidently not in wide use outside Wikimedia Foundation projects, I propose including it parenthetically and in quotation marks, similar to what follows below. I am open to any suggestions.  —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the article Protologism proves to be short-lived, then the term protologisms could go to Wiktionary via an interwiki link per, as in protologisms. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was clearly thinking of what reliable sources state and what the Wikipedia rules are when making my comments above. In what way is your "we should mention protologism" argument based on Wikipedia rules? If we go by your argument (what appears to be your argument anyway) that neologisms and protologisms are the same thing, then, per WP:Content fork, the Protologism article should not exist. Like I noted above some sources either distinguish the two or state that a protologism is a kind of a neologism (which is still distinguishing them in a way). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the vast majority of our policies and guidelines are not based on what reliable sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Epstein (2012) as the inventor of the word, would not be a reliable source for how said word is normally used, although his intended meaning should still be considered. Miller (2014) appears to be arguing that the word should not be used at all, yet it is used, according to other sources I have cited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I never stated that protologisms are "the same thing" as neologisms. Nonetheless, if any user wishes to propose that Protologism be merged into Neologism, they are free to do so on the appropriate talk page. I am willing to consider any responses that directly address my proposal. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Epstein (2012) is a reliable source for what the word was coined to mean, and he is clearly cited by other sources when distinguishing the word from a neologism. As researching the word protologism shows, it is not a commonly used word anyway. I very much doubt that there is any consensus on how the the word is commonly used; and, in fact, your arguments have displayed just that.
 * As for your proposal, it's barely any different than what you previously suggested. I don't agree with adding "protologism" to the guideline at all. So far, that's three editors disagreeing with the addition. You should consider asking editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to weigh in, and/or starting an RfC on the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As for your comment that you never stated that protologisms are the same thing as neologisms, your arguments have leaned in that direction, and your proposed wording of "Neologisms (including so-called 'protologisms')" is essentially stating that they are the same thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Epstein (2012) is a reliable source for what the word was coined to mean – What a word was coined to mean is not necessarily the same as the meaning it takes on in actual use, which is what concerns this discussion.
 * [A]nd he is clearly cited by other sources when distinguishing the word from a neologism – no, he isn't. At least not in the sources I have seen. Please provide an actual citation(s).
 * As researching the word protologism shows, it is not a commonly used word anyway – a word or phrase doesn't have to be commonly used in order to be useful in Wikipedia namespace. According to Glossary: "The term protologism has been adopted as jargon for use within Wiki communities, but is not in common usage outside this context." Well, neither is "peacock term", despite its utility as part of a Wiki guideline.
 * So far, that's three editors disagreeing with the addition – I know how to count, thank you. Not that it matters, since consensus is not the result of a vote.
 * [Y]our proposed wording of "Neologisms (including so-called 'protologisms')" is essentially stating that they are the same thing – no, it isn't. Including a category in a larger category does not mean that the two categories are identical.
 * As for the earlier remark that some sources either distinguish the two or state that a protologism is a kind of a neologism, at least there is agreement that a protologism can be a kind of neologism. But aside from Epstein himself, the sources in the link provided don't "distinguish" the two terms as claimed. The references section of the article Protologism contains actual quotes from many of these sources, which mostly say that protologisms are a kind of neologism, or that the term protologism is itself a neologism.
 * And as for the statement it's very rare that we will use a protologism on Wikipedia, the search I linked to above shows that it does happen. The fact that protologisms are rare, or rarely used and therefore obscure to most readers, is precisely why it makes sense to caution against their use in articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That what a word was coined to mean is not necessarily the same as the meaning it takes on in actual use is obvious. It concerns this discussion, however, because sources cite that definition to distinguish a neologism from a protologism.
 * You stated that Epstein is not cited by other sources when distinguishing a protologism from a neologism. You and I have obviously interpreted the D. Gary Miller source differently. From what I see, he is using Epstein's definition of a protologism to distinguish it from a neologism. In this 2015 Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe source, from Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, page 1757, editor Peter O. Müller (or a different author/editor of the book), when speaking of a subdivision of neologisms, states that protologisms will become neologisms "when they are used by others." He cites Epstein and is clearly using Epstein's definition of what a protologism is. The sources I've looked at on the term, including sources you've added to the Protologism article, are generally subscribing to Epstein's definition of what a protologism is. Yes, some of the sources are stating that a protologism is a type of neologism, but they are also making it clear that a protologism is not quite a neologism. It is a term used by the author or a very limited group, while a neologism is more widely used.
 * A word or phrase doesn't have to be commonly used in order to be useful in Wikipedia namespace, but it generally should not be used when it's obscure or otherwise very limited in use; WP:NEO and MOS:NEO are clear about that. "Peacock term" is a guideline matter, not a "use in a Wikipedia article" matter.
 * Consensus is usually not the result of a vote (I state "usually" per certain circumstances), but it is about "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns." You not liking what other editors have stated when disagreeing with your concern does not mean that you can call or imply that their arguments are invalid and then make a change to the guideline. What it does mean is that you adding your proposal to the guideline at this point in time would not reflect consensus. The guideline should reflect the consensus of its editors. So, again, you should consider asking editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to weigh in, and/or starting an RfC on the topic.
 * You stated, "Including a category in a larger category does not mean that the two categories are identical." As you noted, I stated, "Some sources either distinguish the two or state that a protologism is a kind of a neologism (which is still distinguishing them in a way)." So I am aware that "including a category in a larger category does not mean that the two categories are identical." I am also aware that stating "neologisms (including so-called 'protologisms')" is calling protologisms "neologisms." It hardly matters that you intended the wording to mean "a type of neologism"; the wording is stating that protologisms are neologisms either way. Let's not pretend that it is not and that it will not be interpreted that way in a section that is specifically about neologisms.
 * You stated that "the sources in the link provided don't 'distinguish' the two terms as claimed." Again, you and I are interpreting things differently. And "mostly say" is not "all of them say."
 * You stated, "the search I linked to above shows that [use of protologisms on Wikipedia] does happen." That search shows a lot of debate and confusion about what is or isn't a protologism, and it doesn't negate my "rare" argument.
 * You stated, "The fact that protologisms are rare, or rarely used and therefore obscure to most readers, is precisely why it makes sense to caution against their use in articles." This goes back to my earlier argument, where I commented that "use of protologisms are rarer than use of neologisms; this is why it's very rare that we will use a protologism on Wikipedia. So why should the guideline concern itself with protologisms?" The sources on protologisms show that it's not a well-developed concept. So I repeat: "If going by the view that the two are the same thing, why should the guideline concern itself with protologisms, especially if it's ever the case that the Protologism article is merged with the Neologism article? The mention would be an unnecessary distraction, and not true to sources that distinguish the terms." Really, the addition is unnecessary either way. The addition is unnecessary for the following reasons: Protologisms are unlikely to be used. If they are used, they are likely to be seen as neologisms. And even if they aren't seen as neologisms, it's common sense that if we generally don't want neologisms used unless needed, then we obviously don't want an even more obscure word (a protologism) used unless needed.
 * You seemed to indicate that you would welcome merging the Protologism article into the Neologism article. Given what sources state on the topic of protologisms, why don't you simply do that? The articles should clearly be merged. Why wait for me or someone else to officially propose the merge? Why even propose it on the article's talk page? Why not just merge the articles? That would solve your issue with this guideline not mentioning protologisms. If "protologisms" is added to this guideline, I won't care as much I initially did, considering that I have reviewed more sources on the topic, but, per my above reasoning, I would still find the addition unnecessary. I also think it would lead to editors removing protologisms in harmless cases and where they are needed for context, which is part of the reason why I initially cited WP:CREEP. More rules on Wikipedia commonly lead to more problems on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I see, he is using Epstein's definition of a protologism to distinguish it from a neologism [referring to Miller (2014)] – I strongly disagree. Miller doesn't explicitly say anything about protologisms being distinct from neologisms. He simply rejects the term protologism outright. He only mentions protologism as a word, not a concept. According to Miller: If anything, he seems to suggest that protologisms (a.k.a nonce formations) are enough like neologisms to group them together.
 * [E]ditor Peter O. Müller (or a different author/editor of the book), when speaking of a subdivision of neologisms... [referring to Eismann (2015)] – not a clear distinction there, since the author includes "protologisms" in the "subdivision of neologisms" used by Epstein.
 * A word or phrase doesn't have to be commonly used in order to be useful in Wikipedia namespace, but it generally should not be used when it's obscure or otherwise very limited in use; WP:NEO and MOS:NEO are clear about that – no, they aren't. They pertain to article content, not Wikipedia namespace (a.k.a. Project namespace).
 * "Peacock term" is a guideline matter, not a "use in a Wikipedia article" matter – I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Peacock term is a phrase used in a guideline that pertains to the writing of articles. Likewise my proposed wording for the guideline on neologisms.
 * Consensus is usually not the result of a vote (I state "usually" per certain circumstances) – what Consensus actually says is that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity [...] nor is it the result of a vote", and that "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view".
 * [I]t's common sense that if we generally don't want neologisms used unless needed, then we obviously don't want an even more obscure word (a protologism) used unless needed – then it's also common sense to mention protologisms in the warning about neologisms.
 * The articles should clearly be merged – this directly contradicts the view that protologisms are distinct from neologisms. Why would anyone merge the articles unless protologisms were a type of neologism?
 * Why wait for me or someone else to officially propose the merge? Why even propose it on the article's talk page? Why not just merge the articles? – because I don't feel like doing so. And since editing Wikipedia is a volunteer activity, I am free to contribute however I choose. Frankly, the question is irrelevant to this discussion.
 * More rules on Wikipedia commonly lead to more problems on Wikipedia – prove it. Besides, I am proposing a minor addition to an existing guideline, not a new rule. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That search shows a lot of debate and confusion about what is or isn't a protologism – nevertheless, it shows that a number of contributors find the term useful in discussions about articles.
 * Even though I have been arguing for a certain interpretation of published sources on the meaning of protologism vis-a-vis neologism, what sources say isn't that important when it comes to the wording of a guideline like MOS:NEO. Per Policies and guidelines: This would seem to support, based on consensus, the inclusion of useful jargon and other neologisms that would be out of place in an encyclopedia article. Going by the entry for protologism in Glossary, the word seems to have taken on a useful life of its own specific to Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that this neologism is useful or should be included here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt that a term would be appear in more than 1,600 discussions on Wikipedia, or have an entry in the Wikipedia Glossary, if it weren't useful on some level. I would rather wait for an uninvolved editor to determine consensus here. Once again, consensus is not the result of a vote. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A new RfC has been started below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A word or phrase doesn't have to be commonly used in order to be useful in Wikipedia namespace, but it generally should not be used when it's obscure or otherwise very limited in use; WP:NEO and MOS:NEO are clear about that. "Peacock term" is a guideline matter, not a "use in a Wikipedia article" matter.
 * Consensus is usually not the result of a vote (I state "usually" per certain circumstances), but it is about "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns." You not liking what other editors have stated when disagreeing with your concern does not mean that you can call or imply that their arguments are invalid and then make a change to the guideline. What it does mean is that you adding your proposal to the guideline at this point in time would not reflect consensus. The guideline should reflect the consensus of its editors. So, again, you should consider asking editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to weigh in, and/or starting an RfC on the topic.
 * You stated, "Including a category in a larger category does not mean that the two categories are identical." As you noted, I stated, "Some sources either distinguish the two or state that a protologism is a kind of a neologism (which is still distinguishing them in a way)." So I am aware that "including a category in a larger category does not mean that the two categories are identical." I am also aware that stating "neologisms (including so-called 'protologisms')" is calling protologisms "neologisms." It hardly matters that you intended the wording to mean "a type of neologism"; the wording is stating that protologisms are neologisms either way. Let's not pretend that it is not and that it will not be interpreted that way in a section that is specifically about neologisms.
 * You stated that "the sources in the link provided don't 'distinguish' the two terms as claimed." Again, you and I are interpreting things differently. And "mostly say" is not "all of them say."
 * You stated, "the search I linked to above shows that [use of protologisms on Wikipedia] does happen." That search shows a lot of debate and confusion about what is or isn't a protologism, and it doesn't negate my "rare" argument.
 * You stated, "The fact that protologisms are rare, or rarely used and therefore obscure to most readers, is precisely why it makes sense to caution against their use in articles." This goes back to my earlier argument, where I commented that "use of protologisms are rarer than use of neologisms; this is why it's very rare that we will use a protologism on Wikipedia. So why should the guideline concern itself with protologisms?" The sources on protologisms show that it's not a well-developed concept. So I repeat: "If going by the view that the two are the same thing, why should the guideline concern itself with protologisms, especially if it's ever the case that the Protologism article is merged with the Neologism article? The mention would be an unnecessary distraction, and not true to sources that distinguish the terms." Really, the addition is unnecessary either way. The addition is unnecessary for the following reasons: Protologisms are unlikely to be used. If they are used, they are likely to be seen as neologisms. And even if they aren't seen as neologisms, it's common sense that if we generally don't want neologisms used unless needed, then we obviously don't want an even more obscure word (a protologism) used unless needed.
 * You seemed to indicate that you would welcome merging the Protologism article into the Neologism article. Given what sources state on the topic of protologisms, why don't you simply do that? The articles should clearly be merged. Why wait for me or someone else to officially propose the merge? Why even propose it on the article's talk page? Why not just merge the articles? That would solve your issue with this guideline not mentioning protologisms. If "protologisms" is added to this guideline, I won't care as much I initially did, considering that I have reviewed more sources on the topic, but, per my above reasoning, I would still find the addition unnecessary. I also think it would lead to editors removing protologisms in harmless cases and where they are needed for context, which is part of the reason why I initially cited WP:CREEP. More rules on Wikipedia commonly lead to more problems on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * From what I see, he is using Epstein's definition of a protologism to distinguish it from a neologism [referring to Miller (2014)] – I strongly disagree. Miller doesn't explicitly say anything about protologisms being distinct from neologisms. He simply rejects the term protologism outright. He only mentions protologism as a word, not a concept. According to Miller: If anything, he seems to suggest that protologisms (a.k.a nonce formations) are enough like neologisms to group them together.
 * [E]ditor Peter O. Müller (or a different author/editor of the book), when speaking of a subdivision of neologisms... [referring to Eismann (2015)] – not a clear distinction there, since the author includes "protologisms" in the "subdivision of neologisms" used by Epstein.
 * A word or phrase doesn't have to be commonly used in order to be useful in Wikipedia namespace, but it generally should not be used when it's obscure or otherwise very limited in use; WP:NEO and MOS:NEO are clear about that – no, they aren't. They pertain to article content, not Wikipedia namespace (a.k.a. Project namespace).
 * "Peacock term" is a guideline matter, not a "use in a Wikipedia article" matter – I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Peacock term is a phrase used in a guideline that pertains to the writing of articles. Likewise my proposed wording for the guideline on neologisms.
 * Consensus is usually not the result of a vote (I state "usually" per certain circumstances) – what Consensus actually says is that "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity [...] nor is it the result of a vote", and that "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view".
 * [I]t's common sense that if we generally don't want neologisms used unless needed, then we obviously don't want an even more obscure word (a protologism) used unless needed – then it's also common sense to mention protologisms in the warning about neologisms.
 * The articles should clearly be merged – this directly contradicts the view that protologisms are distinct from neologisms. Why would anyone merge the articles unless protologisms were a type of neologism?
 * Why wait for me or someone else to officially propose the merge? Why even propose it on the article's talk page? Why not just merge the articles? – because I don't feel like doing so. And since editing Wikipedia is a volunteer activity, I am free to contribute however I choose. Frankly, the question is irrelevant to this discussion.
 * More rules on Wikipedia commonly lead to more problems on Wikipedia – prove it. Besides, I am proposing a minor addition to an existing guideline, not a new rule. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That search shows a lot of debate and confusion about what is or isn't a protologism – nevertheless, it shows that a number of contributors find the term useful in discussions about articles.
 * Even though I have been arguing for a certain interpretation of published sources on the meaning of protologism vis-a-vis neologism, what sources say isn't that important when it comes to the wording of a guideline like MOS:NEO. Per Policies and guidelines: This would seem to support, based on consensus, the inclusion of useful jargon and other neologisms that would be out of place in an encyclopedia article. Going by the entry for protologism in Glossary, the word seems to have taken on a useful life of its own specific to Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that this neologism is useful or should be included here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt that a term would be appear in more than 1,600 discussions on Wikipedia, or have an entry in the Wikipedia Glossary, if it weren't useful on some level. I would rather wait for an uninvolved editor to determine consensus here. Once again, consensus is not the result of a vote. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A new RfC has been started below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why wait for me or someone else to officially propose the merge? Why even propose it on the article's talk page? Why not just merge the articles? – because I don't feel like doing so. And since editing Wikipedia is a volunteer activity, I am free to contribute however I choose. Frankly, the question is irrelevant to this discussion.
 * More rules on Wikipedia commonly lead to more problems on Wikipedia – prove it. Besides, I am proposing a minor addition to an existing guideline, not a new rule. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That search shows a lot of debate and confusion about what is or isn't a protologism – nevertheless, it shows that a number of contributors find the term useful in discussions about articles.
 * Even though I have been arguing for a certain interpretation of published sources on the meaning of protologism vis-a-vis neologism, what sources say isn't that important when it comes to the wording of a guideline like MOS:NEO. Per Policies and guidelines: This would seem to support, based on consensus, the inclusion of useful jargon and other neologisms that would be out of place in an encyclopedia article. Going by the entry for protologism in Glossary, the word seems to have taken on a useful life of its own specific to Wikipedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that this neologism is useful or should be included here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt that a term would be appear in more than 1,600 discussions on Wikipedia, or have an entry in the Wikipedia Glossary, if it weren't useful on some level. I would rather wait for an uninvolved editor to determine consensus here. Once again, consensus is not the result of a vote. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A new RfC has been started below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A new RfC has been started below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, you strongly disagree. We disagree; we usually do.


 * WP:NEO and MOS:NEO are clear that a word or phrase generally should not be used on Wikipedia when it's obscure or otherwise very limited in use. Your namespace argument makes no sense to me.


 * You didn't know what I meant by the "peacock term" argument, and I certainly don't know what you mean by yours. Your "peacock term" comparison is lost on me.


 * I know what the consensus policy states. You see where you commented that "the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view"? Yeah, that's why I noted that "you not liking what other editors have stated when disagreeing with your concern does not mean that you can call or imply that their arguments are invalid and then make a change to the guideline." Who decides that the quality of their arguments isn't good enough? You?


 * Nah, our common sense rationales differ too.


 * As for your merging the articles argument, I suppose I was supposed to find it clever. Either way, you know very well that they should be merged. Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing that protologisms are a type of neologism. Whether or not they are distinct, they clearly are not distinct enough for separate articles. The Protologism article is essentially a stub article, which is not ideal, and it is unlikely to significantly grow any time soon. We sometimes have Wikipedia articles on things that are somewhat distinct from the main topic, but this is only when a separate article is needed.


 * Asking why you don't just merge the article is relevant because it would make your proposal null and void.


 * Prove that more rules on Wikipedia commonly lead to more problems on Wikipedia? Um, the fact that they do is why the widely cited creep essay exists. And your addition would be a new rule for the very fact that it is something else "to avoid." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Neologisms: is providing meaning overlooked?
"Where the use of a neologism is necessary ... its meaning must be supported by reliable sources." We're so wound up on supporting meaning, we've forgotten about providing meaning. The neologisms's meaning (as used) must/should also be obvious or else clarified in the article text itself. As this may not be obvious to all editors, (readers representing a wider audience being especially important here,) shouldn't it be stated in the policy? — βox73 (৳alk) 13:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of the word "lie"
There is currently a rather serious discussion over at Talk:Donald Trump regarding the use of the word "lie" or "false" (as in "false statement") in some form in the article there. Personally, I think that it might, not unreasonably, be a word which might merit specific inclusion on this page as maybe a word to avoid, particularly regarding living persons, and have more or less indicated as much in the discussion there. That is, however, obviously, just one individual's opinion, and I and I believe many others would welcome some input from the editors here regarding when such a word which can be seen by some people (like me) as being potentially unduly inflammatory. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Without commenting specifically on the article in question, I would say that whether a statement is false can usually be independently verified, whereas lie assumes an intent to mislead. The latter case is probably already well-covered by the policy on original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than seeking guidance on particular "words to watch", it may be simpler in this case to simply invoke Biographies of living persons, which stresses the need for such material to be "written conservatively", that "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects", and that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". This would seem to cover all the bases. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than seeking guidance on particular "words to watch", it may be simpler in this case to simply invoke Biographies of living persons, which stresses the need for such material to be "written conservatively", that "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects", and that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". This would seem to cover all the bases. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * John, even though "lie" is going to be true in a number of cases and may be okay to use in some of these cases (I mean, there are well-known incidents in which the public figured lied and is widely noted as having lied), I would generally go with "false statement." Some people are likely to see false "false statement" as an empty or whitewashing synonym, though. Going by my experience with this guideline, some might even cite the WP:Euphemism aspect of the guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The term "lie" is appropriate in some cases, such as lying under oath, lying to Parliament or lying to a policeman, when reliable sources would normally phrase it that way. In that case it is important to imfer that there was intention.  Otherwise there is a perjorative tone in the word lie.  The articles on Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels manage to avoid using the term, although they were infamous for the "big lie."  There are many modern politicians who are notorious for false statements yet news media avoid the word "lie."  The New York Times however has decided that Trump is so egregiously dishonest, that it has changed its policy to use the term "lie" when reporting him.   I see that though as a double standard and one we should avoid.  TFD (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)